Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/657,467

PLMN Selection for Mission Critical Devices

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
May 07, 2024
Examiner
ANSARI, NAJEEBUDDIN
Art Unit
2463
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Malikie Innovations Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
289 granted / 458 resolved
+5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +59% interview lift
Without
With
+58.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
496
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
54.8%
+14.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 458 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
DETAILED ACTION In response to communications filed 05/07/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. 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 Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of Claim 7 should be amended to recite “the network entity...” Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1, 3-11, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4-7 and 9-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,202,253 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons. Instant claims 1, 7 and 8 disclose as follows: Similarly, patented claim 1 discloses as follows: 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable code for execution by a processor of a user equipment (UE), the instruction code when executed cause the UE to: receive a list of Pubic Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifiers from a network entity, wherein each PLMN identifier in the list of PLMN identifiers corresponds to a PLMN that allows the UE to migrate to a new Mission Critical (MC) system; obtain a plurality of PLMN selector lists from a Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC) of the UE; update the PLMN Selector lists with the list of PLMN identifiers; select one PLMN from the plurality of PLMN Selector Lists; obtain a current Registered Public Land Mobile Network (RPLMN); verify that that the RPLMN is one of the PLMNs in the list of PLMN identifiers; and migrate to an associated MC system. 7. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instruction code is further configured to transmit to a network entity a message, the message comprising an indication that the first trigger condition has been met. 8. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein the first trigger condition is the UE receiving an indication to perform migration to a partner MC system, the partner MC system being associated with an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Sub-system (IMS) associated to the PLMN identifier. 1. A method for selecting a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) at a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining that a first trigger condition has been met; transmitting to a network entity a message, the message comprising an indication that the first trigger condition has been met; receiving, from the network entity, a list of PLMN identifiers, wherein each PLMN identifier in the list of PLMN identifiers corresponds to a PLMN that allows the UE to migrate to a new Mission Critical (MC) system; attempting to register the UE with a network using at least one PLMN identifier from the list of PLMN identifiers; and if the attempt to register with the network is successful, performing a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) registration to an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Sub-system (IMS) associated to the PLMN identifier; wherein the first trigger condition is the UE receiving an indication to perform migration to a partner MC system, the partner MC system being associated to the IMS. The claimed invention of the instant application is an obvious variation of the issued patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other inventions. Instant claims are directed to a computer readable medium comprising code executed on a user equipment that recites similar limitations presented in patented claim 1 directed to a method of a user equipment. Limitations of instant claims 7 and 8 are similarly incorporated and claimed in patented claim 1. Instant claim 1 further includes the limitation(s) of obtaining a plurality of PLMN selector lists from a Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC) of the UE and obtaining and verifying a list of RPLMN. It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to incorporate this feature with the patented claim to ensure migration to a partner MC system that is registered and/or verified in the list of PLMN identifier obtained in the user equipment. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application in the other patented invention. Regarding dependent claims 3-6, 9 and 10: Instant claim 3 is an obvious variation of patented claim 4. Instant claim 4 is an obvious variation of patented claim 7. Instant claim 5 is an obvious variation of patented claim 7. Instant claim 6 is an obvious variation of patented claim 3. Instant claim 9 is an obvious variation of patented claim 5 Instant claim 10 is an obvious variation of patented claim 6. Instant claim 11 discloses as follows: Similarly, patented claim 9 discloses as follows: 11. A user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory storing instructions; a processor, the instruction code when executed by the processor cause the UE to: receive a list of Pubic Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifiers from a network entity, wherein each PLMN identifier in the list of PLMN identifiers corresponds to a PLMN that allows the UE to migrate to a new Mission Critical (MC) system; obtain a plurality of PLMN selector lists from a Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC) of the UE; update the PLMN Selector lists with the list of PLMN identifiers; select one PLMN from the plurality of PLMN Selector Lists; obtain a current Registered Public Land Mobile Network (RPLMN); verify that that the RPLMN is one of the PLMNs in the list of PLMN identifiers; and migrate to an associated MC system. 