Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 18/851,919

NETWORK NODE AND METHOD IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Sep 27, 2024
Priority
Apr 04, 2022 — nonprovisional of PCTEP2022058873
Examiner
EBRAHIM, ANEZ C
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
642 granted / 776 resolved
+22.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
809
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 776 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
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 1. This communication is response to the application filed 0/927/2025 havingclaims 1-18 pending and presented for examination. Priority 2. Application filed on 09/27/2024 is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/058873 04/04/2022 are acknowledged. Drawings 3. The drawings were received on 09/27/2024 and these drawings are accepted. 4. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Oath/Declaration 4. The Oath/Declaration filed on 09/27/2024 is accepted by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 1 recites “determining a required number of first RAT subframes for the upcoming radio communications in a next time period, and a required number of second RAT subframes for the upcoming radio communications in a next time period”, also further recites in multiple depended claims “the next time period”. It is unclear which next time period is referring to. Similar argument applies to other independent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 recites "(Currently Amended) A computer program comprising instructions, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform actions comprising:", is claiming a computer program comprising instructions, computer programs is software, software per se is not patentable. 14. Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because: claim 11 is drawn to a machine (i.e., network node), doesn’t recite any concrete parts such as memory, controller, processor etc. As defined in MPEP 2104 section I, one of the four categories of statutory subject matter is a machine, which is "a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650 (1863)". Therefore, claim 11-18 does not qualify as a "machine" and thus is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 12-18 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 11 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim should include one of concrete parts such memory, processor etc. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1-9, 11-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1, 9, 10 recites "determining a required number of first RAT subframes for an upcoming radio communications in a next time period, and a required number of second RAT subframes for the upcoming radio communications in a next time period, and based on the determined required number of first RAT subframes and required number of second RAT subframes, distributing subframes between the first RAT and the second RAT in a shared spectrum, wherein the number of first RAT subframes and the number of second RAT subframes are distributed such that there are sufficient first RAT subframes for a first UE to perform channel measurements for its upcoming radio communication”. Publication US 20210160792 B1 VENKATACHARI et al. also teaches similar concepts as recited in the claim 1 wherein it “determining a required number of first RAT subframes for an upcoming radio communications in a next time period, and a required number of second RAT subframes for the upcoming radio communications in a next time period”. VENKATACHARI doesn’t teach “determining a required number of first RAT subframes for an upcoming radio communications in a next time period, and a required number of second RAT subframes for the upcoming radio communications in a next time period, and based on the determined required number of first RAT subframes and required number of second RAT subframes, distributing subframes between the first RAT and the second RAT in a shared spectrum, wherein the number of first RAT subframes and the number of second RAT subframes are distributed such that there are sufficient first RAT subframes for a first UE to perform channel measurements for its upcoming radio communication”. Conclusion Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent US 8594021 B2; US Patent Publication US 20180083743 A1, US Patent Publication US 20200267742 A1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270- 7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 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 Art Unit: 2467 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. /ANEZ C EBRAHIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 27, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12707521
DATA TRANSMISSION IN AN INACTIVE STATE
3y 6m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12706649
INFORMATION FEEDBACK METHODS AND APPARATUSES, USER EQUIPMENT, BASE STATION, SYSTEM MODEL AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12696144
TRANSFERRING MONITORING EVENT INFORMATION DURING A MOBILITY PROCEDURE
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12684416
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OFFLOADING DEVICES IN A CELLULAR NETWORK
3y 3m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12684626
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SMALL DATA TRANSMISSION
3y 2m 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
83%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+7.9%)
2y 10m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 776 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