Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/912,484

Enhanced Autonomous Uplink Timing Adjustment

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Oct 10, 2024
Examiner
AYAD, SALMA ABDELMONEM
Art Unit
2462
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
40 granted / 47 resolved
+27.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
70
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
63.2%
+23.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 47 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . 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 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. (12127145 B2) in view of Bergstrom et al. (US 20130201911 A1). The reference patent claims differ from the instant claims in that they do not explicitly disclose the time adjustment being based on an adjustment rate and a maximum amount of timing change. However, Bergstrom discloses “wherein the time adjustment is based on an adjustment rate and a maximum amount of timing change” (See [0083] The adjustment information, e.g. the at least one parameter, may be e.g. a maximum magnitude in an uplink timing change per increment, a minimum aggregate uplink timing adjustment rate, or a maximum aggregate uplink timing adjustment rate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 12127145 B2 with the teachings of Bergstrom, and the motivation to do so would have been to avoid sudden and relatively large changes in the transmit timing, thus ensuring that the network performance is not degraded (Bergstrom [0045]). Claims 12-20 are also rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20130201911 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20180020330 A1). Regarding claim 1, Bergstrom discloses “A method for wireless communication, comprising: receiving an indication of a high-speed configuration for a device” (See [0040] a method in a user equipment for adjusting a transmit timing of uplink transmissions to a network node in a telecommunications system. [0081] the user equipment may receive adjustment information from the network node. [0093] transmit timing adjustment may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules. [0110] The at least one application rule may also be provided by the network node, e.g. in the receiving of adjustment information from the network node. [0101] The application rules depend on one or more factors. [0107] For example, a user speed such as a user equipment speed above a predetermined threshold. [0130] The network node may also indicate the condition under which the user equipment should apply the pre-defined rules. For example, the network node may indicate that the user equipment should apply the rules only if its speed is above a particular threshold. Note: Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that are applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration information associated with high-speed operation, and thus correspond to a high-speed configuration); “determining a time adjustment to an uplink timing for the device based at least in part on the indication of the high-speed configuration for the device” (See [0093] transmit timing adjustment, may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules, [0095] More specifically, the pre-defined rules governing the adjustments of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions, i.e., the uplink timing adjustments, made by the user equipment), “wherein the time adjustment is based on an adjustment rate and a maximum amount of timing change” (See [0083] The adjustment information, the at least one parameter, may be e.g. a maximum magnitude in an uplink timing change per increment, a minimum aggregate uplink timing adjustment rate, or a maximum aggregate uplink timing adjustment rate); “and transmitting an uplink transmission by the device based at least in part on the determined time adjustment to the uplink timing” (See [0123] the network node determines adjustment information for an incremental adjustment of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions for the serving cells in the group of serving cells. [0142] the user equipment 121 transmits an uplink signal on a serving cell A and a serving cell B. Note: The UE transmits uplink transmission to the serving cells based on the adjustment). Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that are applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration information associated with high-speed scenario, and thus correspond to a high-speed configuration, but does not explicitly disclose an indication that the UE is in a high-speed scenario. However, Li discloses “receiving an indication of a high-speed configuration for a device” (See [0025] obtaining by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that the UE is in the high-speed moving state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme, thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios. Regarding claim 2, Bergstrom in view of Li discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the indication of the high-speed configuration for the device comprises determining that the device is traveling above a predetermined velocity” (See Bergstrom [0101] The application rules depend on one or more factors. [0107] For example, a user speed such as a user equipment speed above a predetermined threshold. See Li [0030] estimating by the base station, a moving speed of the UE before the sending, to the UE, notification information that the UE is in the high-speed moving state; and performing, when the moving speed is greater than a speed threshold, the step of sending, to the UE, notification information that the UE is in a high-speed moving state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme, thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios. Regarding claim 4, Bergstrom in view of Li discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the indication of the high-speed configuration from an access node, AN” (See Bergstrom [0081] the user equipment may receive adjustment information from the network node. See Li [0025] obtaining by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that the UE is in the high-speed moving state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme, thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios. Regarding claim 7, Bergstrom in view of Li discloses “The method of claim 4, wherein the indication from the AN is transmitted to the device by radio resource control, RRC, signaling or medium access control, MAC, signaling” (See Li [0026] obtaining, by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that the UE is in the high-speed moving state is obtaining, by the UE, an RRC connection reconfiguration message from the base station, where a first indicator bit in the RRC connection reconfiguration message is used to indicate that the UE is in the high-speed moving state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom with the teachings of Li, to transmit the high-speed configuration vie RRC signaling, and the motivation to do so would have been to reduce signaling overhead. Regarding claim 9, Bergstrom in view of Li discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the time