9. A user equipment (UE) comprising: a processor; and a communications subsystem; wherein the processor and the communications subsystem cooperate to: determine that a first trigger condition has been met; transmit to a network entity a message, the message comprising an indication that the first trigger condition has been met; receive, from the network entity, a list of PLMN identifiers, wherein each PLMN identifier in the list of PLMN identifiers corresponds to a PLMN that allows the UE to migrate to a new Mission Critical (MC) system; attempt to register the UE with a network using at least one PLMN identifier from the list of PLMN identifiers; and if the attempt to register with the network is successful, performing a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) registration to an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Sub-system (IMS) associated to the PLMN identifier; wherein the first trigger condition is the UE receiving an indication to perform migration to a partner MC system, the partner MC system being associated to the IMS. The claimed invention of the instant application is an obvious variation of the issued patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other inventions. Instant claim 11 further includes the limitation(s) of obtaining a plurality of PLMN selector lists from a Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC) of the UE and obtaining and verifying a list of RPLMN. It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to incorporate this feature with the patented claim to ensure migration to a partner MC system that is registered and/or verified in the list of PLMN identifier obtained in the user equipment. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application in the other patented invention. Regarding dependent claims 15, 19 and 20: Instant claim 15 is an obvious variation of patented claim 10. Instant claim 19 is an obvious variation of patented claim 11. Instant claim 20 is an obvious variation of patented claim 12. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2017/0245135 A1) in view of Atarius et al. (US 2017/0374109 A1) hereinafter “Park” and “Atarius” respectively. Regarding Claim 1, Park teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium (Park: paragraph 0214-0215, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) having stored thereon computer-executable code for execution by a processor (Park: paragraph 0214, instructions executed by processor) of a user equipment (UE) (Park: paragraph 0052 & Fig. 2, electronic device), the instruction code when executed cause the UE to: receive a list of Pubic Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifiers (Park: paragraph 0072 & Fig. 7, operator-controlled PLMN list) from a network entity (Park: paragraph 0087, PLMN information received from the server); obtain a plurality of PLMN selector lists (Park: paragraphs 0072-0073, detect user-controlled PLMN list) from a Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC) of the UE (Park: paragraph 0073, user-controlled PLMN list stored in UICC); update the PLMN Selector lists with the list of PLMN identifiers (Park: paragraphs 0073 & 0080, receive PLMN information and update the user-controlled PLMN list based on the received PLMN information from the server; see also paragraphs 0164 & Figs. 8-10, updating PLMN list and stored in memory based on received information); select one PLMN from the plurality of PLMN Selector Lists (Park: paragraphs 0075, 0144 & Fig. 7, electronic device may select the available PLMN from the PLMN list); obtain a current Registered Public Land Mobile Network (RPLMN) (Park: paragraphs 0072, 0140 & Fig. 7, acquire or detect a registered PLMN (RPLMN)); and verify that that the RPLMN is one of the PLMNs in the list of PLMN identifiers (Park: paragraphs 0075, 0141, paragraph 0141, may select the PLMN from the PLMN list in an order of the RPLMN, thus verifying the RPLMN as one the PLMNs in the list). Park fails to explicitly teach each PLMN identifier in the list of PLMN identifiers corresponds to a PLMN that allows the UE to migrate to a new (associated) Mission Critical (MC) system. However, Atarius from an analogous art similarly teaches a mission critical UE (MCPTT) selecting a PLMN (Atarius: paragraphs 0087-0089) and further teaches the MCPTT UE transmits an inter-PLMN discovery transmission including PLMN ID information to migrate to an associated Mission Critical system (Atarius: paragraphs 0088-0089, 0099 & Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to include associated Mission Critical systems as taught by Atarius to allow connectivity with mission critical systems used by organizations, companies, public safety agencies and the like. Regarding Claim 2, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the PLMN selector list is one of a user controlled PLMN selector list, an operator controlled PLMN selector list, or a MC organization controlled PLMN selector list (Park: paragraphs 0072-0073 & Fig. 7, operator-controlled PLMN list or user-controlled PLMN list). Regarding Claim 3, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein updating the PLMN selector list with the list of PLMN identifiers includes updating a field of a UICC application (Park: paragraph 