Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/941,531

Network Energy Saving for Bandwidth Part

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 08, 2024
Examiner
LEE, CHI HO A
Art Unit
2475
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Ofinno LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
1244 granted / 1353 resolved
+33.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1395
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1353 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-13,15 and 17-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 3-7,15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGIWAL et al PG PUB 2023/0025742 in view of LI et al PG PUB 2025/0063558 and MYUNG et al PG PUB 2025/0266946. Re Claims 1 and 15, AGIWAL et al teaches a UE (a wireless device comprising one memory and processor) receiving RRC message indicating SR configuration on a cell [0070 and triggering an SR for an uplink grant based on the SR configuration [0065 0071]. AGIWAL et al fails to explicitly teach “configuration parameter of a group common DCI indicating a network energy saving state of the cell” and “receiving the group common DCI indicating the network energy saving state; and based on the group …not running an SR prohibit timer for the SR during a time interval of the network energy saving state of the cell.”. However, LI et al teaches UE-group common control signal/DCI supporting network energy saving state within the cell [0198] and indicating operating parameters to facilitate network energy saving [0218] wherein the operating parameter (configuration parameters) [0233] can include PDCCH skipping mechanism for a duration of time (a time period) when the gNB decides to go into a sleep mode to facilitate the network energy saving [0399-0400]. By combining the teaching, the BS in AGIWAL et al may decide to go into the sleep mode a certain duration (time period) for energy saving at the network. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to conserve energy at the network. AGIWAL et al in view of YI et al fails to explicitly teach “not running an SR prohibit timer for the SR during a time interval of the network energy saving state of the cell”. However, MYUNG et al teaches SR prohibit timer may not be applied for the SR transmission when the BS operates in the power saving mode [0228]. By combining the teachings, when the UE in AGIWAL et al receives the group common DCI indicating the network energy saving state, in view of MYUNG et al, the SR prohibit timer in the UE can be stopped or not applied to converse power at the UE. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have stopped SR prohibit timer for the SR to conserve power at the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings. Re Claims 3 and 17, LI et al teaches that PDCCH skipping is not monitoring a PDCCH during the PDDCH skipping duration (the time interval) wherein the PDCCH not be monitoring can include SSBs [0400]. Re Claims 4 and 18, LI et al teaches after the PDCCH skipping duration (the time period), the UE monitoring the PDCCH. Re Claims 5 and 19, LI et al teaches the UE receiving the group common DCI indicating that the gNB has decided to go to sleep [0400], based on network energy saving state, the UE in AGIWAL et al would have cancels the SR for energy saving at the UE. Re Claims 6 and 20, MYUNG et al teaches the stopping the SR prohibit timer. Re Claim 7, LI et al teaches the PDCCH skipping duration is a non-active duration of the of the network energy saving state of the cell. Re Claims 21-23, AGIWAL teaches the DCI for PDCCH skipping for the UE which is different than, in view of YI et al, the group common DCI indicating the network energy saving state. Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABOTABL et al PG PUB 2023/0284135 in view of in view of LI et al PG PUB 2025/0063558 and MYUNG et al PG PUB 2025/0266946. Re Claim 8, ABOTABL et al teaches in figure 7, a UE 704 triggering a SR 712 for an uplink grant of radio resources of a cell [0104] while the SR is pending, the BS 702 determines to change the ES (network energy saving mode) 714. ABOTABL et al fails to explicitly teach “receiving the group common DCI indicating the network energy saving state; and during a time period stop monitoring a PDCCH of the cell and disable an SR prohibit timer for the SR.”. However, LI et al teaches UE-group common control signal/DCI supporting network energy saving state within the cell [0198] and indicating operating parameters to facilitate network energy saving [0218] wherein the operating parameter can include PDCCH skipping mechanism for a duration of time when the gNB decides to go into a sleep mode to facilitate the network energy saving [0399-0400]. By combining the teaching, the BS in ABOTABL et al may decide to go into the sleep mode and change the ES mode with the PDCCH skipping mechanism. In so doing, the UE would have stop monitoring a PDCCH of the cell and saving energy is achieved at the network. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to conserve energy at the network. ABOTABL et al in view of LI et al fails to explicitly teach “disable an SR prohibit timer for the SR. However, MYUNG et al teaches SR prohibit timer may not be applied for the SR transmission when the BS operates in the power saving mode [0228]. By combining the teachings, when the UE in AGIWAL et al receives the group common DCI indicating the network energy saving state, in view of MYUNG et al, the SR prohibit timer in the UE can be stopped or not applied to converse power at the UE. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have stopped SR prohibit timer for the SR to conserve power at the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings. Re Claim 9, LI et al teaches the group DCI includes PDCCH skipping mechanism (skip one or more transmission of the SR) for the certain duration (time period) when the gNB is at sleep (network energy saving state of the cell) [0036]. Re Claim 10, MYUNG et al teaches the stopping the SR-prohibit timer when the network operates in the power saving mode [0028] for the duration (the time period) when the gNB is sleeping in LI et al [0400]. Re Claim 11, LI et al teaches the energy saving can be implemented for the UE via DRX (cell) [0184] which can coincide with the certain duration (the time period) when the gNB is in sleep mode [0400]. Re Claims 12 and 13, LI et al teaches during gNB sleep mode, the PDCCH skipping skips PUSCHs in the uplink and CSI-RS in the downlink [0400]. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET. 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, KASSIM KLADAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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. /ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 08, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 26, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 26, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 15, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 23, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 23, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604308
SEARCH SPACE CONFIGURATION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598625
FEEDBACK CORRESPONDING TO UNIFIED TRANSMISSION CONFIGURATION INDICATORS IN SEMI-PERSISTENT SCHEDULING RELEASE DOWNLINK CONTROL INFORMATION TRANSMISSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588023
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING WIRELESS SIGNAL IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588102
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING DISCONTINUOUS RECEPTION FOR LAYER 2 MOBILITY IN MOBILE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588051
TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGING IN-BAND WIRELESS COMMUNICATION BY USER EQUIPMENT COORDINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+3.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1353 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