adjustment is within a maximum amount of a magnitude of a single autonomous time adjustment to the uplink timing by the device” (See Bergstrom [0095], [0096] the uplink timing adjustments made by the user equipment may comprise a maximum amount of the magnitude of the uplink timing change in one adjustment step). Regarding claim 12, Bergstrom discloses “A device for wireless communication, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising” (See Fig. 13): “receiving an indication of a high-speed configuration for a device” (See [0040] a method in a user equipment for adjusting a transmit timing of uplink transmissions to a network node in a telecommunications system. [0081] the user equipment may receive adjustment information from the network node. [0093] transmit timing adjustment may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules. [0110] The at least one application rule may also be provided by the network node, e.g. in the receiving of adjustment information from the network node. [0101] The application rules depend on one or more factors. [0107] For example, a user speed such as a user equipment speed above a predetermined threshold. [0130] The network node may also indicate the condition under which the user equipment should apply the pre-defined rules. For example, the network node may indicate that the user equipment should apply the rules only if its speed is above a particular threshold. Note: Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that are applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration information associated with high-speed operation, and thus correspond to a high-speed configuration); “determining a time adjustment to an uplink timing for the device based at least in part on the indication of the high-speed configuration for the device” (See [0093] transmit timing adjustment, may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules, [0095] More specifically, the pre-defined rules governing the adjustments of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions, i.e., the uplink timing adjustments, made by the user equipment), “wherein the time adjustment is based on an adjustment rate and a maximum amount of timing change” (See [0083] The adjustment information, the at least one parameter, may be e.g. a maximum magnitude in an uplink timing change per increment, a minimum aggregate uplink timing adjustment rate, or a maximum aggregate uplink timing adjustment rate); “and transmitting an uplink transmission by the device based at least in part on the determined time adjustment to the uplink timing” (See [0123] the network node determines adjustment information for an incremental adjustment of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions for the serving cells in the group of serving cells. [0142] the user equipment 121 transmits an uplink signal on a serving cell A and a serving cell B. Note: The UE transmits uplink transmission to the serving cells based on the adjustment). Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that are applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration information associated with high-speed scenario, and thus correspond to a high-speed configuration, but does not explicitly disclose an indication that the UE is in a high-speed scenario. However, Li discloses “receiving an indication of a high-speed configuration for a device” (See [0025] obtaining by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that the UE is in the high-speed moving state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme, thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios. Regarding claim 13, Bergstrom in view of Li discloses “The device of claim 12, wherein receiving the indication of the high-speed configuration for the device comprises determining that the device is traveling above a predetermined velocity” (See Bergstrom [0101] The application rules depend on one or more factors. [0107] For example, a user speed such as a user equipment speed above a predetermined threshold. See Li [0030] estimating by the base station, a moving speed of the UE before the sending, to the UE, notification information that the UE is in the high-speed moving state; and performing, when the moving speed is greater than a speed threshold, the step of sending, to the UE, notification information that the UE is in a high-speed moving state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme, thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios. Regarding claim 14, Bergstrom in view of Li discloses “The device of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform operations comprising receiving the indication of the high-speed configuration from an access node, AN” (See Bergstrom [0081] the user equipment may receive adjustment information from the network node. See Li [0025] obtaining by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that the UE is in the high-speed moving state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme, thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios. Regarding claim 18, Bergstrom discloses “An access node, AN, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising” (See Fig. 12): “transmitting, to a device, an indication of a high-speed configuration for the device, wherein the indication causes the device to determine a time adjustment to an uplink timing” (See [0040] a method in a user equipment for adjusting a transmit timing of uplink transmissions to a network node in a telecommunications system. [0081] the user equipment may receive adjustment information from the network node. [0093] transmit timing adjustment may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules. [0110] The at least one application rule may also be provided by the network node, e.g. in the receiving of adjustment information from the network node. [0101] The application rules depend on one or more factors. [0107] For example, a user speed such as a user equipment speed above a predetermined threshold. [0130] The network node may also indicate the condition under which the user equipment should apply the pre-defined rules. For example, the network node may indicate that the user equipment should apply the rules only if its speed is above a particular threshold. Note: Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that are applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration information associated with high-speed operation, and thus correspond to a high-speed configuration), “the time adjustment for the device based at least in part on the indication of the high-speed configuration for the device” (See [0093] transmit timing adjustment, may be based on pre-defined rules or application rules, [0095] More specifically, the pre-defined rules governing the adjustments of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions, i.e., the uplink timing adjustments, made by the user equipment), “and the time adjustment is based on an adjustment rate and a maximum amount of timing change” (See [0083] The adjustment information, the at least one parameter, may be e.g. a maximum magnitude in an uplink timing change per increment, a minimum aggregate uplink timing adjustment rate, or a maximum aggregate uplink timing adjustment