0073, PLMN can be updated by the electronic device and stored in a file of the UICC). Regarding Claim 4, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the UICC application is a Universal Mobile Telephony System (UMTS) Subscriber Identity Module (USIM) (Park: paragraph 0073, PLMN list may be included in SIM card). Regarding Claim 5, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches determine that the USIM of the UE has at least one field that can be populated with PLMN identifiers (Park: paragraph 0074, list may include 8 to N PLMNs included in the SIM card and is further controlled (updated) by the electronic device, therefore teaching file of the SIM card may be populated with additional PLMN identifiers); and store on an application of the UICC of the UE the at least one PLMN identifier (Park: paragraph 0073, PLMN can be updated by the electronic device and stored in a file of the UICC). Regarding Claim 6, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the MC system is a partner MC system, the partner MC system being distinct from a primary MC system of the UE (Atarius: paragraph 0169, wireless device may register one or more IMS service parameters of push-to-talk in a wireless network. The one or more IMS service parameters may indicate a combination of at least two of audio, video, data, thus teaching multiple MC systems). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 7, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the instruction code is further configured to transmit to a network entity a message, the message comprising an indication that the first trigger condition has been met (Atarius: paragraphs 0088-0089, 0099 & Fig. 8, MCPTT UE constructs and transmits an inter-PLMN discovery transmission including PLMN ID information). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 8, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first trigger condition is the UE receiving an indication to perform migration to a partner MC system (Atarius: paragraphs 0088-0089, 0099 & Fig. 8, MCPTT UE constructs and transmits an inter-PLMN discovery transmission including PLMN ID information), the partner MC system being associated with an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Sub-system (IMS) associated to the PLMN identifier (Atarius: paragraph 0164, wireless device may register one or more IMS communication service identifiers of mission critical PTT in a wireless network). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 9, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the instruction code is further configured to cause the UE to create a subset of PLMN identifiers, the subset comprising PLMN identifiers from the list of PLMN identifiers which are available to the UE (Park: paragraph 0141, select a PLMN from the PLMN list in an order of the RPLMN, the HPLMN, at least one PLMN included in the user-controlled PLMN list, and at least one PLMN included in the operator-controlled PLMN list, thus identifying a set or subset of PLMN identifiers). Regarding Claim 10, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the instruction code is configured to cause the UE to attempt to register by successively using each PLMN identifier from the subset until a successful registration (Park: paragraph 0143, select available PLMN that has not failed network registration). Regarding Claim 11, Park teaches A user equipment (UE) (Park: paragraph 0052 & Fig. 2, electronic device), comprising: a memory storing instructions (Park: paragraph 0052 & Fig. 2, memory); a processor (Park: paragraph 0052 & Fig. 2, processor), the instruction code when executed by the processor cause the UE to: receive a list of Pubic Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifiers (Park: paragraph 0072 & Fig. 7, operator-controlled PLMN list) from a network entity (Park: paragraph 0087, PLMN information received from the server); obtain a plurality of PLMN selector lists (Park: paragraphs 0072-0073, detect user-controlled PLMN list) from a Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC) of the UE (Park: paragraph 0073, user-controlled PLMN list stored in UICC); update the PLMN Selector lists with the list of PLMN identifiers (Park: paragraphs 0073 & 0080, receive PLMN information and update the user-controlled PLMN list based on the received PLMN information from the server; see also paragraphs 0164 & Figs. 8-10, updating PLMN list and stored in memory based on received information); select one PLMN from the plurality of PLMN Selector Lists (Park: paragraphs 0075, 0144 & Fig. 7, electronic device may select the available PLMN from the PLMN list); obtain a current Registered Public Land Mobile Network (RPLMN) (Park: paragraphs 0072, 0140 & Fig. 7, acquire or detect a registered PLMN (RPLMN)); and verify that that the RPLMN is one of the PLMNs in the list of PLMN identifiers (Park: paragraphs 0075, 0141, paragraph 0141, may select the PLMN from the PLMN list in an order of the RPLMN, thus verifying the RPLMN as one the PLMNs in the list). Park fails to explicitly teach each PLMN identifier in the list of PLMN identifiers corresponds to a PLMN that allows the UE to migrate to a new (associated) Mission Critical (MC) system. However, Atarius from an analogous art similarly teaches a mission critical UE (MCPTT) selecting a PLMN (Atarius: paragraphs 0087-0089) and further teaches the MCPTT UE transmits an inter-PLMN discovery transmission including PLMN ID information to migrate to an associated Mission Critical system (Atarius: paragraphs 0088-0089, 0099 & Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park to include associated Mission Critical systems as taught by Atarius to allow connectivity