Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/146,005

METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING RADIO COMMUNICATION SERVICES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 23, 2022
Examiner
LAM, YEE F
Art Unit
2465
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
ZTE CORPORATION
OA Round
4 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
486 granted / 632 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
677
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§112
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 632 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 . Priorities and Examiner Remarks This application filed 12/23/2022 is a Continuation of PCT/CN2020/097931 (filed 06/24/2020), and does not claim priority from any domestic or foreign applications. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 1 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEO et al. (US 2020/0045709 A1, hereinafter SEO), in view of Cirik et al. (US 2020/0351841 A1, hereinafter Cirik). Regarding claim 1, SEO teaches a method, comprising (in general, see sections including paragraphs 141-166): determining, by a wireless communication device, a transmission control indication state identifier (TCI) according to at least one transmission from a wireless communication node, the at least one transmission comprising at least one of a system information block (SIB), synchronization signal, physical broadcast channel (PBCH), and a reference signal (RS) (SEO, see at least para. 157 along with para. 152, for a non-limiting example, “…That is, with respect to the CORESET #0, only the TCI state for setting/instructing the CSI-RS/TRS associated with the SSB can be understood to be valid. The CSI-RS/TRS associated with the SSB may refer to the CSI-RS/TRS in which the type D QCL relationship with the SSB is defined by the TCI state…”); determining, by the wireless communication device, an identity of a domain (SEO, see at least para. 152, for an unlimited example, cell ID); and identifying, by the wireless communication device according to the TCI and the identity, a transmission control indication state within the domain (SEO, see at least para. 157 along with para. 152 and 165, for an unlimited example, “…a field indicating a TCI state applicable to the CORESET identified by the CORESET ID field (TCI state ID, for example, 7 bits), etc. At this time, with respect to the CORESET index #0 (CORESET #0), only the TCI state for setting/instructing the CSI-RS/TRS associated with the SSB can be limited to be valid…”), SEO differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose identity of a domain according to the at least one transmission, and wherein both the TCI and the identity are determined based on the at least one transmission. Cirik, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches similar or known mechanism of identity of a domain according to the at least one transmission, and wherein both the TCI and the identity are determined based on the at least one transmission (Cirik, see at least para. 507 of fig. 28, “…a PCID may be configured in a TCI state of a wireless device...”). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Cirik into the method of SEO for effectively randomize interferences. Regarding claim 17, SEO in view of Cirik teaches identifying, by the wireless communication device using the TCI, a location (SEO, see at least para. 160, for one example, but not limited to, “…The one TCI state may include information on a quasi-co-location (QCL) relationship between the CSI-RS and a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) port for the PDCCH/PDSCH…”), or reporting, by the wireless communication device, the TCI with at least one of: a measurement, a radio link failure, a beam failure, or a minimization of drive test (MDT). Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in apparatus claim format. To be more specific, SEO in view of Cirik also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and memory (SEO, see at least fig. 16), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software. Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 19 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. For example, it would be a wireless communication node of claim 19 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the wireless communication device of claim 1. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 1. Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 19 except this claim is in apparatus claim format. To be more specific, SEO in view of Cirik also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and memory (SEO, see at least fig. 16), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software. Claims 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEO in view of Cirik, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JAIN et al. (US 2020/0162981 A1, hereinafter JAIN). Regarding claim 4, SEO in view of Cirik teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using the identity of the domain (SEO, see at least para. 157, for one example, but not limited to, “…with respect to the CORESET #0, only the TCI state for setting/instructing the CSI-RS/TRS associated with the SSB can be understood to be valid…”; Cirik, see at least para. 507 of fig. 28, “…a PCID may be configured in a TCI state of a wireless device...”). SEO in view of Cirik differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose TCI using the identity of the domain in the SIB and additional information in the SIB. JAIN, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches TCI using the identity of the domain in the SIB and additional information in the SIB (JAIN, see least para. 53, “...A cell-defining SSB may refer to an SSB that includes system information block 1 (SIB1). The contents of SIB1 may include, for example, a cell identifier (cell ID) of a cell...”). