Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 27, 2026
Application No. 18/652,072

MULTIPLE SUB-BAND COMMUNICATION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 01, 2024
Examiner
HO, DAO Q
Art Unit
2432
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
572 granted / 688 resolved
+25.1% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
739
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§103
48.4%
+8.4% vs TC avg
§102
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 688 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment This is a reply to the request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 7/16/2026, in which Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 12-18 are presented for examination. Claim(s) 2-3, 11 and 19-20 is/are cancelled. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/16/2026 has been entered. 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. Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 12-18 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim limitations “a processing system configured to receive…, transmit…” in claims 1 and 10, are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The specification does not adequately disclose the structure to perform the functions of the claim. The corresponding structure must be more than a mere reference to a general purpose computer, microprocessor, specialized computer, or an undefined component of a computer system, software, logic, code, or black box element. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant should: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) State on the record what corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. Internet Communications Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. /DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 01, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 13, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 19, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12755046
DATA PROTECTION METHOD, DATA PROTECTION DEVICE AND MICRO-CONTROLLER
3y 9m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12754994
AUTOMATIC CREDENTIAL GENERATION FOR AUTHENTICATION PENETRATION TESTING
2y 7m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12755062
PROTECTION AGAINST USB HID AUTOMATION ATTACKS
2y 3m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12744804
METHOD OF ASSESSING THREAT LEVEL OF UNIDENTIFIED ASSET AND APPARATUS FOR THE SAME
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12744664
UNIVERSAL QUANTUM SECURE DEVICE, METHOD OF SENDING DATA AND METHOD OF RECEIVING DATA
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 22, 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
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.1%)
2y 7m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 688 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