Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/760,790

COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS IN HIGH-FREQUENCY SCENARIO

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 01, 2024
Examiner
ALI, SHAWKAT M
Art Unit
2633
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
569 granted / 640 resolved
+26.9% vs TC avg
Strong +51% interview lift
Without
With
+51.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
654
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
44.8%
+4.8% vs TC avg
§102
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§112
36.6%
-3.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 640 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Election/Restrictions 2. Applicant elects Species I (Claims 1-16) with traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/25 is acknowledged. In the Remarks, Applicant argues that simultaneous examination of Species II (Claims 17-20) will not present an undue burden since there is overlap to the subject matter of Species I. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as pointed out in the Requirement for Restriction/Election, mailed on 10/06/25, that the Spices I is related to a transmitter while Spices II deals with a receiver. In addition, Spices II is utilizing a DMRS port and performing equalization. Since configurations/structures of Species I and II are different and not obvious over each other, there is a search and/or examination burden on the Examiner. However, upon incorporating the allowable subject matter (see Section 8 of this Office Action), Applicant may rejoin the nonelected inventions (Species II) providing no 112 issues. Claim Objections 3. Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 4, lines 4 and 6 “the two bitstreams” should be replaced with “the 2 bitstreams”; and in claim 13, line 2 “, and the 2N/2” should be replaced with “, the 2N/2” and line 3 “; or” should be replaced with “, and P and Q are scale factors; or”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretations 4. 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. 5. 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 “receive-end device” 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 § 112 6. 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. 7. Claims 1-16 are 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 pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “to generate M lower-order modulation signals” (line 5). It is not clear whether said function "to generate M lower-order modulation signals" is performed by said “receive-end device” or said function "to generate M lower-order modulation signals" is referring to said “modulating S bitstreams”. Hence, renders claim 1 and its dependent claims indefinite. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the original bitstream" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitations "the original bitstream" (line 4), "the first lower-order modulation signal" (line 6) and "the second lower-order modulation signal" (lines 6-7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Similar rejection applies to claims 10, 12 and 14. Reason for Allowance 8. Wu (US 2018/0262381 A1) teaches in Figure 1 a transmit-end device (Transmitter) and a receive-end device (Receiver) and in Figure 2 generating M lower-order modulation signals (S201) and sending higher-order modulation signals (S203). Qin (WO 2020/207182 A1 –Attached as a Foreign Reference with an English Translation) teaches in Figure 1 a transmit-end device (AA), a receive-end device (BB), modulating bitstreams (S101) and sending modulation signals (S102). Wang (US 2007/0195907 A1) teaches in Figure 5 transmitting data utilizing superposition modulation. Zhang (US 10,547,487 B1) teaches in Figure 3 a mapping rule of a non-uniform constellation M-quadrature amplitude modulation, NUC M-QAM (330). However, with regard to claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose said receive-end device (Figures 23-24: 2300 & 2400) as claimed in “combination” with “the corresponding structure, material or act described in the Applicant’s specification as performing the entire claimed function and [or] equivalents thereof” where applicable under 35 U.S.C 112(f). Conclusion 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SHAWKAT M. ALI whose telephone number is (571) 270-1639. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:30AM-3:30PM 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 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 on (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 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. /SHAWKAT M ALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 01, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597985
COMMUNICATION USING A DUAL POLARIZED ANTENNA ARRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597969
INFORMATION TRANSMISSION METHOD AND DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587180
GROUP DELAY DETERMINATION IN A COMMUNICATION CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580625
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REPORTING CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12562763
POWER TRACKER FOR MULTIPLE TRANSMIT SIGNALS SENT SIMULTANEOUSLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
89%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+51.3%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 640 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month