Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/048,512

CHANNEL ACCESS MECHANISMS IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 07, 2025
Examiner
YEUNG, MANG HANG
Art Unit
2417
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
643 granted / 739 resolved
+29.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
762
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§103
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 739 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION The instant application having Application No. 19/048512 filed on 02/07/2025 is presented for examination by the examiner. Claims 1 and 21 are pending. Claims 2-20 were cancelled. 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 . 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection. Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered. Response to Argument Applicant’s arguments (see the Applicant's Remarks) with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 21 have been fully considered and not persuasive. Examiner provide a new ground of rejections to address Applicant’s amendment/argument (See the updated claim rejections below.). Claim Objections Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informality: In this case, claims 1 and 21 each recites limitation for performing certain step(s) only if a specific condition is satisfied (Conditional Statement). Such limitations are considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until specific conditions are met. Applicant should change the word “in a case” to “responsive to determining that…..” in order to alter an optional limitation to a required limitation. For the purpose of examination, claimed limitations will be considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until specific conditions are met. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this case, the amended limitation “prioritizing, by the UE, a second sidelink transmission on the radio resource in the channel on a next transmission opportunity for earlier transmission in a case where either the first condition or the second condition is determined to be true, relative to a case where the third condition is determined to be true” in claims 1 and 21 have received no support from the corresponding disclosure from the Applicant’s specification (see pars 0046 and 0039 (par. 0049 ??) of the specification). In Applicant’s remark, Applicant argues that the amendment is supported by pars 0046 and 0039 (par. 0049 ??) of the specification. In response, Examiner respectfully disagree that pars 0046 and 0039 (or 0049) of the specification provide clear support for such amendment. Particularly par. 0049 of the specification merely discloses the conditions that can be used to determine whether the UE successfully transmits on the selected radio resource for the purpose of using the resource for subsequent transmission(s) or select other resource for subsequent transmission(s). However, such disclosure does not disclose “how” these conditions can be used, in combinations in a specific manner, to perform the claimed feature based on the amendment. 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 and 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 and 21, the limitations “determining, by the UE, based on the one or more replies, which of a first condition, a second condition, or a third condition is true, wherein the first condition is a condition that the HARQ-ACK is received for the first sidelink transmission, the second condition is a condition that neither the HARQ-ACK nor the HARQ-NACK is received for the first sidelink transmission, and the third condition is a condition that the HARQ- NACK is received for the first sidelink transmission” and “prioritizing, by the UE, a second sidelink transmission on the radio resource in the channel on a next transmission opportunity for earlier transmission in a case (i.e. first case) where either the first condition or the second condition is determined to be true, relative to a case (i.e. second case) where the third condition is determined to be true” render the claims indefinite. The scope of the limitations (i.e. the determining step and the prioritizing step) appear to be contradicting each other. In the determining step, the UE is only required to determine a minimum of one reply. (i.e. one or more). However, in the prioritizing step, the UE is required to determine at least two replies in order to satisfy the first case and the second case. As such, the numbers of reply that the UE needs to determine on both steps are inconsistent with each other. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0267729 A1). As per claim 1, Kim discloses “A method for sidelink transmission based on sensing a channel by a user equipment (UE), comprising:” [(par. 0330), n step 901, the UE may select a first carrier upon which the UE performs first sidelink transmission based on the first carrier to a target UE. The UE may select a first carrier and candidate carriers. The UE may use the first carrier to perform first sidelink transmission and store the candidate carriers for TX carrier reselection.] “performing, by the UE, a first sidelink transmission on a radio resource in the channel to one or more receivers;” [(par. 0330), n step 901, the UE may select a first carrier upon which the UE performs first sidelink transmission based on the first carrier to a target UE. The UE may select a first carrier and candidate carriers. The UE may use the first carrier to perform first sidelink transmission and store the candidate carriers for TX carrier reselection.] “receiving, by the UE, one or more replies each of which indicates hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) HARQ-ACK or hybrid automatic repeat request negative acknowledgement (HARQ-NACK) HARQ-NACK for the first sidelink transmission;” [(par. 0332), In step 903, the UE may detects a number of retransmissions unacknowledged on the first carrier. The UE may detect the number of retransmissions unacknowledged has been reached to a maximum number of retransmissions. The maximum number of retransmissions may be pre-determined. (par. 0368), the UE and/or the target UE may consider a number of retransmissions unacknowledged (for example, HARQ NACK) as a condition for triggering TX carrier reselection.] “determining, by the UE, based on the one or more replies, which of a first condition, a second condition, or a third condition is true, wherein the first condition is a condition that the HARQ-ACK is received for the first sidelink transmission, the second condition is a condition that neither the HARQ-ACK nor the HARQ-NACK is received for the first sidelink transmission, and the third condition is a condition that the HARQ- NACK is received for the first sidelink transmission” [(par. 0332), In step 903, the UE may detects a number of retransmissions unacknowledged on the first carrier. The UE may detect the number of retransmissions unacknowledged has been reached to a maximum number of retransmissions. The maximum number of retransmissions may be pre-determined. (par. 0368), the UE and/or the target UE may consider a number of retransmissions unacknowledged (for example, HARQ NACK) as a condition for triggering TX carrier reselection.] “and prioritizing, by the UE, a second sidelink transmission on the radio resource in the channel on a next transmission opportunity for earlier transmission in a case where either the first condition or the second condition is determined to be true, relative to a case where the third condition is determined to be true” [(par. 0332), In step 903, the UE may detects a number of retransmissions unacknowledged on the first carrier. The UE may detect the number of retransmissions unacknowledged has been reached to a maximum number of retransmissions. The maximum number of retransmissions may be pre-determined. (par. 0368), the UE and/or the target UE may consider a number of retransmissions unacknowledged (for example, HARQ NACK) as a condition for triggering TX carrier reselection. (Note: Kim implicitly indicates that the UE has a NACK counter. The NACK counter will be increased by 1 if the UE receive a NACK for a pervious transmission(s)/retransmission(s) and no increment on the counter if the UE receive ACK for the pervious transmission(s)/retransmission(s). As such, the UE will remain on the first carrier for subsequent transmission(s) if the UE receives ACK on the pervious transmission(s)/retransmission(s) and the number of NACK it receives for the pervious transmission(s)/retransmission(s) is below the maximum threshold of the NACK counter.] As per claim 21, as [see rejection of claim 1.] Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG HANG YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7319. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached on (571) 270-3667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MANG HANG YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 07, 2025
Application Filed
Apr 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jul 22, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Oct 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592806
MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING OF CROSS-LINK INTERFERENCE IMPACT ON DOWNLINK PERFORMANCE FOR FULL-DUPLEX NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12556343
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HARQ-ACK FEEDBACK IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12542642
Information Transmission Method and Communication Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12542643
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12538273
METHODS FOR COMMUNICATION, TERMINAL DEVICE, NETWORK DEVICE, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIA
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+12.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 739 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