Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/013,722

RESTRICTIONS BASED ON A CONFIGURED NUMEROLOGY

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Dec 29, 2022
Examiner
CHOUDHURY, FAISAL
Art Unit
2478
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.
OA Round
4 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
666 granted / 784 resolved
+26.9% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
822
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 784 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . REMARKS 1. On pages 8-12 of the remark Applicant argued Kim reference is August 5, 2020 which is after the effective filing date (US provisional patent application 63/045,727 filed on June 20, 2020) of the current application and therefore Kim reference cannot be used as a reference. In response: Examiner agrees Kim reference is August 5, 2020 which is after the filing date of the provisional patent application 63/045,727 of the current application. But applicant’s own specification in the provisional applicant does not have support for the claimed limitation “determining a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring restriction based on the numerology, wherein the PDCCH monitoring restriction configures a maximum number of PDCCH candidates to monitor across multiple slots in response to the numerology being above a predetermined threshold” Applicant’s own original specification at page 11, [0052] filed on Dec 29, 2022 discloses the claimed limitation “the UE may be configured to monitor a maximum number of PDCCH candidates per serving cell for multiple slots, where the number of multiple slots for which the maximum number of PDCCH candidates are configured is depending up on the configured numerology. For example, the UE capability in terms of maximum number of PDCCH candidates and/or PDCCH blind decodes is defined for 8 slots, when numerology of 960 kHz is configured or 4 slots, when numerology of 480 kHz is configured” which is not disclosed in the Applicant’s provisional application 63/045,727 filed on June 20, 2020. For the above reason, Applicant is not getting the priority of the provisional application 63/045,727 for the claimed limitation and therefore Kim reference is considered as a prior art. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 2. Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US 2023/0119439 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) As to claims 1, 9 and 20, Kim discloses a method comprising: receiving information from a network indicating a numerology for transmission, or reception, or both (Kim; [0313]; [0203]-[0204]; [0207] discloses the terminal device receiving configuration information that includes subcarrier spacing 480 KHz SCS corresponding to a numerology); determining a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring restriction based on the numerology, wherein the PDCCH monitoring restriction configures a maximum number of PDCCH candidates to monitor across multiple slots in response to the numerology being above a predetermined threshold. (Kim; [0313]; [0204]; [0207] discloses subcarrier spacing 480 KHz which is higher than 120 KHz. [0261]; [0271]; [0204]; [0207] discloses maximum number of PDCCH candidates monitored “per slot group” including 4 slots may be 20 when the subcarrier spacing is 480 KHz, wherein the 480 KHz subcarrier spacing is higher or larger than the 120 KHz or the existing NR SCS). As to claims 3, 11 and 19, the rejection of claim 1 as listed above is incorporated herein. In addition, Kim discloses wherein a number of slots of the multiple slots for the PDCCH monitoring restriction is associated with the numerology (Kim; [0261]; [0271]; [0204]; [0207] discloses maximum number of PDCCH candidates monitored “per slot group” including 4 slots may be 20 when the subcarrier spacing is 480 KHz, wherein the 480 KHz subcarrier spacing is higher or larger than the 120 KHz or the existing NR SCS) As to claims 4 and 12, the rejection of claim 1 as listed above is incorporated herein. In addition, Kim discloses wherein a UE capability for PDCCH monitoring is defined across multiple slots Kim; [0261]; [0271]; [0204]; [0207] discloses maximum number of PDCCH candidates monitored “per slot group” including 4 slots may be 20 when the subcarrier spacing is 480 KHz, wherein the 480 KHz subcarrier spacing is higher or larger than the 120 KHz or the existing NR SCS) As to claims 5, 13 and 21, the rejection of claim 1 as listed above is incorporated herein. In addition, Kim discloses wherein a downlink control information (DCI) format configuration restriction applies to one or more of monitor only a high priority DCI format, monitor only a DCI format that schedules multiple slots, or monitor only a DCI format that schedules both uplink and downlink transmission (Kim; Fig.10; [0009]; [0108]; [0299]-[0300] discloses DCI format that schedules multiple slots. Here Kim is applied for the 2nd alternative) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 1. 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, would be the same under either status. 2. 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 of this title, 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. 