Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/757,303

JOINT MULTIPLE-INPUT MULTIPLE-OUTPUT (MIMO) COMMUNICATIONS AND MIMO SENSING

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 27, 2024
Examiner
JOSEPH, JAISON
Art Unit
2633
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
538 granted / 652 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
669
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 652 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Status of the claims Claims 2, 3, and 5 – 21 were pending in the application. With amendment filed on December 08, 2025, Applicant have: Amended claims 2, 5, 6, 8, and 18 – 21. Added new claim 22. Claims 2, 3, 5 – 22 are pending in the application. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 – 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 2 – 4, 7 – 9, 12 – 17, 22, 27, and 2 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,052,073. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 – 22 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 2 – 4, 7 – 9, 12 – 17, 22, 27, and 2 of the patent by eliminating the elements and their functions of claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 2 – 4, 7 – 9, 12 – 17, 22, 27, and 2 of the patent. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to realize that the both invention to provide an apparatus for wireless communications, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to: receive, from a network entity via a number of sensing streams based on a maximum number of sensing streams, a waveform comprising communications resources and sensing resources, wherein the maximum number of sensing streams is based on a rank of waveform and a number of layers scheduled for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communications; and process at least the communications resources of the waveform. Furthermore, because omission element(s) in the claim would make the claim in the instant application broader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the claim in the instant application is merely an obvious variation of the claim in the patent/copending application. It is well settled that omission of an element and it function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1969). In light of the foregoing discussion, the broad claim of the instant application is rejected as obvious double patenting over the narrower copending/patent claim. Instant Application Patent: 12,052,073 Claim 2: An apparatus for wireless communications, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to: receive, from a network entity via a number of sensing streams based on a maximum number of sensing streams, a waveform comprising communications resources and sensing resources, wherein the maximum number of sensing streams is based on a rank of waveform and a number of layers scheduled for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communications; and process at least the communications resources of the waveform Claim 1: An apparatus for wireless communications, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to: receive, from a network entity via a number of sensing streams based on a maximum of N.sub.t−J sensing streams, a waveform comprising communications resources and sensing resources, the waveform having a rank N.sub.t, wherein J is a number of layers scheduled for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communications and is less than N.sub.t; and process at least the communications resources of the waveform. Claim 3: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the number of layers scheduled for the MIMO communications is less than the rank. Claim 2: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the matrix S.sub.A is rank N.sub.t−J Claim 5: The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the first waveform and the second waveform are orthogonal to each other. Claim 6: The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the first waveform W.sub.CS.sub.C and the second waveform W.sub.AS.sub.A are orthogonal to each other. Claim 6: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the waveform is scheduled within a plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) symbols. Claim 11: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the waveform is scheduled within a plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) symbols Claim 8: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the waveform is defined using a first matrix and a second matrix, wherein the first matrix represents the communications resources and the second matrix represents the sensing resources Claim 2: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the waveform is defined using a matrix S.sub.C and a matrix S.sub.A, wherein the matrix S.sub.C represents the communications resources and the matrix S.sub.A represents the sensing resources. Claim 9: The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the first matrix has a rank equal to the number of layers scheduled for the MIMO communications. Claim 3: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the matrix S.sub.C is rank J. Claim 10: The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the second matrix is equal to a rank of the waveform minus the number of layers scheduled for the MIMO communications. Claim 4: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the matrix S.sub.A is rank N.sub.t−J. Claim 11: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the communications resources are reused for sensing one or more network devices based on at least two of the one or more network devices being spatially correlated. Claim 7: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the communications resources are reused for sensing one or more network devices based on at least two of the one or more network devices being spatially correlated. Claim 12: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the MIMO communications are multiple-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) communications. Claim 8: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the MIMO communications are multiple-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) communications. Claim 13: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the communications resources comprise communications data, and wherein the sensing resources comprise no data. Claim 9: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the communications resources comprise communications data, and wherein the sensing resources comprise no data. Claim 14: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the network entity is a base station. Claim 12: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the network entity is a base station. Claim 15: The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the base station is one of a next generation node B (gNB) or an evolved node B (eNB). Claim 13: The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the base station is one of a next generation node B (gNB) or an evolved node B (eNB). Claim 16: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the network entity is at least one of a central unit (CU), a distributed unit (DU), a radio unit (RU), a Near-Real Time (Near-RT) RAN Intelligent Controller (RIC), or a Non-Real Time (Non-RT) RIC of a base station. Claim 14: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the network entity is at least one of a central unit (CU), a distributed unit (DU), a radio unit (RU), a Near-Real Time (Near-RT) RAN Intelligent Controller (MC), or a Non-Real Time (Non-RT) MC of a base station. Claim 17: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the apparatus includes a user equipment (UE). Claim 15: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus includes a user equipment (UE). Claim 18: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the waveform is scheduled by the network entity or a radar server. Claim 16: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the waveform is scheduled by the network entity or a radar server. Claim 19: A method for wireless communications, the method comprising: receiving, from a network entity via a number of sensing streams based on a maximum number of sensing streams, a waveform comprising communications resources and sensing resources, wherein the number of sensing streams is not orthogonal to a number of communication streams associated with the communications resources, wherein the maximum number of sensing streams is based on a rank of the waveform and a number of layers scheduled for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communications; and processing at least the communications resources of the waveform. Claim 17: A method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving, at the UE from a network entity via a number of sensing streams based on a maximum of N.sub.t−J sensing streams, a waveform comprising communications resources and sensing resources, the waveform having a rank N.sub.t, wherein J is a number of layers scheduled for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communications and is less than N.sub.t; and processing at least the communications resources of the waveform. Claim 20: The method of claim 19, wherein the waveform comprises a first waveform associated with the communications resources and a second waveform associated with the sensing resources, and wherein the first waveform and the second waveform are not orthogonal to each other. Claim 21: . The method of claim 18, wherein the waveform comprises a first waveform W.sub.CS.sub.C associated with the communications resources and a second waveform W.sub.AS.sub.A associated with the sensing resources, wherein W.sub.C and W.sub.A are matrices. Claim 22. The method of claim 21, wherein the first waveform W.sub.CS.sub.C and the second waveform W.sub.AS.sub.A are orthogonal to each other. Claim 21: The method of claim 19, wherein the waveform is scheduled within a plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) symbols. Claim 27: The method of claim 17, wherein the waveform is scheduled within a plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) symbols. Claim 22: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the waveform comprises a first waveform associated with the communications resources and a second waveform associated with the sensing resources. Claim 5: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the waveform is defined using a matrix S.sub.C and a matrix S.sub.A, wherein the matrix S.sub.C represents the communications resources and the matrix S.sub.A represents the sensing resources. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAISON JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)272-6041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4. 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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571 272 3044. 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. JAISON . JOSEPH Primary Examiner Art Unit 2633 /JAISON JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jun 11, 2025
Interview Requested
Jun 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 20, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 23, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Dec 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603657
REDUCING NON-LINEARITY IN A DIGITAL-TO-TIME CONVERTER (DTC) DUE TO UNEQUAL SUCCESSIVE INPUT CODES SPECIFYING RESPECTIVE DELAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592814
MAINTAINING A VIRTUAL TIME OF DAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580624
DYNAMIC SPLIT COMPUTING FOR BEAMFORMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580720
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO REDUCE RETIMER LATENCY AND JITTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580617
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EFFICIENT TIME MULTIPLEXED DIGITAL BEAMFORMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+12.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 652 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