Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/634,131

CHANNEL REPORTING FOR ENERGY HARVESTING AT A DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Apr 12, 2024
Priority
May 26, 2021 — divisional of 11/990,762
Examiner
ALUNKAL, THOMAS D
Art Unit
2686
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
764 granted / 1061 resolved
+10.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
1088
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
54.9%
+14.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§112
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1061 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 17-22 and 31-48 are pending for examination in this Office action. 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. In claim 37, “means for receiving” mapped to a receiver in Figure 13, Element 1310 of the applicant’s specification. In claim 37, “means for transmitting” mapped to a transmitter in Figure 13, Element 1315 of the applicant’s specification. Claims 38 and 39 additionally recite “means for transmitting” and will be interpreted as noted above. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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)(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 17, 22, 31, 36, 37, 42, 43 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (KR-102426981-B1). Regarding claim 17, KR-102426981-B1 discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first device (Figure 3, Element 100), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (Figure 3, Elements 110, 120 and 130 where the location determining unit, beam forming unit and signal transmitting unit perform receiving and transmitting processing functions) and configured to cause the first device to: receive, from a second device, a capability of the second device to update a power ratio associated with energy harvesting at the second device by conversion of radio frequency power to direct current power (Figure 3, Element 100, Figure 4, Element 200 and Pages 4-6 where a conversion efficiency on a specified channel of a receiving device is received and determined by the transmitting apparatus 100. The conversion efficiency of the receiving device is indicative of the capability of the receiving device to update a power ratio associated with energy harvesting); and transmit, to the second device, a signal that has a radio frequency power that is based at least in part on the capability of the second device to update the power ratio associated with the energy harvesting (Figure 3, Element 100, Figure 4, Element 200 and Pages 4-6 and claim 1 (Pages 10-11) where the transmitting apparatus 100 transmits a signal to the receiving apparatus 200 that has a radio frequency power that is based on the receiving apparatus’ energy conversion efficiency). Regarding claim 22, KR-102426981-B1 discloses wherein the signal comprises a synchronization signal, a tracking reference signal, a channel state information reference signal, a demodulation reference signal, or a combination thereof (Figure 3, Element 100, Figure 4, Element 200 and Pages 4-6 where a conversion efficiency on a specified channel of a receiving device is received and determined by the transmitting apparatus 100. The conversion efficiency of the receiving device is indicative of the capability of the receiving device to update a power ratio associated with energy harvesting on the specific channel). Method claims 31 and 36 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 17 and 22, respectively. Therefore method claims 31 and 36 correspond to apparatus claims 17 and 22 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Regarding claims 37 and 42, see rejections for claims 17 and 22, respectively, which disclose all of the claimed limitations. Regarding claims 43 and 48, see rejections for claims 17 and 22, respectively, which disclose all of the claimed limitations. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 18, 19, 20, 21, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47 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 THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM. 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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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. /THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 12, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12630116
CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL SYSTEM
1y 5m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12626816
System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Identifying Device Connections
2y 2m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12617373
INITIATING UWB COMMUNICATION BETWEEN VEHICLE SYSTEM AND PORTABLE IDENTIFIER
1y 8m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12614420
POWER MANAGEMENT BASED ON FRAME SLICING
2y 7m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12606126
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING VEHICLE BY RECOGNIZING DIGITAL KEY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+15.5%)
2y 5m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1061 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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