3. Claims 6-8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US 2023/0119439 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) in view of WIPO Publication WO 2019138510 to Takeda et al. (hereinafter Takeda) As to claims 6 and 14, Kim discloses DCI format, but fails to disclose configuring a threshold value for subcarrier spacing, and, in response to determining to use a subcarrier spacing value greater than or equal to the threshold value, monitoring only a high priority unified UE specific DCI format. However, Takeda discloses further comprising configuring a threshold value for subcarrier spacing, and, in response to determining to use a subcarrier spacing value greater than or equal to the threshold value, monitoring only a high priority unified UE specific downlink control information (DCI) format (Takeda; Page 15 discloses control unit 401 may control to monitor a plurality of DCI formats for a search space set for a predetermined downlink control channel at each subcarrier interval. Alternatively, the control unit 401 may control to monitor a plurality of DCI formats for a search space set for a predetermined downlink control channel at a subcarrier interval which is equal to or less than a predetermined value corresponding to high priority UE specific search space). It is obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings before the effective filing date of the invention. One would be motivated to combine the teachings in order to determine the DCI format based on the subcarrier spacing. As to claims 7 and 15, Kim discloses wherein the search space configuration restriction is a UE specific search space different from a prior UE specific search space and a common search space. Kim fails to discloses of determining high priority DCI format. However, Takeda discloses wherein a search space configuration restriction is dedicated for only high priority downlink control information (DCI) formats and is a UE-specific search space different from a prior UE -specific search space and a common search space (Takeda; Page 15 discloses control unit 401 may control to monitor a plurality of DCI formats for a search space set for a predetermined downlink control channel at each subcarrier interval. Alternatively, the control unit 401 may control to monitor a plurality of DCI formats for a search space set for a predetermined downlink control channel at a subcarrier interval which is equal to or less than a predetermined value corresponding to search space configuration restriction is dedicated for only high priority downlink control information DCI formats). It is obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings before the effective filing date of the invention. One would be motivated to combine the teachings in order to determine the DCI format based on the subcarrier spacing. As to claims 8 and 16, Kim discloses wherein the search space configuration restriction is a UE specific search space different from a prior UE specific search space. Kim fails to discloses of determining high priority DCI format. However, Takeda discloses wherein a search space configuration restriction is dedicated for only high priority downlink control information (DCI) DCI formats and is a UE-specific search space with a lowest set of indices. (Takeda; Page 15 discloses control unit 401 may control to monitor a plurality of DCI formats for a search space set for a predetermined downlink control channel at each subcarrier interval. Alternatively, the control unit 401 may control to monitor a plurality of DCI formats for a search space set for a predetermined downlink control channel at a subcarrier interval which is equal to or less than a predetermined value corresponding to search space configuration restriction is dedicated for only high priority downlink control information DCI formats). It is obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings before the effective filing date of the invention. One would be motivated to combine the teachings in order to determine the DCI format based on the subcarrier spacing. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FAISAL CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3001. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-6P.M. 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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 5712723905. 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. /FAISAL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 29, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 28, 2025
Interview Requested
Jun 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 21, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 12, 2025
Interview Requested
Sep 19, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 20, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 23, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 16, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 29, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603729
TERMINAL DEVICE, BASE STATION DEVICE, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING TERMINAL DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING BASE STATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598599
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR SEMI-PERSISTENT SCHEDULING (SPS) DOWNLINK TRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592768
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING AND PREVENTING MALFEASANT ACTIVITY VIA USE OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592874
Validation of Time Synchronization
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574068
GENERATING A COMPOSITE SIGNAL WITH CODE DIVISION MULTIPLEXING (CDM) AND TIME DIVISION MULTIPLEXING (TDM) PILOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.4%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 784 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