Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/811,907

Method for Activator-Tag Post-Transmission Orthogonalization

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 22, 2024
Examiner
BROWN, VERNAL U
Art Unit
2686
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Nokia Technologies Oy
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
817 granted / 1173 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1222
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.7%
+12.7% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1173 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has extra characters at the bottom of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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. Claim(s) 1-2,9-10,13-14,16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers et al. US Patent Application Publication 20090303006 in view of Wu et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190036559. Regarding claims 1-2, Eggers teaches a method comprising: receiving, with a first apparatus (interrogator), at least one reference signal from a second apparatus in connection with a session of a third apparatus (the interrogator receive information signal from the application processor 101 and format message 200a to the tag(s), paragraph 022); receiving at least one activation signal (interrogator receive a command from application processor 101 for activating the interrogator, paragraph 022) and a reply signal, wherein the at least one activation signal is received from the second apparatus, wherein the reply signal is received from the third apparatus (reply signal receive from tag (paragraph 023). Eggers is silent on teaching determining a combiner, wherein the determined combiner is configured for reading the third apparatus and applying the determined combiner to the at least one activation signal and the reply signal. Wu et al. in an analogous art teaches determining a combiner, wherein the determined combiner is configured for reading the third apparatus and applying the determined combiner to the at least one activation signal and the reply signal (paragraph 0107) in order to remove interference from the transmitted and received signal. Wu et al. teaches determining one or more first conditions of a channel towards the second apparatus, wherein the combiner is determined based, at least partially, on the one or more first conditions (channel estimation module is used to determine channel conditions, paragraph 0107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Eggers as disclosed by Wu et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Eggers by reducing the effect of interference and provide for a more reliable communication system. Regarding claim 9,14,16, Eggers teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor (200); and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor (paragraph 039), cause the apparatus at least to: receive at least one reference signal from a second apparatus in connection with a session of a third apparatus (the interrogator receive information signal from the application processor 101 and format message 200a to the tag(s), paragraph 022); receive at least one activation signal and a reply signal, wherein the at least one activation signal is received from the second apparatus (interrogator receive a command from application processor 101 for activating the interrogator, paragraph 022), wherein the reply signal is received from the third apparatus (reply signal receive from tag paragraph 023). Eggers is silent on teaching determining a combiner, wherein the determined combiner is configured for reading the third apparatus and applying the determined combiner to the at least one activation signal and the reply signal. Wu et al. in an analogous art teaches determining a combiner, wherein the determined combiner is configured for reading the third apparatus and applying the determined combiner to the at least one activation signal and the reply signal (paragraph 0107) in order to remove interference from the transmitted and received signal. Wu et al. teaches determining one or more first conditions of a channel towards the second apparatus, wherein the combiner is determined based, at least partially, on the one or more first conditions (channel estimation module is used to determine channel conditions, paragraph 0107). Wu et al. teaches the one or more first conditions comprises at least one of: a channel response of the channel towards the second apparatus at a time at which the at least one reference signal is received (paragraph 036,080). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Eggers as disclosed by Wu et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Eggers by reducing the effect of interference and provide for a more reliable communication system. Regarding claim 10, Eggers teaches the apparatus comprises a reader (103,104,paragraph 022). Regarding claim 13, Eggers is silent on teaching combiner is configured to at least one of: minimize a contribution of at least one activation signal in a channel towards the second apparatus, or isolate the at least one activation signal in the channel towards the second apparatus. Wu et al. in an analogous art teaches the combiner is configured to at least one of: minimize a contribution of at least one activation signal in a channel towards the second apparatus, or isolate the at least one activation signal in the channel towards the second apparatus (the interference signal replica is extracted, from the reference signal, paragraph 107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Eggers as disclosed by Wu et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Eggers by reducing the effect of interference and provide for a more reliable communication system. Regarding claim 17, Eggers teaches determine a time at which the at least one activation signal and the reply signal are received based, at least partially, on the one or more first conditions (Application processor transmit command to the interrogator, the antenna received signal from the tag, paragraph 023,026). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-8,19-24 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. Regarding claims 3-5, the prior art of record is silent on teaching determining of the combiner comprises: determining one or more second conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at a time at which the at least one activation signal and the reply signal are received based, at least partially, on the one or more first conditions and a reconstruction function; and determining the combiner based, at least partially, on the one or more second conditions. Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record is silent on teaching determining one or more second conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at one or more times earlier than or equal to a time at which the at least one reference signal is received; estimating one or more third conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at a time at which the at least one activation signal and the reply signal are received, using an autoregressive model, based, at least partially, on the one or more first conditions and the one or more second conditions and determining the combiner based, at least partially, on the one or more estimated third conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus. Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record is silent on teaching determining one or more second conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at one or more times earlier than a time at which the at least one activation signal and the reply signal are received; estimating one or more third conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at the time at which the at least one activation signal and the reply signal are received based, at least partially, on the one or more second conditions; and determining the combiner based, at least partially, on the one or more third conditions, wherein the determined combiner is configured to maximize a quality of a reception of the reply signal. Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record is silent on teaching determining a first combiner for a time at which the at least one reference signal is received; estimating a difference between the one or more first conditions and one or more second conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at a time at which the at least one activation signal and the reply signal are received based, at least partially, on partial channel information; and adjusting the first combiner based, at least partially, on the estimated difference, wherein the determined combiner comprises the adjusted combiner. Regarding claims 19-21, the prior art of record is silent on teaching determining the combiner comprises the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine one or more second conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at a time at which the at least one activation signal and the reply signal are received based, at least partially, on the one or more first conditions and a reconstruction function; and determine the combiner based, at least partially, on the one or more second conditions. Regarding claim 22, the prior art of record is silent on teaching determine one or more second conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at one or more times earlier than or equal to a time at which the at least one reference signal is received; estimate one or more third conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at a time at which the at least one activation signal and the reply signal are received, using an autoregressive model, based, at least partially, on the one or more first conditions and the one or more second conditions; and determine the combiner based, at least partially, on the one or more estimated third conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus. Regarding claim 23, the prior art of record is silent on teaching determine a first combiner for a time at which the at least one reference signal is received; estimate a difference between the one or more first conditions and one or more second conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at a time at which the at least one activation signal and the reply signal are received based, at least partially, on partial channel information. Regarding claim 24, the prior art of record is silent on teaching estimate a difference between the one or more first conditions and one or more second conditions of the channel towards the second apparatus at a time at which the at least one activation signal and the reply signal are received based, at least partially, on partial channel information; and adjust the first combiner based, at least partially, on the estimated difference, wherein the determined combiner comprises the adjusted combiner. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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. /VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 22, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604195
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DUAL LAYER AUDIO DEVICE PAIRING AUTHENTICATION WITH VOICE PATTERN RECOGNITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585899
AUTOMATED SECURE ALLOCATION OF SCANNING DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566833
CRITICAL AREA SAFETY DEVICE AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12555424
DATACENTER DETECTION AND AUTHENTICATION TECHNIQUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12540491
ELECTRONIC LOCK SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
70%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+10.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1173 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