Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/684,617

USER EQUIPMENT, NETWORK EQUIPMENT, METHODS AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR CONTROLLING UPLINK SOUNDING REFERENCE SIGNALS TO MULTIPLE TRANSMISSION RECEPTION POINTS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 16, 2024
Examiner
MUSA, ABDELNABI O
Art Unit
2472
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Nokia Technologies Oy
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
881 granted / 1052 resolved
+25.7% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1080
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1052 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 This action is responsive to the application filed on 02/16/2024 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 42 are objected to because of the following informality: The claims recites limitation for performing certain step(s) only if a specific condition is satisfied (IF Statement), the limitations followed this statement are considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until specific conditions are met. Applicant should change the word “if’ to “responsive to determining that...” in order to alter an optional limitation to a required limitation. For the purpose of examination, claimed limitations will be considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until the specific conditions are met. 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 42 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 42 recites “x1 Ty1 R… x2Ty2R … y1 / x1 … y2 x2” without specie reference to the characters. Examiner suggest amending the limitations to recite, for example “reception antenna ports (y1), where is y is an integer greater than 1”. Each character (x1, T, y1, x2, y2 and R) should be clearly indicate the meaning and reference its value. 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 (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 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 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. Claims 32-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN et al. Publication No. (US 2023/0171766 A1) in view of Wang et al. Publication No. (US 2024/0187176 A1A1). Claims 1- 31. (Cancelled). Regarding claim 32, LIN teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (node 800 [e.g., UE 120] for wireless communication may include a processor 828, a memory 834, and a variety of computer-readable media with a computer program codes executed by various components [0169-172] FIG.8) , cause the apparatus at least to: report, to a network (base station (BS) e.g., gNB 140 FIG.1), antenna-switching for the apparatus (the UE 120 may report a UE capability message to the BS 140 [0057] the UE capability including support of full-coherence, partial-coherence, or non-coherence among individual antenna ports and antenna panel switching [0074] FIG.2); receive, from the network, a configuration of sounding reference signal (SRS) resources (the UE may receive, from the BS, an RRC message configuring a first SRS resource set associated with the first TRP, and a second SRS resource set associated with the second TRP [0156-159] FIG.7); and transmit, in parallel, a first SRS using a first SRS resource of the SRS resources to a first transmission-reception point (TRP), and a second SRS of the SRS resources using a second SRS resource to a second TRP (the UL DCI includes a first TPMI associated with a first TRP and a second TPMI associated with a second TRP, the UE may transmit the first SRS resource set to the first transmission-reception point (TRP) and transmit the second SRS resource set to the second TRP based on the RRC message [0156-159] FIG.7). LIN does not explicitly teach antenna-switching configurations. Wang teaches antenna-switching configurations (antenna switching configuration in multi-TRPs with multiple SRS resources targeting at different TRPs [0060-69] FIG.7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified LIN by the teaching of Wang to report configurations of the antenna switching in order to support dynamic switch between TRPs and dynamic switch between single TRP and multi-TRP (Wang: [0059-62] FIG.4). Regarding claim 33, LIN teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 32, wherein the apparatus is further caused to transmit the first SRS and the second SRS in different time periods within a time slot, or to transmit the first SRS and the second SRS in a same time period within a same time slot (the UE may transmit each SRS-CB resource set in a different time (e.g., time slot, subframe, and so on, but not limited to), e.g., the UE may not simultaneously transmit multiple SRS-CB resource sets in multi-TRP transmissions, These two SRS-CB resource sets may be transmitted at different time points (e.g., different OFDM symbols, time slots, or subframes) configured by the network [0098-104] FIG.5). Regarding claim 34, LIN teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 32, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: use the first SRS resource to transmit a SRS to a TRP different to the first TRP; and/or use the second SRS resource to transmit a SRS to a TRP different to the second TRP (A UE may select an applicable panel (e.g., the panel providing the largest channel gain) to transmit PUSCH (repetitions) to different TRPs. During the training phase, different SRS resources may be transmitted via different UL beams associated with different panels [0065-66] FIG.6). Regarding claim 35, LIN teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 32, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: select a preferred TRP for the first SRS resource, and indicate at least the preferred TRP to the network; receive, from the network, an updated configuration of SRS resources; and transmit an SRS to the preferred TRP using at least part of the updated SRS resources (the UE reports a preferred gNB TX beam, UE is essentially selecting a spatial filter used by gNB. The term “beam information” is used to provide information about which beam/spatial filter is being used/selected, individual reference signals are transmitted by applying individual beams (spatial filters) [0164-165] FIG.6). Regarding claim 36, LIN teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 32, wherein the apparatus is further caused to time shift SRS resources to achieve simultaneity between SRS resources used to transmit SRS to different TRPs (the UE may further transmit a capability message to the BS. The capability message may indicate whether the UE supports multi-TRP based transmissions, and/or whether the UE supports fast panel switching for multi-TRP based transmissions. If a UE supports multi-TRP based transmission, it may mean that the UE is able to carry out a scheduled transmission(s) by communicating with multiple TRPs and forming form two beams simultaneously [0162-164] FIG.6). Regarding claim 37, the modified LIN teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 32, wherein the apparatus is further caused to time shift SRS resources to achieve simultaneity between SRS sources used to transmit SRS to different TRPs in response to receiving a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) that specifies time shifts (Wang: MAC-CE may be used to update the parameters for one or multiple SRS resources in the SRS resource set [0063-69] FIG.4). Regarding claims 38-46, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 32-37, where the difference used is the limitations contain “multiple antenna panels” and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. The multiple antenna panels are taught in (LIN: [0060-68] FIG.3) and throughout the cited references. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above. Regarding claims 47-51, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 32-37, where the difference used is the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above. Conclusion When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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. /ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604252
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MULTICAST AND BROADCAST SERVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598523
DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593315
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR GENERATING APPDU IN WIRELESS LAN SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592752
VARIABLE PRECODING RESOURCE BLOCK GROUP PARTITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593253
INDICATING UE-TRIGGERED MOBILITY USING LOW-LAYER INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1052 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