Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/859,250

USER EQUIPMENT (UE)

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Oct 23, 2024
Priority
Apr 26, 2022 — JP 2022-072383 +1 more
Examiner
TOKUTA, SHEAN S
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Sharp Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
413 granted / 518 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
544
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.9%
-32.1% vs TC avg
§103
59.5%
+19.5% vs TC avg
§102
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§112
13.5%
-26.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 518 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to the pending claims, 4-5, received 23 October 2024. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 4-5 is as follows: 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controlling circuitry is configured to store….controlling circuitry configured is to determine” in claim 4. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tiwari et al (US 20250039820 A1, hereafter referred to as Tiwari). Regarding claim 4, Tiwari teaches a User Equipment (UE) comprising: transmission and reception circuitry (Tiwari [Fig 7-31]); controlling circuitry (Tiwari [Fig 7-33]); and storage circuitry (Tiwari [Fig 7-36]), wherein the transmission and reception circuitry is configured to: transmit, to a core network, a registration request message including information indicating that the UE supports time-related information associated with Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (Tiwari [0250] teaches the UE sends a registration request message to the AMF including limited slice support indicator indicating the UE supports S-NSSAI with a deployment area and validity time attribution [0285]); and receive, from the core network, a registration accept message including a configured Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) and time-related information associated with an S-NSSAI (Tiwari [0275] teaches the AMF sends the S-NSSAI along with deployment area and validity time in the configured NSSAI in a accept message if the UE indicated the support indicator in the registration message), the controlling circuitry is configured to store, in the storage circuitry, the configured NSSAI (Tiwari [0291] storing the configured NSSAI) in association with the time-related information associated with the S-NSSAI and a Public land mobile network (PLMN) (Tiwari [0296 and 0298] teaches storing the S-NSSAI in the configured NSSAI along with deployment and validity time or validity time alone), the controlling circuitry is configured to determine to transmit a registration request message including a requested NSSAI including an S-NSSAI, based on the time-related information associated with the S-NSSAI (Tiwari [0305]), the time-related information associated with the S-NSSAI includes information indicating a period of time when one or more S-NS SAI (s) is available (Tiwari [0242]). Regarding claim 5, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 5. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Abe et al (WO 2024028992 A1); Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430. 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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. SHEAN TOKUTA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2446 /SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 23, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12744622
MSG3 REPETITION INDICATION VIA RANDOM ACCESS RESPONSE
4y 7m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12745272
ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR PERFORMING NETWORK REGISTRATION PROCEDURE AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12739839
CROSS SLOT SCHEDULING METHOD AND DEVICE IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
4y 5m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12725102
ATTACHMENT AND DETACHMENT OF COMPUTE INSTANCES OWNED BY DIFFERENT TENANCIES
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12719748
ENHANCING PERFORMANCE IN NETWORK-BASED SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 25, 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
80%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.2%)
2y 8m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 518 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