Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/895,492

DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Sep 25, 2024
Priority
Aug 15, 2019 — continuation of PCTCN2019100878 +1 more
Examiner
DIVITO, WALTER J
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Fujitsu Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
460 granted / 547 resolved
+24.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
561
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
54.5%
+14.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 547 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 . Initial Examination Applicant's submission filed on 09/25/24 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are pending. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains a blank line. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: its preamble should [likely] read “The terminal equipment according to claim 1, …” Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: its preamble should [likely] read “The network device according to claim 9, …” Please verify and correct where appropriate. 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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over their respective claims of U.S. Patent No. 12136999. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are merely reworded versions of the ‘999 claims. For instance, instant claim 1’s terminal equipment is equivalent to ‘999 claim 1’s data transmission apparatus, the instant claim’s CG configuration is equivalent to the ‘999 claim’s configuration grant, and the instant claim’s control of timers is equivalent to the ‘999 claim’s starting/stopping of those timers. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-13 are allowable (pending resolution of the above Objections and DP Rejections). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited references fail to anticipate or render the claimed subject matter (combined with other limitations claimed in the claimed subject matter) obvious over any of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination. Therefore, when taken as a whole application, and incorporating all the respective limitations, none of the prior art discloses the features as claimed. For instance, Shi (US 20220116988 A1) generally discloses CG resources, HARQ processes, timers, and LBT operations. Also, Qualcomm (“Remaining Aspects of Configured Grant Transmission for NR-U”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Mtg. #106, R2-1906414, cited by Applicant of Record) and MediaTek (“Configured grant retransmission timer”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2, Mtg. #106, R2-1907056, cited by Applicant of Record) generally disclose CG resources for performing HARQ retransmission, including the use of timers. However, the references do not specifically disclose “A terminal equipment comprising: a receiver configured to receive Configured Grant Configuration information which includes information used for setting a process identifier of a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process; a transmitter configured to transmit retransmission data of the HARQ process or new data of the HARQ process according to Configured Grant Configuration information; and processor circuitry configured to: control, when a first timer is running and a second timer is not running, control to transmit the retransmission data, control, when the first timer is not running, to transmit the new data, control to start the second timer if LBT (Listen before Talk) is not failed for transmission of the retransmission data, and control to start the first timer and the second timer if LBT is not failed for transmission of the new data.” Consequently, the claims are allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST). 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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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. /WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 25, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12750695
METHOD FOR DETERMINING NETWORK PARAMETER AND METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONFIGURING WIRELESS NETWORK
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745247
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MONITORING PHYSICAL DOWNLINK CONTROL CHANNEL, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12739679
TECHNIQUES FOR REPORTING SEPARATE CROSS-LINK INTERFERENCE METRICS
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12739021
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR UPLINK TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12720596
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR PROTECTION OF MULTI-USER (MU) TRANSMISSIONS
3y 1m 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
84%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 9m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 547 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