Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/837,775

USER EQUIPMENT RECEPTION BEAM REFINEMENT BASED ON MEASUREMENT OF SECOND USER EQUIPMENT

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 12, 2024
Priority
Feb 17, 2022 — provisional 63/311,250 +1 more
Examiner
ACOLATSE, KODZOVI
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Nokia Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
777 granted / 929 resolved
+23.6% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
985
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
85.1%
+45.1% vs TC avg
§102
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§112
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 929 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . This is responsive to Application 18/837,775 filed 08/12/2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 5-9, 13, 14 and 16-19 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hammarwall et al (US 2015/0236,772 A1). Regarding claim 1, Hammarwall teaches an apparatus (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; UE 415), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program instructions, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive a downlink configuration for a beam selection procedure (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0045], UE receives a configuration from a network about selection a beam for recommendation); receive an indication to use a signal in the beam selection procedure, wherein the signal is targeted at a user equipment other than the apparatus, wherein the apparatus and the user equipment are served by a same beam or by similar beams (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0038], [0044]-[0045], UE 415 receives energy from network node 400 that is serving UE 405/another UE; UE 405 and UE 415 receive the same beam B as shown in Fig. 4); receive the signal, wherein the signal is transmitted on a beam corresponding to the same beam or one of the similar beams; and perform the beam selection procedure based on measurements of the signal (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0044]-[0045], UE 415 performs interference measurement of beam B and report a beam for recommendation). Regarding claim 2, Hammarwall teaches wherein the indication is received with the downlink configuration or wherein the indication is received after the downlink configuration (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0044]-[0045], UE 415 receives instruction from the network node to make a beam recommendation). Regarding claim 4, Hammarwall teaches wherein the downlink configuration comprises at least one of: a physical downlink shared channel configuration (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0044]-[0045], [0062], UE 415 measures energy od data transmitted to UE 405); parameters of a specific ongoing semi-persistent scheduling transmission on a serving beam; or parameters of a shared configuration. Regarding claim 10, Hammarwall teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are further configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: report a success status of the beam selection procedure to the network after using the signal (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0044]-[0045] UE report beam recommendation to the network node). Regarding claim 11, Hammarwall teaches an apparatus (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; network node 400), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program instructions, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: determine a user equipment to perform a beam selection procedure, wherein the beam selection procedure is to be performed using a signal targeted at another user equipment, wherein the user equipment and the another user equipment are served by a same beam or by similar beams (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0038], [0044]-[0045], UE 415 receives energy from network node 400 that is serving UE 405/another UE; UE 405 and UE 415 receive the same beam B as shown in Fig. 4); send a downlink configuration for the beam selection procedure to the user equipment (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0045], UE receives a configuration from a network about selection a beam for recommendation); send an indication to the user equipment to use the signal to perform the beam selection procedure; and send the signal using a beam corresponds to the same beam or one of the similar beams (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0044]-[0045], UE 415 performs interference measurement of beam B and report a beam for recommendation based on indication from the network node). Regarding claim 12, Hammarwall teaches wherein the indication is sent with the downlink configuration or wherein the indication is sent after the downlink configuration (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0044]-[0045], UE 415 receives instruction from the network node to make a beam recommendation). Regarding claim 15, Hammarwall teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: receive reports of beams that are received through a similar path to a serving beam, wherein the determining that the user equipment is to perform the beam selection procedure is based on the reports (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0044]-[0045]). Regarding claim 20, Hammarwall teaches A method, comprising: receiving, at a user equipment, a downlink configuration for a beam selection procedure (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0045], UE receives a configuration from a network about selection a beam for recommendation); receiving, at the user equipment, an indication to use a signal in the beam selection procedure, wherein the signal is targeted at another user equipment, wherein the user equipment and the another user equipment are served by a same beam or by similar beams (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0038], [0044]-[0045], UE 415 receives energy from network node 400 that is serving UE 405/another UE; UE 405 and UE 415 receive the same beam B as shown in Fig. 4); receiving the signal by the user equipment, wherein the signal is transmitted on a beam corresponding to the same beam or one of the similar beams; and performing, by the user equipment, the beam selection procedure based on measurements of the signal (Hammarwall: Fig. 4; [0044]-[0045], UE 415 performs interference measurement of beam B and report a beam for recommendation). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KODZOVI ACOLATSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10 am to 6pm. 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, Avellino Joseph 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. /KODZOVI ACOLATSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12684535
SHARED RESOURCE POOLS BETWEEN TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION POINTS WITH USER EQUIPMENT ASSISTANCE
3y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12677186
REALLOCATION OF PROCESSING LOAD BETWEEN BASEBAND UNITS
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12677268
METHODS FOR INSERTING AND EXTRACTING OPERATIONS, ADMINISTRATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF TRANSMITTING END, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM
3y 4m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12672135
CONFIGURATION INFORMATION SENDING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND REDUNDANCY VERSION RV VALUE DETERMINING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12652705
RANDOM ACCESS METHOD AND APPARATUS IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 4m to grant Granted Jun 09, 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
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.4%)
2y 6m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 929 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