Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/927,585

PASSIVE BEAMFORMING FOR WI-FI

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Oct 25, 2024
Examiner
JOSEPH, JAISON
Art Unit
2633
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
538 granted / 652 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
669
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 652 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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, 4 – 6, 10 – 12, are 15 – 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 – 12 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,559. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4 – 6, 10 – 12, are 15 – 19 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims 1 – 12 and 28 of the patent by eliminating the elements and their functions of claims 1 – 12 and 28 of the patent. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to realize that the both invention to provide an apparatus for wireless communications at a first wireless device, comprising: one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: communicate, with a second wireless device via a second bandwidth while operating in an inactive session state for the second bandwidth and while operating in an active session state with the second wireless device for a first bandwidth, a plurality of beacons corresponding to a plurality of transmission sectors of the second wireless device for the second bandwidth; and communicate, with the second wireless device, information indicating a selected transmission sector for the second bandwidth based at least in part on communication of the plurality of beacons. Furthermore, because omission element(s) in the claim would make the claim in the instant application broader, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the claim in the instant application is merely an obvious variation of the claim in the patent. It is well settled that omission of an element and it function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 163 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1969). In light of the foregoing discussion, the broad claim of the instant application is rejected as obvious double patenting over the narrower patent claim. Instant Application Patent 12,132,559 Claim 1: An apparatus for wireless communications at a first wireless device, comprising: one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: communicate, with a second wireless device via a second bandwidth while operating in an inactive session state for the second bandwidth and while operating in an active session state with the second wireless device for a first bandwidth, a plurality of beacons corresponding to a plurality of transmission sectors of the second wireless device for the second bandwidth; and communicate, with the second wireless device, information indicating a selected transmission sector for the second bandwidth based at least in part on communication of the plurality of beacons. Claim 1: An apparatus for wireless communications at a first wireless device, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: communicate, with a second wireless device, one or more messages via a first session established between the first wireless device and the second wireless device via a first bandwidth, the first wireless device being in an inactive session state for a second bandwidth on which communication is supported by the second wireless device; receive, from the second wireless device via the second bandwidth while operating in the inactive session state, a plurality of beacons corresponding to a plurality of transmission sectors of the second wireless device for the second bandwidth; and transmit, to the second wireless device, information indicating a selected transmission sector for the second bandwidth based at least in part on measurement information of the plurality of beacons. Claim 4: The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: receive a message from the second wireless device via the second bandwidth via the selected transmission sector. Claim 2: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive a message from the second wireless device via the second bandwidth via the selected transmission sector Claim 5: The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: determine a selected receive sector for the first wireless device for the second bandwidth from a plurality of receive sectors based at least in part on the plurality of beacons; and receive a message from the second wireless device via the second bandwidth using the selected receive sector. Claim 3: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine a selected receive sector for the first wireless device for the second bandwidth from a plurality of receive sectors based at least in part on the plurality of beacons; and receive a message from the second wireless device via the second bandwidth using the selected receive sector. Claim 6: The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: transmit a second message to the second wireless device via the second bandwidth using a transmission sector for the first wireless device that corresponds to the selected receive sector. Claim 4: The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a second message to the second wireless device via the second bandwidth using a transmission sector for the first wireless device that corresponds to the selected receive sector. Claim 10: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions to communicate the information are executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: communicate the information via the second bandwidth. Claim 5: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions to transmit the information are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit the information via the second bandwidth. Claim 11: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions to communicate the information are executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: communicate the information via the first bandwidth. Claim 6: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions to transmit the information are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit the information via the first bandwidth. Claim 12: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein each beacon of the plurality of beacons includes a respective marker identifying a corresponding transmission sector. Claim 7: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein each beacon of the plurality of beacons includes a respective marker identifying a corresponding transmission sector. Claim 15: The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the first wireless device comprises an access point. Claim 12: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second wireless device comprises an access point. Claim 16: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: communicate, with the second wireless device, scheduling information for the plurality of beacons, wherein communication of the plurality of beacons is based at least in part on the scheduling information. Claim 8: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the second wireless device, scheduling information for the plurality of beacons, wherein reception of the plurality of beacons is based at least in part on the scheduling information. Claim 17: The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the scheduling information indicates a refrain from data communications for the first wireless device on the first bandwidth during a time period corresponding to the plurality of beacons. Claim 9: The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the scheduling information indicates a refrain from data communications for the first wireless device on the first bandwidth during a time period corresponding to the plurality of beacons. Claim 18: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first bandwidth comprises a sub-6 GHz bandwidth; and the second bandwidth comprises a 60 GHz bandwidth. Claim 10: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first bandwidth comprises a sub-6 GHz bandwidth. Claim 11: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second bandwidth comprises a 60 GHz bandwidth. Claim 19: A method for wireless communications at a first wireless device, comprising: communicating, with a second wireless device via a second bandwidth while operating in an inactive session state for the second bandwidth and while operating in an active session state with the second wireless device for a first bandwidth, a plurality of beacons corresponding to a plurality of transmission sectors of the second wireless device for the second bandwidth; and communicating, with the second wireless device, information indicating a selected transmission sector for the second bandwidth based at least in part on communication of the plurality of beacons. Claim 28: A method for wireless communications at a first wireless device, comprising: communicating, with a second wireless device, one or more messages via a first session established between the first wireless device and the second wireless device via a first bandwidth, the first wireless device being in an inactive session state for a second bandwidth on which communication is supported by the second wireless device; receiving, from the second wireless device via the second bandwidth while operating in the inactive session state, a plurality of beacons corresponding to a plurality of transmission sectors of the second wireless device for the second bandwidth; and transmitting, to the second wireless device, information indicating a selected transmission sector for the second bandwidth based at least in part on measurement information of the plurality of beacons Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 is allowable over prior art of record. Claims 2, 3, 7 – 9, 13, and 14 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 JAISON JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)272-6041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4. 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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571 272 3044. 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. JAISON . JOSEPH Primary Examiner Art Unit 2633 /JAISON JOSEPH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 25, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603657
REDUCING NON-LINEARITY IN A DIGITAL-TO-TIME CONVERTER (DTC) DUE TO UNEQUAL SUCCESSIVE INPUT CODES SPECIFYING RESPECTIVE DELAYS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592814
MAINTAINING A VIRTUAL TIME OF DAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12580624
DYNAMIC SPLIT COMPUTING FOR BEAMFORMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580720
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO REDUCE RETIMER LATENCY AND JITTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580617
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EFFICIENT TIME MULTIPLEXED DIGITAL BEAMFORMING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
82%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+12.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 652 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