rate); “and receiving an uplink transmission from the device, wherein the uplink transmission is transmitted based on the uplink timing” (See [0123] the network node determines adjustment information for an incremental adjustment of the transmit timing of uplink transmissions for the serving cells in the group of serving cells. [0142] the user equipment 121 transmits an uplink signal on a serving cell A and a serving cell B. Note: The UE transmits uplink transmission to the serving cells based on the adjustment). Bergstrom discloses receiving adjustment information including application rules that are applied when the UE speed exceeds a threshold. Such rules constitute configuration information associated with high-speed scenario, and thus correspond to a high-speed configuration, but does not explicitly disclose an indication that the UE is in a high-speed scenario. However, Li discloses “receiving an indication of a high-speed configuration for a device” (See [0025] obtaining by the UE from a base station, notification information indicating that the UE is in the high-speed moving state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom of adjusting uplink timing based on rules depending on factors including UE speed being above a threshold, with Li’s explicit indication to the UE that it is in a high-speed moving state, and the motivation to do so would have been to apply a known signaling technique (explicit high-speed indication) to an existing mobility-dependent timing adjustment scheme, thereby improving uplink timing accuracy and stability for high-mobility scenarios. Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 2013/0201911 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20180020330 A1) and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0086219 A1). Regarding claim 3, Bergstrom in view of Li discloses “The method of claim 2” but does not explicitly disclose a sensor being coupled to the device. However, Suzuki discloses “wherein the determination that the device is traveling above the predetermined velocity is based on data from one or more sensors coupled to the device” (See [0126] More and more UEs are equipped with geo- positioning capability and/or inertia sensor or accelerometer. By utilizing such capability and sensors, the UE may estimate speed or a range of speed and inform the eNB its speed through uplink signal transmissions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom and Li with the teachings of Suzuki by equipping the UE/device with a sensor or coupling the device with a sensor, and the motivation to do so would have been to ensure improved accuracy and precision in determining that the device is traveling above a predetermined velocity. Regarding claim 8, Bergstrom in view of Li discloses “The method of claim 4”, but does not explicitly disclose that the indication is based on uplink transmissions. However, Suzuki discloses “wherein the indication from the AN is transmitted to the device in response to determining that the device is traveling above a predetermined velocity based on one or more uplink transmissions from the device” (See [0126] the UE may estimate speed or a range of speed and inform the eNB its speed through uplink signal transmissions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bergstrom and Li with the teachings of Suzuki by equipping the UE/device with a sensor or coupling the device with a sensor, and the motivation to do so would have been to ensure improved accuracy and precision in determining that the device is traveling above a predetermined velocity. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 2013/0201911 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20180020330 A1) and further in view of Siomina et al. (US 2021/0120513 A1). Regarding claims 5 and 15, Bergstrom in view of Li discloses claim 5 of “The method of claim 4”, and claim 15 of “The device of claim 14”, but does not explicitly disclose the indication comprising a “highSpeedEnhancedMeasFlag”. However, Siomina discloses “wherein the high-speed configuration received from the access node comprises a highSpeedEnhancedMeasFlag” (See [0171] indicates that the wireless device WD receives a high-speed indicator, e.g. highSpeedEnhancedMeasFlag). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been motivated to modify the teachings of Bergstrom and Li with the teachings of Siomina where the indication from the AN comprises a high-speed enhanced measurement flag, and the motivation to do so would have been to make the wireless communication system adaptive and responsive to the diverse requirements of different scenarios and user behaviors as well as optimizing the network performance. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 2013/0201911 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20180020330 A1) and further in view of (3GPP TS 36.133 V16.0.0) hereinafter D2. Regarding claim 6, Bergstrom in view of Li discloses “The method of claim 4”, but does not disclose that the indication comprises a “SCCmeasurementEnhamcements-r16 flag”. However, D2 discloses “wherein the high-speed configuration received from the access node comprises a SCCmeasurementEnhancements-r16 flag” (See 8.3.3.1, When highSpeedEnhancedMeasFlag is configured, the enhanced measurement requirements apply only to measurements of the primary component carrier, see 8.3.3.2, defines the measurement requirement of a secondary component carrier (SCC) with deactivated SCell based on the parameter measCycleSchell defined in TS 36.331 [2]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been motivated to modify the teachings of Bergstrom and Li with the teachings of D2 where the indication from the AN comprises a high-speed enhanced measurement flag, and the motivation to do so would have been to make the wireless communication system adaptive and responsive to the diverse requirements of different scenarios and user behaviors as well as optimizing the network performance. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-11, 16-17 and 19-20 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALMA A AYAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 to 5:30. 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 5712723927. 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. /SALMA AYAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2462 /YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603827
ASYMMETRIC ROUTING RESOLUTIONS IN MULTI-REGIONAL LARGE SCALE DEPLOYMENTS WITH DISTRIBUTED GATEWAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588046
DUAL CONNECTION ON BROADBAND MODEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12550136
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INDICATING NUMBER OF REPETITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12549288
HYBRID AUTOMATIC REPEAT REQUEST INFORMATION FEEDBACK METHOD AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12526025
TWO STEP REPORTING PROCEDURE FOR DEMODULATION REFERENCE SIGNAL CONFIGURATION ADJUSTMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
85%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+10.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 47 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