Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/682,350

AD-HOC WIRELESS COMMUNICATION

Non-Final OA §101§102§103
Filed
Feb 08, 2024
Examiner
SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
Art Unit
2466
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Newsouth Innovations Pty Ltd
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
820 granted / 967 resolved
+26.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
993
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.5%
+8.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 967 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §103
Detail Off ice 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 . This office action is in response to the communication dated 2/8/24 Original claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 6-8 and 15-17 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. For example, Claim 19 appears to be directed to a system executing the method of claim comprising a “device". Given their broadest, most reasonable interpretations, the device can be understandably be implemented via software module. In such circumstances, the system of claim 19 consists of software per se, and fails to fall within one of the statutory categories of intention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Claim 19 is therefore not limited to statutory embodiments. Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter. For example, Claim10 is directed to an "computer program product”." Given their broadest, most reasonable interpretations, the “computer program product” can understandably be implemented via software. In such circumstances, the "computer program product” of claim 10 consists of software per se, and fails to fall within one of the statutory categories of intention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Claim 10 is therefore not limited to statutory embodiments. Under a similar rationale, claims 11-18, which depend from claim 10, are also not limited to statutory embodiments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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. Claims 1 , 2, 9, 10, 11, and 18- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Truong et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0132906[hereinafter Truong]. As per claim 1, 10 and 19 discloses method of transmitting and receiving data between devices via an ad- hoc wireless communication network, the ad-hoc wireless network using a time frame having time slots(see the abstract: establishing timing and processing of network messages in a wireless ad-hoc network each wireless node in the wireless ad-hoc network designated as one of an assigned wireless node initiating and transmitting network messages in a corresponding network slot time ( FIG. 1, 3-5; para. [0020]-[0021], [0031]: each of the time slots is assignable to one of the devices so that a device assigned to a time slot transmits and receives the data at the assigned time slot, the time frame being created by one of the devices [i.e., each data frame 26 contains network slots 28 and data slots 30; also see para. [0032]: wireless nodes 12 identified wireless node A o Node N have assigned network slots 28A labelled as Slots AN wireless nodes Node A to Node N may transmit network message in their assigned network slots slot NO, wireless A0 Node 13 may transmit in assignee network slot NI; also see para. |0037|: If no wireless network has been established, the wireless node 12 may generate a network ID message as shown in 48 and may set a network frame time and slot time as shown in 50. The wireless node 12 that has generated the network ID message may be assigned Slot NO and may then transmit the network ID message at Slot NO as shown in 52 thereby establishing timing within the ad hoc wireless network 10. As per claim 2, and 11 Truong the method of claim 1, wherein the created time frame is stored in memory of each of the devices(see par. 0038). As per claim 9, and 18 Cain discloses the method of claim 2 when device having the stored time frame receives the data, the device synchronizes the stored time frame with a time that the data is received(see par. 0038-0039) 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. Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong and further in view of Cain , Joseph Bibb U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0028018[hereinafter Cain]. As per 3, and 12 Truong disclose substantial features of the claimed invention as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 10 and 19, Truong does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1 wherein the time frame comprises priority level, the priority level of the time frame being used to resolve differences between different time frames. Cain discloses wherein the time frame comprises priority level, the priority level of the time frame being used to resolve differences between different time frames(see par. 0012, 0261-0262). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Cain into the system of Truong , thus by utilizing metrics for each data priority level for each communication link, and schedule demand assigned time slots for establishing additional communication links with the neighboring mobile nodes for transmitting data therebetween based upon the link utilization metrics and data priority levels. The wireless communication network may also provide enhanced interference avoidance and/or mitigation features in certain embodiments. As per claim 4, and 13 Cain discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the priority level is based on a number of devices assigned to the time slots of the time frame (see pars.0261-0262). As per claim 5, and 14 Cain The method of any one of claims claim 1, wherein the time frame spans a period of time and repeats after the period of time(see par. 0264). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI ELMI SALAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4009. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6: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. /ABDULLAHI E SALAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 08, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602621
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING WIRELESS SENSING BY COLLECTING EMPTY DATA ON BASIS OF WIRELESS SENSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597972
TECHNIQUES FOR GENERATING AN AVERAGE EFFECTIVE ISOTROPIC RADIATED POWER (EIRP) MASK TO SUPPORT INTERFERENCE MITIGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592807
MODEL TRAINING METHOD, CHANNEL ADJUSTMENT METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592860
Network Packet Capture Analysis Using Machine Learning Model
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587406
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE APPOINTMENT OF FUNCTIONS OF SMART HOME APPLIANCES
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
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+9.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 967 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