Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/600,180

COMMUNICATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Mar 08, 2024
Examiner
KHAN, SUHAIL
Art Unit
2642
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
447 granted / 561 resolved
+17.7% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
585
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 561 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FORA 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 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), 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): (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 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. If stated below, claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. If stated below, 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), 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: processing unit and transceiver unit, in claims 8 and 9. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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). 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 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0267729) Referring to Claim 1, Kim et al. disclose a method for communication (par 329, communication), comprising: determining a first time-frequency resource in a shared resource pool using a first resource allocation mode (pars 103, 104, 148, and 330, resource pool, mode, resource/carrier); sending direct link data on the first time-frequency resource (pars 103, 104, 158, 330, and 331, sidelink transmission); when no acknowledged feedback of the direct link data is received, retransmitting the direct link data in the first resource allocation mode (par 332, unacknowledged, retransmissions), and recording the number of retransmissions (par 332, retransmissions); and when the number of retransmissions reaches a first preset threshold, sending the direct link data on a second time-frequency resource (pars 332-335, number of retransmissions unacknowledged – maximum number, select second carrier, transmission). Referring to Claim 2 as applied to Claim 1 above, Kim et al. disclose the method, wherein before sending the direct link data on the second time-frequency resource, the method further comprises: determining to switch from the first resource allocation mode to a second resource allocation mode; and determining the second time-frequency resource using the second resource allocation mode (pars 103, 104, 158, and 330-335, resource pool, mode, resource/carrier, second carrier). Referring to Claim 3 as applied to Claim 2 above, Kim et al. disclose the method, wherein the first resource allocation mode is a random resource selection mode, and the second resource allocation mode is a partial sensing resource allocation mode (pars 103, 104, and 158, random, partial sensing). Referring to Claim 4 as applied to Claim 2 above, Kim et al. disclose the method, wherein the first resource allocation mode is a partial sensing resource allocation mode, and the second resource allocation mode is a full sensing resource allocation mode (pars 103, 104, and 158, sensing, partial sensing). Referring to Claim 5 as applied to Claim 1 above, Kim et al. disclose the method, wherein before sending the direct link data on the second time-frequency resource, the method further comprises: determining that a sending time of the last retransmission of the direct link data using the first resource allocation mode is within a remaining packet delay budget (PDB) (pars 112-114, pdb). Referring to Claim 6 as applied to Claim 1 above, Kim et al. disclose the method, wherein the first preset threshold is configured by high-priority signaling or pre-defined by a protocol (par 112, high priority). Referring to Claim 7, Kim et al. disclose a method for communication, comprising: receiving direct link data on a second time-frequency resource (pars 332-335, select second carrier, transmission received at target UE), after the number of retransmissions on a first time-frequency resource reaches a first preset threshold (pars 332-335, number of retransmissions unacknowledged – maximum number), wherein the direct link data is sent on the second time-frequency resource (pars 332-335, select second carrier, transmission), and the first time-frequency resource is determined through a first resource allocation mode; and processing the direct link data (pars 103, 104, 148, and 330, resource pool, mode, resource/carrier, sidelink). Referring to Claim 8, Kim et al. disclose a device for communication, comprising: a processing unit, configured to determine a first time-frequency resource in a shared resource pool using a first resource allocation mode (pars 103, 104, 148, and 330, UE, resource pool, mode, resource/carrier); a transceiver unit, configured to transmit direct link data on the first time-frequency resource (pars 103, 104, 158, 330, and 331, UE, sidelink transmission); wherein the transceiver unit is further configured to retransmit the direct link data using the first resource allocation mode and record the number of retransmissions (par 332, retransmissions) when no acknowledged feedback of the direct link data is received; and wherein the transceiver unit is further configured to send the direct link data on a second time-frequency resource when the number of retransmissions reaches a first preset threshold (pars 332-335, number of retransmissions, unacknowledged – maximum number, select second carrier, transmission). Referring to Claim 9, Kim et al. disclose a device for communication, comprising: a transceiver unit, configured to receive direct link data on a second time-frequency resource (pars 332-335, select second carrier, transmission received at target UE), wherein the direct link data is transmitted on the second time-frequency resource after the number of retransmissions of the direct link data on a first time-frequency resource reaches a first preset threshold (pars 332-335, number of retransmissions unacknowledged – maximum number), and the first time-frequency resource is determined through a first resource allocation mode; and a processing unit, configured to process the direct link data (pars 103, 104, 148, and 330, resource pool, mode, resource/carrier, sidelink). Referring to Claim 10, Kim et al. disclose an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores instructions, which, when executed by the processor, causes the device to perform the method of claim 1 (pars 103, 104, 148, and 330, UE). Referring to Claim 11, Kim et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, configured to store a computer program, which instructs a processor to perform the method of claim 1 (pars 103, 104, 148, and 330, UE). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHAIL KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7187. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8:30am-6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 5712727915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Suhail Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 08, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598015
CLOCK FREQUENCY SYNCHRONIZATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593254
METHOD TO ENHANCE FREQUENCY SCAN USING NETWORK OVER THE AIR PARAMETERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588000
SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581532
ASSISTANCE FOR PERFORMING LISTEN-BEFORE-TALK OPERATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581379
Conditional Mobility Selection
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
99%
With Interview (+28.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 561 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