Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/918,246

METHODS, DEVICES AND COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIA FOR COMMUNICATION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 11, 2022
Examiner
KIDANE, MEHERET WOLDEGEBREAL
Art Unit
2464
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
13 granted / 15 resolved
+28.7% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
50
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
63.2%
+23.2% vs TC avg
§102
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 15 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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2023/0132040; hereinafter Gao) in view of Raghavan et al. (US 2020/0229161; hereinafter Raghavan) in further view of Cirik et al. (US 2021/0136802; hereinafter Cirik). Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches a method, performed by a terminal device (Paragraph[0050] Describes methods performed by User equipment (UE)), the method comprising: receiving a downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), the DCI indicating at least one transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state (Paragraphs [0023]; [0034]; [0036]-[0037] Describes the reception of the DCI (DCI for scheduling the PDSCH) and indicates TCI states); and determining the PDSCH is associated with a plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions, in a case where the PDSCH is configured in multiple slots (Paragraph [0042] describes determining PDSCH transmission occasions. Paragraph [0036] describes PDSCH transmitted “in four consecutive slots.” Paragraph [0113] describes scheduling scenarios involving multiple transmissions, and various embodiments describe PDSCH transmission over multiple TRPs in different slots), wherein the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions are associated with two (TCI) states corresponding to a lowest codepoint among TCI codepoints containing two different TCI states (Paragraphs [0023]-[0024]; [0042] describes determining PDSCH transmission occasions associated with two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint), in a case where at least one TCI state indicates two TCI states and an offset between a reception of the DCI and a reception of a first PDSCH transmission occasion of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions is less than a threshold (Paragraphs [0041]-[0043] describes where the timing offset between DCI reception and PDSCH reception is below a threshold, and describe how TCI sates are determined in such cases, including when two TCI states are indicated), However, Gao doesn’t tech wherein the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint are determined based on activated TCI states in a slot, among the multiple slots, comprising the first PDSCH transmission occasion, and wherein a value range of a number of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions is {2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 16}. However, in analogous art Raghavan teaches the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint are determined based on activated TCI states in a slot, among the multiple slots, comprising the first PDSCH transmission occasion (Paragraphs [0024];[0026] describes how the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint are selected based on active configurations in the relevant slot), Raghavan doesn’t teach and wherein a value range of a number of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions is {2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 16}. However, in analogous art Cirik teaches and wherein a value range of a number of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions is {2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 16} (Paragraphs [0218]; [0223]; [0225] describes the repetition quantity parameter can indicate various numbers of PDSCH transmission occasions including 2, 4, and 8 which falls within the claimed range. The Phrase “or any other quantity” suggest the teaching is not limited and would encompass the full range (2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 16)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gao’s method of determining TCI states for PDSCH transmission occasions under timing constraints and the teaching of Raghavan’s slot specific TCI state determination approach to improve TCI state selection accuracy and reliability in multi-slot PDSCH configurations by incorporating the teaching of Cirik various numbers of PDSCH transmission occasions to improve reliability and robustness of reception of the TB (Cirik, Paragraph [0199]). Regarding claim 5, Gao in view of Raghavan’s in further view of Cirik, Gao teaches wherein: a first TCI state of the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint is applied to the first PDSCH transmission occasion of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions, and a second TCI state of the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint is applied to a second PDSCH transmission occasion of the plurality of PDSCH transmission occasions (Paragraphs [0035] describes how different TCI states (associated with TRP1 and TRP2) are applied to different PDSCH transmissions. The PDSCH#1 from TRP1 represent the first transmission occasion with the first TCI state, and PDSCH #2 from TRP2 represents the second transmission occasion with the second TCI. Paragraph [0052] describes different TCI states from a codepoint set being applied to different transmissions. Paragraph [0024] shows the lowest codepoint (value 0) maps to two TCI states that would be applied to different transmissions). Regarding claim 6, Gao in view of Raghavan’s in further view of Cirik, Gao teaches determining the PDSCH is associated with a single PDSCH transmission occasion (Paragraphs [0133]-[0134] describes if one TCI state is indicated, the corresponding PDSCH is sent), in a case where a number of the at least one TCI state indicated by the DCI is one (Paragraph [0133] describes after a DCI is decoded and if one TCI state is indicated), wherein the single PDSCH transmission occasion is associated with a first TCI state of the two TCI states corresponding to the lowest codepoint among the TCI codepoints containing two different TCI states (Paragraphs [0024]; [0042]; [0131]; [0133] “the first default TCI state is the TCI state activated for a CORESET having the lowest ControlResourceSetId” and “the corresponding PDSCH is sent with the default TCI”), in a case where the at least one TCI codepoint indicates two TCI states, and the offset between the reception of the DCI and a reception of the PDSCH is less than the threshold (Paragraphs [0041]-[0043] describes where the timing offset between DCI reception and PDSCH reception is below a threshold, and describe how TCI sates are determined in such cases, including when two TCI states are indicated). Claims 7 and 10 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 respectively. Claims 8 and 11 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 respectively. Claims 9 and 12 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 respectively. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHERET WOLDEGEBREAL KIDANE whose telephone number is (571)270-3642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F8:30-5. 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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. /Chandrahas B Patel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464 /M.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 11, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 19, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604208
LEARNING METHOD, WIRELESS QUALITY ESTIMATION METHOD, LEARNING DEVICE, WIRELESS QUALITY ESTIMATION DEVICE, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12574289
NETWORK SLICING IN OPEN RAN SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12543051
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ANTENNA IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12464562
COMMUNICATING BETWEEN NODES IN THE UNLICENSED SPECTRUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12432678
Random Access Handling of a UE
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
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 (+20.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 15 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