Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/956,070

REMOTE RADIO HEAD UNIT HIGH HEAT FUNCTIONALITY TESTING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR THE SAME

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 22, 2024
Examiner
WEST, LEWIS G
Art Unit
2699
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Communications Test Design Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
571 granted / 685 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
699
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
§103
36.2%
-3.8% vs TC avg
§102
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 685 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(p) II. PRODUCT AND PROCESS IN THE SAME CLAIM A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). In contrast, when a claim recites a product and additional limitations which focus on the capabilities of the system, not the specific actions or functions performed by the user, the claim may be definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 124 USPQ2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In this case, the claim, while previously directed strictly to a structure, now incorporates limitations that go beyond simple functional language defining the structure, to a method in and of itself being carried out by a structure. Therefore the metes and bounds of the claims are impossible to determine, as the claim now encompasses multiple statutory categories, and it cannot be determined whether the claim would be infringed by the structure, or by the extensive method steps defined in the added features. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEWIS G WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-7859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00. 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, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. 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. /LEWIS G WEST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 07, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 19, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12750436
ELECTRONIC DEVICE, METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR IDENTIFYING STATE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE USING SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12750810
LOW LATENCY MGP REQUEST HANDLING FOR POSITIONING
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12737852
MACHINE LEARNING BASED IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
4y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12732220
RADIO FREQUENCY RECEIVING CIRCUIT AND CHIP COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12732572
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 08, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+7.5%)
2y 3m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 685 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