Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/600,240

INFORMATION PRIORITIZATION IN WIRELESS NETWORKS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 08, 2024
Examiner
HSU, BAILOR CHIA-JONG
Art Unit
2461
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Nvidia Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
274 granted / 308 resolved
+31.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
337
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
§112
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 308 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuo et al. (US 2020/0314681 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kuo. Regarding claim 1, Kuo teaches a processor (Kuo – Fig. 4b; Paragraph [0111], note apparatus 20 may be a UE (user equipment); Paragraph [0113], note apparatus 20 may include or be coupled to a processor 22 for processing information and executing instructions or operations) comprising: one or more circuits to cause a user equipment (UE) device to autonomously adjust priority of information to be transmitted (Kuo – Fig. 1a; Paragraph [0060], note autonomous LCP (logical channel prioritization) adaptation upon collision, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH (logical channel) mapping restrictions; Paragraph [0063], note the parameters relating to LCP and LCH mapping restrictions may include LCH priority, Prioritized Bit Rate (PBR), Bucket Size Duration (BSD), and LCH Mapping Restriction rule(s); Paragraph [0064], note as an example, if the traffic from a LCH has been delayed for a certain amount of time exceeding a threshold, then the modifying 140 may include the UE temporarily increasing the priority level of this LCH; Paragraph [0120], note processor 22 and memory 24 may be included in or may form a part of processing circuitry or control circuitry). Regarding claim 2, Kuo teaches wherein the UE device is to autonomously adjust one or more logical channel priority parameters to adjust priority of information to be transmitted (Kuo – Fig. 1a; Paragraph [0060], note autonomous LCP (logical channel prioritization) adaptation upon collision, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH (logical channel) mapping restrictions; Paragraph [0063], note the parameters relating to LCP and LCH mapping restrictions may include LCH priority, Prioritized Bit Rate (PBR), Bucket Size Duration (BSD), and LCH Mapping Restriction rule(s); Paragraph [0064], note as an example, if the traffic from a LCH has been delayed for a certain amount of time exceeding a threshold, then the modifying 140 may include the UE temporarily increasing the priority level of this LCH). Regarding claim 3, Kuo teaches wherein the UE device is to autonomously adjust priority of information to be transmitted based, at least in part, on one or more packet statistics (Kuo – Paragraph [0060], note when the medium access control (MAC) service data units (SDUs) (such as URLLC packets, see Paragraph [0072]) from a LCH have failed in transmission due to resource collision of its transmission opportunity with other data or control consecutively for at least N>1 times, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH mapping restrictions). Regarding claim 4, Kuo teaches wherein the UE device is to autonomously adjust one or more bit rates to adjust priority of information to be transmitted (Kuo – Paragraph [0060], note autonomous LCP (logical channel prioritization) adaptation upon collision, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH (logical channel) mapping restrictions; Paragraph [0063], note the parameters relating to LCP and LCH mapping restrictions may include Prioritized Bit Rate (PBR); Paragraph [0064], note the modifying 140 may include the UE temporarily increasing the prioritized bit rate (PBR) of this LCH). Regarding claim 5, Kuo teaches wherein the UE device is to autonomously adjust one or more logical channel priority parameters based, at least in part, on a timer (Kuo – Fig. 1a; Paragraph [0066], note the modifying 140 may include starting a timer when the LCH is switched to a modified LCP setting, upon the timer expiration, the LCH may fall back to the original LCP setting (including both LCP parameters and LCH mapping restriction)). Regarding claim 8, Kuo teaches a system (Kuo – Fig. 4b; Paragraph [0113], note apparatus 20 may include two or more processors that may form a multiprocessor system, the multiprocessor system may be tightly coupled or loosely coupled (e.g., to form a computer cluster)), comprising: one or more processors to cause a user equipment (UE) device to autonomously adjust priority of information to be transmitted (Kuo – Fig. 1a, 4b; Paragraph [0060], note autonomous LCP (logical channel prioritization) adaptation upon collision, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH (logical channel) mapping restrictions; Paragraph [0063], note the parameters relating to LCP and LCH mapping restrictions may include LCH priority, Prioritized Bit Rate (PBR), Bucket Size Duration (BSD), and LCH Mapping Restriction rule(s); Paragraph [0064], note as an example, if the traffic from a LCH has been delayed for a certain amount of time exceeding a threshold, then the modifying 140 may include the UE temporarily increasing the priority level of this LCH; Paragraph [0111], note apparatus 20 may be a UE (user equipment); Paragraph [0113], note apparatus 20 may include or be coupled to a processor 22 for processing information and executing instructions or operations). Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above. Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 3 above. Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above. Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 5 above. Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above, except the claim is written in a method claim format. Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above. Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above. Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 3 above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Kanamarlapudi et al. (US 2023/0379241 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kanamarlapudi. Regarding claim 6, Kuo teaches wherein the UE device is to autonomously adjust one or more logical channel priority parameters based, at least in part, on a packet error (Kuo – Paragraph [0060], note when the medium access control (MAC) service data units (SDUs) (such as URLLC packets, see Paragraph [0072]) from a LCH have failed in transmission due to resource collision of its transmission opportunity with other data or control consecutively for at least N>1 times, the UE may automatically modify the at least one LCP parameter and/or LCH mapping restrictions). Kuo does not teach adjusting one or more logical channel priority parameters based, at least in part, on a packet error rate. In an analogous art, Kanamarlapudi teaches adjusting one or more logical channel priority parameters based, at least in part, on a packet error rate (Kanamarlapudi – Paragraph [0076], note QoS identifier (which may also be referred to as “5QI”) parameters may be configured by a network to provide a mapping of QoS flows to data radio bearers (DRBs), a set of 5QI parameters may be associated with an 5QI which may be a pointer to a set of QoS characteristics such as packet error rate, each DRB may be mapped to a logical channel with an associated priority to be able to transmit based on per logical channel prioritization (LCP) rules). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kanamarlapudi into Kuo in order to perform QoS rule matching to map packets from a flow to a DRB associated with LCP (Kanamarlapudi – Paragraph [0076]). Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 6 above. Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 6 above. Claims 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of WIPO publication WO 2022/086984 A1, hereinafter referred to as Deenoo. Regarding claim 7, Kuo teaches wherein the UE device is to autonomously adjust priority of information to be transmitted based, at least in part, by a prediction (Kuo – Paragraph [0065], note in some cases the UE may predict the resource collision based on knowledge relating to traffic patterns and uplink resource allocation, thus, the UE may also change the LCP parameters and/or LCH mapping restrictions of a LCH based on the prediction prior to actual occurrence of such collision). Kuo does not teach adjusting priority of information to be transmitted based, at least in part, a neural network predicting one or more logical channel priority parameters. In an analogous art, Deenoo teaches adjusting priority of information to be transmitted based, at least in part, a neural network predicting one or more logical channel priority parameters (Deenoo – Fig. 3; Paragraph [0139], note the AI filter 320 may include a neural network; Paragraph [0140], note the WTRU 102 may perform AI-based Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP) using the AI filter 320, and may generate the AI-processed packet data unit in accordance with the AI-based LCP). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Deenoo into Kuo in order to utilize AI filters for LCP to dynamically track per-packet prioritization for one or more services as a function of changing radio conditions, data rates, jitter, latency, and/or contents of a PDU or the like (Deenoo – Paragraph [0119]). Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 7 above. Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 7 above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kang et al. (US 11,425,543 B2) discloses 5QI including packet error rate, and SLRB configuration information including logical channel priority. Rao et al. (US 2019/0239112 A1) discloses UE autonomous resource selection and QoS handling including LCP. Kung et al. (US 2021/0227465 A1) discloses a Tx UE performing autonomous resource selection and logical channel prioritization to select and/or determine a logical channel with a highest priority among logical channels with sidelink data available for transmission. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILOR C HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)-272-3155. 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. /BAILOR C HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 08, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604285
A METHOD FOR HANDLING COMMUNICATION USING PARALLEL DATA STREAMS AND RELATED WIRELESS NODES AND WIRELESS DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603718
ROBUST TIME DISTRIBUTION AND SYNCHRONIZATION IN COMPUTER AND RADIO ACCESS NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598632
AVOIDING CELLULAR CO-EXISTENCE INTERFERENCE IN A WI-FI NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598562
SIGNALING TA-OFFSET IN NR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588065
RANDOM ACCESS SIGNAL TRANSMISSION METHOD AND TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
89%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+5.1%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 308 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