with mission critical systems used by organizations, companies, public safety agencies and the like. Regarding Claim 12, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the PLMN selector list is one of a user controlled PLMN selector list, an operator controlled PLMN selector list, or a MC organization controlled PLMN selector list (Park: paragraphs 0072-0073 & Fig. 7, operator-controlled PLMN list or user-controlled PLMN list). Regarding Claim 13, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein updating the PLMN selector list with the list of PLMN identifiers includes updating a field of a UICC application (Park: paragraph 0073, PLMN can be updated by the electronic device and stored in a file of the UICC). Regarding Claim 14, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the UICC application is a Universal Mobile Telephony System (UMTS) Subscriber Identity Module (USIM) (Park: paragraph 0073, PLMN list may be included in SIM card). Regarding Claim 15, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the instruction code when executed by the processor is further configured to cause the UE to: determine that the USIM of the UE has at least one field that can be populated with PLMN identifiers (Park: paragraph 0074, list may include 8 to N PLMNs included in the SIM card and is further controlled (updated) by the electronic device, therefore teaching file of the SIM card may be populated with additional PLMN identifiers); and store on an application of the UICC of the UE the at least one PLMN identifier (Park: paragraph 0073, PLMN can be updated by the electronic device and stored in a file of the UICC). Regarding Claim 16, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the MC system is a partner MC system, the partner MC system being distinct from a primary MC system of the UE (Atarius: paragraph 0169, wireless device may register one or more IMS service parameters of push-to-talk in a wireless network. The one or more IMS service parameters may indicate a combination of at least two of audio, video, data, thus teaching multiple MC systems). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 11 above. Regarding Claim 17, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the instruction code is further configured to transmit to a network entity a message, the message comprising an indication that the first trigger condition has been met (Atarius: paragraphs 0088-0089, 0099 & Fig. 8, MCPTT UE constructs and transmits an inter-PLMN discovery transmission including PLMN ID information). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 11 above. Regarding Claim 18, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first trigger condition is the UE receiving an indication to perform migration to a partner MC system (Atarius: paragraphs 0088-0089, 0099 & Fig. 8, MCPTT UE constructs and transmits an inter-PLMN discovery transmission including PLMN ID information), the partner MC system being associated with an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Sub-system (IMS) associated to the PLMN identifier (Atarius: paragraph 0164, wireless device may register one or more IMS communication service identifiers of mission critical PTT in a wireless network). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 12 above. Regarding Claim 19, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the instruction code is further configured to cause the UE to create a subset of PLMN identifiers, the subset comprising PLMN identifiers from the list of PLMN identifiers which are available to the UE (Park: paragraph 0141, select a PLMN from the PLMN list in an order of the RPLMN, the HPLMN, at least one PLMN included in the user-controlled PLMN list, and at least one PLMN included in the operator-controlled PLMN list, thus identifying a set or subset of PLMN identifiers). Regarding Claim 20, Park-Atarius teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the instruction code is configured to cause the UE to attempt to register by successively using each PLMN identifier from the subset until a successful registration (Park: paragraph 0143, select available PLMN that has not failed network registration). Conclusion Chun (US 2021/0112513 A1) teaches a user equipment selects a PLMN in the order of PLMNs stored in the USIM (paragraph 0219). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAJEEB ANSARI whose telephone number is (571)270-5446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm. 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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 469-295-9193. 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. /NAJEEB ANSARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2463 /ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 07, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592870
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND RELATED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587899
OVERLOAD STATUS DATA TRANSMISSION TO DISTRIBUTED UNIT ENABLING OVERLOAD ACTION AT DISTRIBUTED UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12549450
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONVERGED BASEBAND AND AI OPERATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538146
MICROSERVICES FOR CENTRALIZED UNIT USER PLANE (CU-UP) AND CENTRALIZED UNIT CONTROL PLANE (CU-CP) STANDBY PODS IN A CLOUD-NATIVE FIFTH GENERATION (5G) WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12526685
GENERATING LONG-TERM NETWORK CHANGES FROM SLA VIOLATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+58.8%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 458 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