Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/613,968

NETWORK NODE DISCONTINUOUS RECEPTION AND TRANSMISSION

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 22, 2024
Examiner
DECKER, CASSANDRA L
Art Unit
2466
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
346 granted / 479 resolved
+14.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
506
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
§112
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 479 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2, 9, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For Claims 2, 9, and 16, “a connected mode DRX or DTX cycle” appears to have antecedent basis in the claim. For Claim 13, “based on receiving the indication” should probably be corrected to ---based on the UE receiving the indication---, because the network node does not receive the indication. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-20, as understood in light of any rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2022/0346008) in view of Maattanen et al. (US 2015/0282080). For Claims 1 and 15, Xu teaches a method and a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories (see paragraphs 57, 60); and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see paragraphs 57, 60), configured to cause the UE to: receive a cell discontinuous reception (DRX) or discontinuous transmission (DTX) configuration indicating a periodicity for a cell DRX or DTX cycle (see abstract, paragraphs 87-88, 105), a period for a connected mode DRX or DTX cycle of the UE (see paragraphs 53, 87); and communicate with a network node in accordance with the cell DRX or DTX cycle and the periodicity for the cell DRX or DTX cycle (see paragraphs 87, 100, 104). Xu as applied above is not explicit as to, but in a similar field of endeavor, Maattanen teaches a connected UE DRX periodicity being based on a period for a DRX or DTX cycle of the cell (see paragraph 34). Thus it would have been obvious to relate the periodicity of the DRX or DTX cycle of one entity on the DRX or DTX cycle of another entity as in Maattanen when implementing the method of Xu. One of ordinary skill would have been able to use the known relationship between periodicity and cycle when determining how to establish the periodicity of a cell DRX or DTX cycle. For Claim 8, Xu teaches a network node for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories (see paragraph 69); and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see paragraph 69), configured to cause the network node to: transmit a cell discontinuous reception (DRX) or discontinuous transmission (DTX) configuration indicating a periodicity for a cell DRX or DTX cycle (see abstract, paragraphs 87-88, 105), a period for a connected mode DRX or DTX cycle of a user equipment (UE) (see paragraphs 53, 87); and communicate with the UE in accordance with the cell DRX or DTX cycle and the periodicity for the cell DRX or DTX cycle (see paragraphs 87, 100, 104). Xu as applied above is not explicit as to, but in a similar field of endeavor, Maattanen teaches a connected UE DRX periodicity being based on a period for a DRX or DTX cycle of the cell (see paragraph 34). Thus it would have been obvious to relate the periodicity of the DRX or DTX cycle of one entity on the DRX or DTX cycle of another entity as in Maattanen when implementing the method of Xu. One of ordinary skill would have been able to use the known relationship between periodicity and cycle when determining how to establish the periodicity of a cell DRX or DTX cycle. For Claims 2, 9, and 16, Xu as applied above is not explicit as to, but Maattanen teaches that it is known to relate a period for a connected mode DRX or DTX cycle of the UE as an integer multiple of a cell DRX or DTX cycle (see paragraph 34). Thus it would have been obvious to relate the periodicity of the DRX or DTX cycle of one entity on the DRX or DTX cycle of another entity as in Maattanen when implementing the method of Xu. One of ordinary skill would have been able to use the known relationship between periodicity and cycle when determining how to establish the periodicity of a cell DRX or DTX cycle. For Claims 3, 10, 17, Xu further teaches the UE, wherein a cell associated with the cell DRX or DTX configuration is included in a cell group configured with a plurality of DRX or DTX configurations (see paragraphs 92-93). For Claims 4, 11, and 18, Xu further teaches the UE, wherein the plurality of DRX or DTX configurations includes a first DRX or DTX configuration indicating a first DRX or DTX cycle and a second DRX or DTX configuration indicating a second DRX or DTX cycle, and wherein one or more parameters of the first DRX or DTX cycle are different than one or more parameters of the second DRX or DTX cycle (see claims 94, 114, 127). For Claims 5, 12, and 18, Xu further teaches the UE, wherein the plurality of DRX or DTX configurations includes a first DRX or DTX configuration indicating a first DRX or DTX cycle and a second DRX or DTX configuration indicating a second DRX or DTX cycle, and wherein one or more parameters of the first DRX or DTX cycle are the same as one or more parameters of the second DRX or DTX cycle (see claims 94, 114, 127). For Claims 6, 13, and 20, Xu further teaches the UE, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive an indication for activating the cell DRX or DTX configuration (see paragraphs 97, 143); and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to communicate with the network node in accordance with the cell DRX or DTX cycle and the periodicity for the cell DRX or DTX cycle, are configured to cause the UE to: communicate with the network node in accordance with the cell DRX or DTX cycle and the periodicity for the cell DRX or DTX cycle based on receiving the indication (see paragraphs 97, 107, 143). For Claim 7, Xu further teaches the UE, wherein the periodicity indicated in the cell DRX or DTX configuration is associated with a first cell and the cell DRX or DTX configuration indicates one or more parameters for another cell DRX or DTX configuration associated with a second cell that is different from the first cell (see paragraphs 92-93, 114, 127). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeon et al. (US 2024/0237133) teaches the SSB periodicity of a UE is an integer multiple of a cell DRX/DTX cycle. Zhou et al. (US 2023/0209532) teaches different cell groups having different DRX configurations. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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. /CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 2/26/2026 /FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 22, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598024
METHOD FOR DUPLICATELY RECEIVING CONTROL MESSAGE, AND DEVICE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598600
XAPP CONFLICT MITIGATION FRAMEWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593348
rAPPs THAT GENERATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERFERENCE MITIGATION xAPPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587328
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR RECEIVING PPDU THROUGH MULTIPLE RUS IN WIRELESS LAN SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574086
Channel State Information Processing Methods, Electronic Device, and Storage Medium
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
72%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+15.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 479 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