Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/683,114

TERMINAL AND COMMUNICATION METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 12, 2024
Examiner
ELNOUBI, SAID M
Art Unit
2644
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
NTT Docomo Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
298 granted / 408 resolved
+11.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
438
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
57.8%
+17.8% vs TC avg
§102
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 408 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 INTERPRETATION 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a reception unit configured to perform, a control unit configured not to perform monitoring , and a transmission unit configured to perform in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 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. Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pinheiro et al. (US 20110201343 A1). Regarding claim 1, Pinheiro et al. teach A terminal ([0058] WTRUs, (i.e., MTC devices)) comprising: a reception unit configured to perform monitoring of paging (Abstract the WTRU may perform paging monitoring) transmitted from a base station ([0020] The base stations 114a, 114b may communicate with one or more of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d over an air interface 116, which may be any suitable wireless communication link (e.g., radio frequency (RF, [0085] the network may send a page message) ; a control unit configured not to perform monitoring of the paging in a case where transitioning is performed to an RRC (Radio Resource Control) idle mode ([0053] In the mobile-originated-only mode, a WTRU may not perform paging monitoring) or to an RRC inactive mode and where a type of the terminal is a specific type ([0058] WTRUs, (i.e., MTC devices))); and a transmission unit configured to perform uplink transmission to the base station ([0062] The WTRU may wait to transition out of the mobile-originated-only mode, or until an uplink transmission), wherein the specific type is a device that performs only uplink transmission ([0004] the WTRU may perform cell reselection but not paging monitoring in the mobile-originated-only mode), a device that performs periodic uplink transmission or a device that can allow downlink delay longer than normal. Regarding claim 2, Pinheiro et al. teach The terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reception unit receives information indicating the specific type from a network ([0078] Transition from the mobile-originated-only mode and the mobile-originated-and-terminated mode, (i.e., from the normal idle state to the mobile-originated-only state or configuration, (i.e., transitions between the RRC/NAS states or configuration)), may be triggered by a paging message, any NAS message, or the like). Regarding claim 6, Pinheiro et al. teach A communication method performed by a terminal ([0058] WTRUs, (i.e., MTC devices)), the communication method comprising: performing monitoring of paging (Abstract the WTRU may perform paging monitoring) transmitted from a base station ([0020] The base stations 114a, 114b may communicate with one or more of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d over an air interface 116, which may be any suitable wireless communication link (e.g., radio frequency (RF, [0085] the network may send a page message) ; not performing monitoring of the paging in a case where transitioning is performed to an RRC (Radio Resource Control) idle mode ([0053] In the mobile-originated-only mode, a WTRU may not perform paging monitoring) or to an RRC inactive mode and where a type of the terminal is a specific type ([0058] WTRUs, (i.e., MTC devices))); and performing uplink transmission to the base station ([0062] The WTRU may wait to transition out of the mobile-originated-only mode, or until an uplink transmission), wherein the specific type is a device that performs only uplink transmission ([0004] the WTRU may perform cell reselection but not paging monitoring in the mobile-originated-only mode), a device that performs periodic uplink transmission, or a device that can allow downlink delay longer than normal. 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. Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinheiro et al. in view of Quan et al. (EP3772228A1). Regarding claim 3, Pinheiro et al. teach The terminal as claimed in claim 1, but do not teach wherein the control unit performs monitoring of the paging during a period before or after a time point at which the uplink transmission is performed. In a similar endeavor, Quan et al. teach the control unit performs monitoring of the paging during a period before or after a time point at which the uplink transmission is performed (Quan [0098] E.g. an idle UE in RRC_IDLE and RRC_INACTIVE receiving a COT structure indication interprets an indication of a symbol as "downlink" as a paging time instance to be monitored, and interprets an indication of a symbol as "uplink" or "Flexible" as a symbol which is not to be monitored for paging) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Pinheiro et al. by incorporating Quan et al. to arrive at the invention The motivation of doing so would have not monitored paging during periods of not transmitting paging messages Regarding claim 4, Pinheiro et al. teach The terminal as claimed in claim 1, but do not teach wherein the control unit does not perform monitoring of the paging during a period from a time point at which the uplink transmission is performed. In a similar endeavor, Quan et al. teach the control unit does not perform monitoring of the paging during a period from a time point at which the uplink transmission is performed (Quan [0098] E.g. an idle UE in RRC_IDLE and RRC_INACTIVE receiving a COT structure indication interprets an indication of a symbol as "downlink" as a paging time instance to be monitored, and interprets an indication of a symbol as "uplink" or "Flexible" as a symbol which is not to be monitored for paging) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Pinheiro et al. by incorporating Quan et al. to arrive at the invention The motivation of doing so would have not monitored paging during periods of not transmitting paging messages . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinheiro et al. in view of ELSHAFIE et al. (US 20220239412 A1) Regarding claim 5, Pinheiro et al. teach The terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reception unit receives, from the base station, information indicating whether the uplink transmission transmitted from the transmission unit to the base station is successfully received. In a similar endeavor, ELSHAFIE et al. teach the reception unit receives, from the base station, information indicating whether the uplink transmission transmitted from the transmission unit to the base station is successfully received (ELSHAFIE [0079] the base station (e.g., gNB) may send acknowledgment (ACK/NACK or ACK only) if the uplink transmission is successfully received). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Pinheiro et al. by incorporating ELSHAFIE et al. to arrive at the invention The motivation of doing so would have informed the UE that the uplink transmission was successful. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID M ELNOUBI whose telephone number is (571)272-9732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM to 6:00PM ET. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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. /SAID M ELNOUBI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 12, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581401
PC5 BROADCAST MESSAGES WITH SELECTED SYSTEM INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581328
REQUESTING AN UNSCHEDULED RADIO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (RRM) OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568465
PAGING FOR UNLICENSED NEW RADIO
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562469
VERTICALLY STACKED, INTEGRATABLE, MULTIPURPOSE PLATFORM CONFIGURABLE AS WIRELESS BASE STATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556252
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR EXTREMELY HIGH THROUGHPUT NULL DATA PACKET SUPPORT USING RANGING NULL DATA PACKET ANNOUNCEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
73%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+22.3%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 408 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