Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/811,270

WIRELESS COMMUNICATION COEXISTENCE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Aug 21, 2024
Priority
Feb 22, 2022 — continuation of 12/108,466
Examiner
CHO, HONG SOL
Art Unit
2467
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Comcast Cable Communications LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
970 granted / 1104 resolved
+29.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1115
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
71.1%
+31.1% vs TC avg
§102
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§112
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1104 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19, 21-24, 26 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,466. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claims 1-5 of Patent No. 12,108,466 contain every elements of claims 1-3, 5 and 7 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. Claims 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19, 21-24, 26 and 28 differ from patent claims 1-3, 5 and 7 in statutory category. Such a change is deemed obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide obvious variants in statutory category. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, 20, 25 and 27 are 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 to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hong Cho whose telephone number is 571-272-3087. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during 8 am to 4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. 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). /HONG S CHO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12684418
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12677259
METHOD AND DEVICE IN NODES USED FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12677350
CELL DTX/DRX INTERWORKING WITH LAYER1/LAYER2 TRIGGERED MOBILITY
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12672056
RESOURCE SELECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
3y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12665721
COMMUNICATION PROCESSING METHOD AND COMMUNICATION PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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
88%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+7.2%)
2y 6m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1104 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