Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/779,746

METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PERFORMING IMPROVED COMMUNICATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 22, 2024
Priority
Feb 13, 2017 — RE 10-2017-0019575 +3 more
Examiner
TACDIRAN, ANDRE GEE
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
338 granted / 420 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
450
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§103
58.4%
+18.4% vs TC avg
§102
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§112
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 420 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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 submission filed 2024-07-22 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-20 are pending for consideration. 35 USC §112(b) – Claim Rejections 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. Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter of the invention. Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, 16 and 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20 Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16, 19-20 each recite at least one instance of the phrase: in case This language is indefinite language (e.g., “for example,” “or the like,” “such as,” or “maybe”) because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). More particularly, “in case” is phase that indicates a hedging or "as a precaution for a future event.” Similar to, “preordering the item ‘in case’ it sells out on release date.” It is unclear if the even has to occur or if the intent is a requirement of the claimed feature. The Examiner’s best guess is this phrasing is a translation issue and that the intent was to convey “in a case” or “in response to” such that claims should recite (using claim 1 as an example): receiving a radio resource control (RRC) message related to an RRC inactive state; entering the RRC inactive state based on the RRC message; receiving a paging message in the RRC inactive state; in response to determining the paging message includes an identity that matches a serving-temporary mobile subscriber identity (S-TMSI), entering an RRC idle state from the RRC inactive state; and in response to determining the paging message includes an identity that matches a resume identity, generating an access stratum (AS) message for a radio access network (RAN) paging. For the purposes of prior art, the Examiner performed prior art search with the Examiner’s best guess interpretation as described above. Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the base/intervening claims as discussed herein and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons. Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter over the prior art but rejected to herein. Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, 16 and 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20 The claim(s) include allowable subject matter with respect to the prior art and would be allowable if: (i) Rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (ii) Amended to overcome other non-prior art rejections and/or objections presented herein (e.g., 35 USC 112 and 101 rejections), including rejections/objections directed to base and intervening claims. (iii) In cases where claim limitations were unclear/indefinite and the Examiner indicated what he/she thought what the limitations attempted to convey, any clarifying amendments would need to be commensurate with the Examiner’s interpretation. In addition to the explicit reasons given herein, allowability is also determined in view of the combination of references required for obviousness, the inter-relationship between other claimed limitations, and the claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, amendments that do not incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in its entirely, are not allowable. This includes amendments that incorporate the allowable claims into the base/intervening claims in part or in a non-narrowing manner (i.e., changing the scope of the subject matter). Relevant Cited References FUJISHIRO - US20200314667 teaches an RRC inactive state and RRC idle state and using a S-TMSI in random access procedure and not for transitioning between RRC states. HONG_900 teaches receiving a radio resource control (RRC) message related to an RRC inactive state; A "light connection state" which can be RRC inactive state. <FIG(s). 2, 3; para. 0072, 0076-0097>. entering the RRC inactive state based on the RRC message; UE performs an operation for receiving, from a BS, a radio resource control (RRC) message including instruction information for instructing state transition into the light connection state. <FIG(s). 2, 3; para. 0072, 0076-0097>. receiving a paging message in the RRC inactive state; While in light connection state, UE performs an operation for receiving a paging message related for the UE. <FIG(s). 2; para. 0076-0081>. in case that the paging message includes an identity that matches a serving-temporary mobile subscriber identity (S-TMSI), entering an RRC idle state from the RRC inactive state; and BS performs an operation for triggering the connection state of the UE to be changed by transmitting a paging message including a UE identifier such as S-TMSI to transition the UE into the RRC idle state. In one embodiment the UE is previously configured into a light connection state such as RRC inactive state. Accordingly, the UE would transition from RRC inactive to RRC idle. <FIG(s). 2, 3; para. 0077-0092>. However, HONG_900 does not teach in case that the paging message includes an identity that matches a resume identity, generating an access stratum (AS) message for a radio access network (RAN) paging. In HONG_900, it appears the connection state would always change. In this matter the Examiner has construed the claimed “resume identity” to mean an identity that is different from the S-TMSI, and causes the UE to resume in the RRC inactive state. LEE - US20190254109 teaches a method for shifting an RRC state performed by a User Equipment (UE) in an RRC inactive (RRC_INACTIVE) state in a wireless communication system including receiving an indicator indicating to enter an RRC idle state from a network. The indicator can be a S-TMSI or resume ID received from a paging message <para. 0006-0009>. However the reference does not teach in case that the paging message includes an identity that matches a resume identity, generating an access stratum (AS) message for a radio access network (RAN) paging. In this matter the Examiner has construed the claimed “resume identity” to mean an identity that is different from the S-TMSI, and causes the UE to resume in the RRC inactive state. ZHANG - US20190082490 teaches UE paging identity is an access-stratum identity of the UE. The access-stratum identity of the UE includes a resumed identifier (Resumed ID) or S-TMSI but does not teach transitioning from an RRC inactive state to an RRC idle state. FUJISHIRO - US20200314667 teaches a UE transitioning to the RRC idle state by sending the eNB, a Msg1 or Msg3 of a random access procedure where in Msg1 the preamble is associated with a S-TMSI of the UE. This is different from the claims which requires a terminal receives (not sends) a page that includes an S-TMSI. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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. /ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 22, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12745114
QUALITY OF SERVICE FLOW SELECTION FOR A MULTI-ACCESS DATA CONNECTION
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12720360
INFORMATION COMMUNICATION METHOD, APPARATUS AND COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE
3y 2m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12719549
ADAPTIVE BEAMFORMING USING SMART REPEATERS
2y 10m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12720357
USER EQUIPMENT, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
3y 0m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12684376
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR HIGHLY UTILIZED CELL IDENTIFICATION
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 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
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.1%)
2y 9m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 420 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