Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/796,357

Scheduling in Carrier Aggregation

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 07, 2024
Priority
Mar 10, 2021 — provisional 63/159,117 +1 more
Examiner
CUNNINGHAM, KEVIN M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Panpsy Technologies LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
432 granted / 603 resolved
+11.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
646
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
59.3%
+19.3% vs TC avg
§102
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 603 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 . 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,095,686. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are broader than the patented claims and species anticipates the genus. Regarding clam 1, a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, one or more first configuration parameters (receiving by wireless device one or more first configuration parameters, patent claim 1): indicating that a first secondary cell is a scheduling secondary cell for a primary cell (indicating first secondary cell is a scheduling secondary cell for a primary cell, patent claim 1); and comprising a search space parameter of a first search space of the first secondary cell, wherein a first value of the search space parameter indicates that the first search space is configured for monitoring to receive scheduling information for the primary cell and a second value of the search space parameter indicates that the first search space is not configured for monitoring to receive scheduling information for the primary cell (comprising a search space parameter… to receive scheduling information for primary cell, patent claim 1); monitoring the first search space of the first secondary cell to receive scheduling information of the primary cell (monitoring first search space of first secondary cell, patent claim 1); and activating a second secondary cell in response to receiving one or more second configuration parameters indicating changing the scheduling secondary cell from the first secondary cell to the second secondary cell (receiving one or more second configuration parameters indicating changing the secondary cell from first secondary cell to second secondary cell and activating the second secondary cell, patent claim 1). Pending claims 2-20 are rejected in view of claims 2-20 of the US patent, for similar reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571) 272-1765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:30-18:00 (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached on (571) 272-3155. The fax 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. /KEVIN M CUNNINGHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12696266
METHOD FOR UPLINK TRANSMISSION AND DEVICE THEREOF
3y 4m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12696260
TECHNIQUES FOR DETERMINING A TRAFFIC STREAM FOR A SEMI-PERSISTENT SCHEDULING FLOW
3y 1m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12690032
TRANSMISSION BATCH SCHEDULING AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12684617
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PERFORMING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION IN UNLICENSED BAND
5y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12684563
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HARMONIZING UPLINK GRANTS
3y 5m 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
72%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+11.2%)
2y 9m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 603 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