Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/770,105

IN-BAND WIRELESS RELAY OPERATIONS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 11, 2024
Examiner
SCIACCA, SCOTT M
Art Unit
2478
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
497 granted / 640 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
689
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§103
52.5%
+12.5% vs TC avg
§102
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 640 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is responsive to communications filed on July 11, 2024. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application. 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 7/12/2024 has been considered. 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. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb et al. (US 2014/0192781) in view of Kaur et al. (US 10,531,365). Regarding Claim 1, Teyeb teaches a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: identifying a time period in which a channel parameter condition changes based at least in part on the relay transmissions (“Control information, e.g., mobility related parameters, are modified or updated depending on the detected mobility state of the mobile RN. UE and mobile RN operation is then controlled in accordance with the modified or updated control information associated with the mobility state of the mobile RN” – See [0069]; “The mobile relay node mobility state may be communicated to UEs in a connected mode via dedicated messages, e.g., by Radio Resource Control, RRC, signaling, or broadcasted in an additional information element, IE, in a System Information Block, SIB” – See [0098]; Based on a received SIB received from the relay node (relay transmission), the UE identifies an updated mobility state (changed channel parameter condition)); and modifying a channel estimation measurement and reporting schedule based at least in part on the time period in which the channel parameter condition changes (“in another non-limiting example embodiment, the mobile RN, upon detecting that it is entering the moving mobility state, changes the measurement configuration of UEs it is serving to stop or reduce measurement reporting. This may be realized in several example ways … A third example way is to introduce a new IE to inform UEs to stop measurements altogether, except measurements for the serving cell. The IE may include addition information such as for how long the UEs should disable the measurement reports” – See [0104]; The UE modifies its measurement and reporting schedule (e.g., by stopping measurements and reporting in one example) in response to the channel parameter condition changes). Teyeb does not explicitly teach determining a transmission schedule associated with one or more relay nodes performing relay transmissions on a channel, wherein the identifying is based at least in part on the transmission schedule. However, Kaur teaches determining a transmission schedule associated with one or more relay nodes performing relay transmissions on a channel, wherein the identifying is based at least in part on the transmission schedule (“The relay WTRU may respond with an acknowledgement message with optional configuration parameters to indicate the SIB transfer mechanism. The SIB transfer mechanism may include the schedule with which the SIBs are forwarded. For example, the SIBs may be forwarded on reserved frames, and the relay WTRU may indicate the DFN offset number of the DFN pattern when the SIBs are transmitted” – See col. 33, lines 12-19; The UE determines a transmission schedule for SIBs (transmission schedule associated with one or more relay nodes performing relay transmissions on a channel), in order to identify when the SIBs are transmitted). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb to include determining a transmission schedule associated with one or more relay nodes performing relay transmissions on a channel, wherein the identifying is based at least in part on the transmission schedule. Motivation for doing so would be to provide the UE with the necessary information so it can know how to acquire the SIBs/relay transmissions (See Kaur, col. 33, lines 39-40). Regarding Claim 3, Teyeb in view of Kaur teaches the method of Claim 1. Kaur further teaches receiving a configuration signal identifying the transmission schedule (“A remote WTRU that has just joined the relay and desires to read the relay SIBs should first acquire the SL-MIB message to obtain the transmitted SIBs and the SIB schedule to know how it can acquire the SIBs” – See col. 33, lines 37-40; The UE receives an MIB (configuration signal) identifying the transmission schedule of the SIBs). Claims 4, 7, and 10 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1. Claims 6, 9, and 12 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3. Claims 2, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb et al. (US 2014/0192781) in view of Kaur et al. (US 10,531,365) and further in view of Palanki et al. (US 2010/0167743). Regarding Claim 2, Teyeb in view of Kaur teaches the method of Claim 1. Teyeb and Kaur do not explicitly teach detecting a ramp up of the relay transmissions on the channel, wherein the time period is identified based at least in part on the detected ramp up of the relay transmissions. However, Palanki teaches detecting a ramp up of the relay transmissions on the channel, wherein the time period is identified based at least in part on the detected ramp up of the relay transmissions (“In one design, a relay UE may slowly ramp up the transmit power of a discovery pilot in order to mitigate disruption to nearby UEs. This slow ramp up may prevent outage of client UEs as well as other UEs in the vicinity of the relay UE. The slow ramp up may be especially applicable if the discovery pilot comprises the primary and secondary synchronization signals sent on the downlink or the sounding reference signal sent on the uplink” – See [0069]; “The client UE may measure the discovery pilots from the relay UEs (step 4) and may select one relay UE to serve as a relay station for the client UE (step 5)” – See [0044]; Relay nodes ramp up transmission power of discovery pilot transmissions on the channel. The UE measures/detects the discovery pilots from the relay nodes and selects one of them as the serving relay node based on the measurements). By modifying Teyeb’s UE to select a serving relay based on a ramp up of the relay transmissions on the channel, the UE can then modify its measurement/reporting schedule in the time period based on the channel parameter conditions of the serving relay. Accordingly, the time period is identified based at least in part on the detected ramp up of the relay transmissions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teyeb to include detecting a ramp up of the relay transmissions on the channel, wherein the time period is identified based at least in part on the detected ramp up of the relay transmissions. Motivation for doing so would be to prevent outage of other UEs in the vicinity of the relay node (See Palanki, [0069]). Claims 5, 8, and 11 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST. 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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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. /SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592756
MEASUREMENT RESOURCE CONFIGURATION METHOD AND APPARATUS AND RELATED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587337
DYNAMIC INDICATION OF TRACKING REFERENCE SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12549982
Cell Measurement Method and Communications Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538354
Enhanced Channel Access Mechanisms in Shared Radio Wireless Communication
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12537638
DATA TRANSMISSION IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH REDUCED LATENCY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.9%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 640 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