Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/420,847

USER EQUIPMENT AND COMMUNICATION METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 06, 2021
Priority
Jan 10, 2019 — nonprovisional of PCTJP2019000608
Examiner
SEFCHECK, GREGORY B
Art Unit
2477
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allowance Rate
476 granted / 687 resolved
+11.3% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
746
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
86.8%
+46.8% vs TC avg
§102
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
§112
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 687 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . RCE filed 3/5/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. The previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the present amendments. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claim 2 has been previously cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-6 remain pending. 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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US20120281576A1), hereafter Yamada, in view of McBeath et al. (US20130142142A1), hereafter McBeath. Regarding claims 1 and 6, Yamada discloses a communication method (Title; Fig. 13) by a user equipment (Fig. 4) comprising a receiver (Fig. 4, 203) configured to receive a downlink signal (from base station) and processor (Fig. 4, 204/208) that configures, among first, second and third component carriers (Figs. 7-12, CC#1-3), first and second monitoring configurations for the third component carrier, the first monitoring configuration to monitor a downlink control channel (Figs. 7-12, PDCCH Monitoring Set) in the third component carrier in response to deactivation of the first component carrier and the second monitoring configuration to monitor a downlink control channel in the third component carrier in response to deactivation of the second component carrier (Fig. 7-13; paragraph 129-138; PDCCH monitoring set is subset of downlink component carriers for monitoring PDCCH, dynamically changed with activation/deactivation of component carriers; paragraphs 129-144; predefined formats, identifiers, search spaces for monitoring PDCCH). Yamada further discloses the first and second monitoring configurations specify different time and frequency resources within the third component carrier, as resources for monitoring the downlink control channel (Yamada: Fig. 7-8 and paragraphs 140-144 describe the first/second/third common SS as well as UE specific SS occupying different time/frequency resources in each of CC#1-3 of the PDCCH monitoring set). Although it would be expected based on how the first and second monitoring configurations are defined above, to the extent that Yamada does not expressly disclose deactivating the first monitoring configuration and activating monitoring of the downlink control channel in the third component carrier in accordance with the second monitoring configuration in response to detecting the first component carrier is activated and the second component carrier is deactivated, further analogous prior art to McBeath (Title: sharing a control channel for carrier aggregation) more expressly discloses deactivating the first monitoring configuration and activating monitoring of the downlink control channel in the third component carrier in accordance with the second monitoring configuration in response to detecting the first component carrier is activated and the second component carrier is deactivated (paragraph 122; paired DL/UL carrier with different activation/deactivation status effects monitored PDCCH candidates; Fig. 4, 10, 17-19; DL/UL carriers independently activated/deactivated impacts the number of PDCCH candidates; Fig. 21, step 2145; UL carrier active but paired DL carrier not active results in identifying different CCE candidates for PDCCH monitoring). McBeath also at least suggests different time/frequency resources for monitoring the downlink control channel (paragraph 10, 89; Fig. 5-9; Fig. 21, step 2145-2150/2155; different CCE candidates based on active/inactive UL/DL paired carriers), similar to that shown in Yamada, above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Yamada by deactivating the first monitoring configuration and activating monitoring of the downlink control channel in the third component carrier in accordance with the second monitoring configuration in response to detecting the first component carrier is activated and the second component carrier is deactivated, as shown by McBeath, thereby increasing the total amount of PDCCH candidates as a function of the number of activated carriers. Regarding claim 4, The combination of Yamada and McBeath discloses, after the processor starts monitoring the downlink control channel on the third component carrier in accordance with the first monitoring configuration in response to deactivation of the first component carrier, the processor stops monitoring the downlink control channel on the third component carrier in accordance with the first monitoring configuration and starts monitoring the downlink control channel on the first component carrier, in response to reactivation of the first component carrier (paragraph 138; PDCCH monitoring set is subset of downlink component carriers for monitoring PDCCH, dynamically changed with activation/deactivation of a component carrier, where “dynamically” at least implicitly teaches further changing of the PDCCH monitoring set upon further changes including activation/deactivation of CCs). Regarding claim 5, The combination of Yamada and McBeath discloses the receiver receives a signal including information indicating a trigger (i.e. instruction) for activating monitoring of the downlink control channel, information indicating a trigger for deactivating monitoring of the downlink control channel, or a combination thereof (Fig. 13; paragraphs 148-149; instruction from base station received by mobile station to extend search space for monitoring PDCCH). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks on pg. 7 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Yamada and McBeath fail to teach the newly-amended limitations in which the first and second monitoring configurations specify different time and frequency resources within the third component carrier for monitoring the downlink control channel. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As now clarified in the rejection, Yamada discloses different common search spaces and UE specific search spaces occupying different time/frequency resources in each of CC#1-3 of the PDCCH monitoring set, as shown in Fig. 7-8 and the corresponding paragrapshs. McBeath also at least suggests different time/frequency resources for monitoring the downlink control channel through disclosure in paragraphs 10, 89, Figs. 5-9, and Fig. 21, step 2145-2150/2155 in which different CCE candidates based on active/inactive UL/DL paired carriers, similar to that shown in Yamada. Therefore, the rejections based on the cited disclosure of Yamada in combination with McBeath meets a broadest reasonable interpretation of the pending claims, and the rejections are properly maintained. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM. 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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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. /GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 13 earlier events
May 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Oct 16, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 05, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Feb 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12677322
Contention Resolution in Non-Terrestrial Networks
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12640841
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND DECODING METHOD
3y 3m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12621732
USER DEVICE, RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, AND RADIO COMMUNICATION METHOD
6y 4m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12604276
USER EQUIPMENT (UE) CAPABILITY SIGNALING FOR MAXIMUM POWER SUPPORT
5y 6m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12568493
Multiple Downlink Semi-Persistent Scheduling Configurations for New Radio Internet of Things
4y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+19.1%)
3y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 687 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