Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/726,146

METHOD PERFORMED BY USER EQUIPMENT, AND USER EQUIPMENT

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Jul 02, 2024
Priority
Jan 06, 2022 — CN 202210019042.4 +1 more
Examiner
SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Sharp Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
829 granted / 978 resolved
+24.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1001
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
68.0%
+28.0% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 978 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
CTNF 18/726,146 CTNF 76705 Detailed Office action Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 7/2/24. Claims 11-12 are pending. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-07 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processor configured in claim 11 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20230269802 [hereinafter Fu] . As per claim 11 and 12 Fu discloses User Equipment (UE), comprising a processor configured to: determine whether the UE is a layer 2 (L2) UE-to-Network (U2N) remote UE or not, determine, based on whether the UE is a layer 2 (L2) UE-to-Network (U2N) remote UE or not, (see par. 0065-0068), a field indicating a source L2 ID of the UE provided by upper layer in a sidelink UE information message which is transmitted upon update of the source L2 ID(see fig. 3 and par. 0068-0077 and fig. 4 , par. 0080, wherein a source UE keeps sending data traffic to the UE-to-UE relay with the old identifiers until it sends the Link Identifier Update Ack to the relay. [0082] Step 2 . Upon receiving the Link Identifier Update Request message, the UE-to-UE relay assigns a new L2-ID_R for the link with the source UE and the link with the target UE ) 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 Application/Control Number: 18/726,146 Page 2 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/726,146 Page 3 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/726,146 Page 4 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/726,146 Page 5 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/726,146 Page 6 Art Unit: 2466
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 02, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12683854
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FAIL-OVER WITNESS SLED OPERATIONS
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12672012
ENHANCED COLLABORATION BETWEEN USER EQUPIMENT AND NETWORK TO FACILITATE MACHINE LEARNING
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12666468
SESSION VERIFICATION METHOD, USER EQUIPMENT, AND POLICY CONTROL FUNCTION ENTITY
4y 4m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12659219
CELLULAR NETWORK OPTIMIZED FOR DATA COMMUNICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SET OF PARAMETERS
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12659385
Non-IP Header Compression in Broadcast Sidelink Communication
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 16, 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
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+9.5%)
3y 1m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 978 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