Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/590,709

WIRELESS CONTROL SYSTEM, CONTROLLER, TERMINAL, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Feb 28, 2024
Examiner
ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN
Art Unit
2465
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
627 granted / 780 resolved
+22.4% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
804
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 780 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller” and “terminal” in independent claims 1, 10, and 11. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuo et al. (US 2022/0116108 A1, hereinafter “Matsuo”). Regarding claim 1: Matsuo discloses a wireless control system comprising: terminals (e.g., Fig. 1, wireless communication terminals 31-1,…, 31-N, Fig. 5, 31) each including a control target (e.g., [0022], a part of a respective wireless communication terminal operated wirelessly by control system); and a controller (e.g., Fig. 1, control system 2) configured to receive a state signal (e.g., Fig. 7, signals S203, S204, S211, S216, S217, and Fig. 8, signals S309, S314, S315) transmitted from each of the terminals, generate a control signal (e.g., Fig. 7, signals S208, S209, S212, S213, and Fig. 8, signal S318) for each of the terminals according to the state signal, and transmit the control signal, wherein each of the terminals can operate as a relayed terminal or a downlink relay terminal (e.g., [0044]-[0046], [0068]-[0071], target terminals and relay terminals); the downlink relay terminal (e.g., Fig. 10, terminal 31-2) is configured to transmit a first state signal representing a state of its own control target ([0062], a response signal contains an ACK or NACK about an operation, e.g., Fig. 10, a response signal (same as signal S203) to operation signal S501, or signal S510 indicating SL communicating is possible based on an image captured by terminal 31-2, [0201]-[0203]) and a first control signal for controlling a control target of the relayed terminal (e.g., [0150]-[0151], signal S514 (same as signal S215) for operating at least a part of the terminal 31-1); and the relayed terminal (e.g., Fig. 10, 31-1) is configured to obtain a second state signal representing a state of its own control target after receiving the first control signal, transmit the second state signal (e.g., [0150]-[0151], response signal S515 (same as signal S216) responding to signal S514), and control its own control target based on the first control signal (e.g., [0041], [0042], [0151], signal S514 (same as signal S215) operating at least a part of the terminal 31-1). Regarding claim 2: Matsuo further discloses the wireless control system of claim 1, wherein the downlink relay terminal is configured to obtain the first state signal after receiving a second control signal (e.g., Fig. 10, signal S501, or signal S506), transmit the first state signal and the first control signal (Fig. 10, S510 and S514), and control its own control target according to the second control signal (Fig. 10, signal S501 operates a part of the terminal 31-2, and step S509 determines SL communicating is possible based on a captured image). Regarding claim 3: Matsuo further discloses the wireless control system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to transmit a control signal for each of the terminals in a fixed cycle (e.g., [0215]-[0218], Fig. 12, signals S702, S707, S720, control cycle), obtain a prediction value of the first state signal at a timing of the fixed cycle based on the first state signal transmitted from the downlink relay terminal, and obtain a control signal for the downlink relay terminal based on the prediction value (e.g., Fig. 12, S706, [0137], the control system determines a direct communication deteriorates and to switch to a relay communication based on reception of the response signal). Regarding claim 4: Matsuo further discloses the wireless control system of claim 1, wherein each of the terminals can also operate as an uplink relay terminal (e.g., Fig. 10, 31-2); and the uplink relay terminal is configured to receive a third control signal (e.g., Fig. 10, operation signal S501, or signal S506) and the second state signal (e.g., Fig. 10, response signal S515), control its own control target according to the third control signal (operation signal S501 for operating at least a part of the terminal), obtain a third state signal representing a state of its own control target, and transmit the second state signal (Fig. 10, signal S515 ) and the third state signa. (a response signal (same as signal S203) to signal S501). Regarding claim 5: Matsuo further discloses the wireless control system of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to measure a response time of each of the terminals and operate a terminal with a short response time as the downlink relay terminal or the uplink relay terminal (e.g., [0180], the control system selects the terminal that is the sender of the SLReq signal received earlier as the relay terminal). Regarding claim 6: Matsuo further discloses the wireless control system of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to measure a communication quality of each of the terminals and operate a terminal with high communication quality as the uplink relay terminal (e.g., [0180], the control system selects the terminal that has better communication state as the relay terminal). Regarding claim 8: Matsuo further disclose the wireless control system of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to transmit a wireless frame including a header, a destination, an attribute, and a control signal; the attribute includes information representing the relayed terminal, the downlink relay terminal, the uplink relay terminal, or a general terminal; the general terminal does not participate in relaying; and each of the terminals operates as the relayed terminal, the downlink relay terminal, the uplink relay terminal, or the general terminal according to the attribute (e.g., operation signals, [0041], SLReq instruction signals (unicast/multicast/broadcast), [0145], [0177], [0188]). Regarding claim 10: Matsuo discloses a controller (e.g., Fig. 3, 2) connectable to terminals each includes a control target, the controller is configured to: receive a state signal transmitted from each of the terminals; generate a control signal for each of the terminals according to the state signal; transmit the control signal; transmit a first instruction to operate each of the terminals as a downlink relay terminal or a second instruction to operate each of the terminals as a relayed terminal, wherein the first instruction is configured to cause a terminal to transmit a first state signal representing a state of its own control target and a first control signal for controlling a control target of the relayed terminal; and the second instruction is configured to cause a terminal to obtain a second state signal representing the state of its own control target after receiving the first control signal, transmit the second state signal, and control its own control target based on the first control signal (see similar claim limitations discussed with respect to claims 1, 2, 4 and 8 regarding Matsuo’s control system 2). Regarding claim 11: Matsuo discloses a terminal (e.g., Fig. 5, 31) including a control target, transmitting a state signal representing a state of the control target to a controller, receiving a control signal transmitted from the controller, and controlling the control target according to the control signal, the terminal configured to: operate as a relayed terminal or a downlink relay terminal according to an attribute transmitted from the controller; in a case of operating as the downlink relay terminal, transmit a first state signal representing a state of its own control target and a first control signal for controlling a control target of the relayed terminal; and in a case of operating as the relayed terminal, obtain a second state signal representing a state of its own control target after receiving the first control signal, transmit the second state signal, and control its own control target based on the first control signal (see similar claim limitations discussed with respect to claims 1, 2, 4 and 8 regarding Matsuo’s terminal 31). Regarding claim 12: Matsuo discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program (e.g., [0231]) controlling a terminal including a control target, the program causing the terminal to: transmit a state signal to a controller, the state signal representing a state of the control target; receive a control signal transmitted from the controller; control the control target according to the control signal; operate the terminal as a relayed terminal or a downlink relay terminal according to an attribute transmitted from the controller; in a case of operating the terminal as the downlink relay terminal, cause the terminal to transmit a first state signal representing a state of its own control target and a first control signal for controlling a control target of the relayed terminal; and in a case of operating the terminal as the relayed terminal, causes the terminal to obtain a second state signal representing a state of its own control target after receiving the first control signal, transmit the second state signal, and control its own control target based on the first control signal (see similar claim limitations discussed with respect to claims 1, 2, 4 and 8 regarding Matsuo’s terminal 31). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvin ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-9am and 2pm-7pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BO HUI A ZHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598611
INFORMATION SENDING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND INFORMATION RECEIVING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593335
LOGICAL CHANNELS AND SCHEDULING REQUEST CONFIGURATIONS FOR FULL-DUPLEX MODES AND HALF-DUPLEX MODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588028
Restriction of Configured Grant Resource Occasion
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580693
Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgment Scheduling
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574182
METHOD PERFORMED BY USER EQUIPMENT, AND USER EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.1%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 780 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month