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 5, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using the identity of the domain in the SIB and a synchronization signal block index (SSBI) in the PBCH. (SEO, see at least para. 157 along with para. 133 and fig. 13, “…The TCI state at CORESET #0 may be determined by the SSB associated with the corresponding CORESET/search space set. There may exist a CORESET #0 and a search space set # 0 associated with each SSB…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 6, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using the identity of the domain and a transmission control indication state group identity (TCGI) in the SIB, and a synchronization signal block index (SSBI) in the PBCH. (SEO, see at least para. 145 along with para. 165, for one example, but not limited to, “…If the above applies to the default TCI, the above proposal may be applied to the valid TCI state of the candidate group. For example, the TCI state of the lowest index among the set of TCI states which are set for the PDSCH, etc. … is used as the default TCI, when the index # 0 is set to CSI-RS # 2 and the index # 1 is set to SSB # 1, the TCI state for CORESET #0/search space # 0 can be set to index #1 (SSB #1),…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 7, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using the identity of the domain and a CSI-RS resource index (CRI) in the SIB, the CRI selected according to the CSI-RS. (SEO, see at least para. 145 along with para. 165, for one example, but not limited to, “…If the above applies to the default TCI, the above proposal may be applied to the valid TCI state of the candidate group. For example, the TCI state of the lowest index among the set of TCI states which are set for the PDSCH, etc. … is used as the default TCI, when the index # 0 is set to CSI-RS # 2 and the index # 1 is set to SSB # 1, the TCI state for CORESET #0/search space # 0 can be set to index #1 (SSB #1),…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 8, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using the identity of the domain and TCI information in the SIB, the TCI information selected according to the CSI-RS. (SEO, see at least para. 145 along with para. 165, for one example, but not limited to, “…If the above applies to the default TCI, the above proposal may be applied to the valid TCI state of the candidate group. For example, the TCI state of the lowest index among the set of TCI states which are set for the PDSCH, etc. … is used as the default TCI, when the index # 0 is set to CSI-RS # 2 and the index # 1 is set to SSB # 1, the TCI state for CORESET #0/search space # 0 can be set to index #1 (SSB #1),…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 9, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using the identity of the domain, a transmission control indication state group identity (TCGI) and TCI information in the SIB, the TCI information selected according to the CSI-RS. (SEO, see at least para. 143-145 along with para. 165, for one example, but not limited to, “…If the above applies to the default TCI, the above proposal may be applied to the valid TCI state of the candidate group. For example, the TCI state of the lowest index among the set of TCI states which are set for the PDSCH, etc. … is used as the default TCI, when the index # 0 is set to CSI-RS # 2 and the index # 1 is set to SSB # 1, the TCI state for CORESET #0/search space # 0 can be set to index #1 (SSB #1),…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 10, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using the identity of the domain, a transmission control indication state group identity (TCGI) and a CSI-RS resource index (CRI) in the SIB, the CRI selected according to the CSI-RS. (SEO, see at least para. 143-145 along with para. 165, for one example, but not limited to, “…If the above applies to the default TCI, the above proposal may be applied to the valid TCI state of the candidate group. For example, the TCI state of the lowest index among the set of TCI states which are set for the PDSCH, etc. … is used as the default TCI, when the index # 0 is set to CSI-RS # 2 and the index # 1 is set to SSB # 1, the TCI state for CORESET #0/search space # 0 can be set to index #1 (SSB #1),…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 11, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using the identity of the domain and a CSI-RS resource index (CRI) in the SIB, and a synchronization signal block index (SSBI) in the PBCH, the CRI selected according to the CSI-RS. (SEO, see at least para. 143-145 along with para. 165, for one example, but not limited to, “…If the above applies to the default TCI, the above proposal may be applied to the valid TCI state of the candidate group. For example, the TCI state of the lowest index among the set of TCI states which are set for the PDSCH, etc. … is used as the default TCI, when the index # 0 is set to CSI-RS # 2 and the index # 1 is set to SSB # 1, the TCI state for CORESET #0/search space # 0 can be set to index #1 (SSB #1),…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 12, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using information in the SIB. (SEO, see at least para. 157 and 161-162, for one example, but not limited to, “…with respect to the CORESET #0, only the TCI state for setting/instructing the CSI-RS/TRS associated with the SSB can be understood to be valid…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 13, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using a transmission control indication state group identity (TCGI) in the SIB, and a synchronization signal block index (SSBI) in the PBCH. (SEO, see at least para. 145 along with para. 165, for one example, but not limited to, “…If the above applies to the default TCI, the above proposal may be applied to the valid TCI state of the candidate group. For example, the TCI state of the lowest index among the set of TCI states which are set for the PDSCH, etc. … is used as the default TCI, when the index # 0 is set to CSI-RS # 2 and the index # 1 is set to SSB # 1, the TCI state for CORESET #0/search space # 0 can be set to index #1 (SSB #1),…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 14, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using a transmission control indication state group identity (TCGI) and a CSI-RS resource index (CRI) in the SIB, the CRI selected according to the CSI-RS. (SEO, see at least para. 143-145 along with para. 165, for one example, but not limited to, “…If the above applies to the default TCI, the above proposal may be applied to the valid TCI state of the candidate group. For example, the TCI state of the lowest index among the set of TCI states which are set for the PDSCH, etc. … is used as the default TCI, when the index # 0 is set to CSI-RS # 2 and the index # 1 is set to SSB # 1, the TCI state for CORESET #0/search space # 0 can be set to index #1 (SSB #1),…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 15, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using a transmission control indication state group identity (TCGI) and TCI information in the SIB, the TCI information selected according to the CSI-RS. (SEO, see at least para. 143-145 along with para. 165, for one example, but not limited to, “…If the above applies to the default TCI, the above proposal may be applied to the valid TCI state of the candidate group. For example, the TCI state of the lowest index among the set of TCI states which are set for the PDSCH, etc. … is used as the default TCI, when the index # 0 is set to CSI-RS # 2 and the index # 1 is set to SSB # 1, the TCI state for CORESET #0/search space # 0 can be set to index #1 (SSB #1),…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Regarding claim 16, SEO in view of Cirik and JAIN teaches determining, by the wireless communication device, the TCI using a transmission control indication state group identity (TCGI) and a CSI-RS resource index (CRI) in the SIB, a synchronization signal block index (SSBI) in the PBCH, the CRI selected according to the CSI-RS. (SEO, see at least para. 143-145 along with para. 165, for one example, but not limited to, “…If the above applies to the default TCI, the above proposal may be applied to the valid TCI state of the candidate group. For example, the TCI state of the lowest index among the set of TCI states which are set for the PDSCH, etc. … is used as the default TCI, when the index # 0 is set to CSI-RS # 2 and the index # 1 is set to SSB # 1, the TCI state for CORESET #0/search space # 0 can be set to index #1 (SSB #1),…”; JAIN, see least para. 53). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JAIN into the method of SEO in view of Cirik for performing efficient cell reselection. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections. Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any): “First, Cirik does not describe any determination of an identity of a domain whatsoever, nevermind "according to the at least one transmission" as recited in claim 1. At most, and as emphasized above, Cirik describes configuration of a PCID in a TCI state, which is used for determining a TCI grouping. However, such a TCI grouping is not a domain - it is merely a grouping of PCIDs which share the same TCIs, not any domain. Given this deficiency, Cirik certainly does not and cannot teach or suggest determining an TCI state within the domain as recited in claim 1. Even if, in arguendo, the Office were to interpret the "TCI state grouping" described in Cirik as allegedly corresponding to the "transmission control indication state within the domain" recited in claim 1, Cirik describes such a determination as being based on merely a PCID instead. This description from Cirik does not equate to identifying the TCI state within the domain based on both "the TCI and the identity of the domain" as expressly recited in claim 1.” (Remarks, page 7-8) Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cirik in at least para. 507 discloses a PCID may be configured in a TCI state of a wireless device to differentiate Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) and Physical Broadcasting CHannel (PBCH) from each TRP. Utilizing dedicated SSB/PBCH with different physical cell ID may randomize the interference. In other words, Cirik discloses PCID configured in TCI state in Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) and Physical Broadcasting CHannel (PBCH). Hence, Cirik indeed discloses determination of an identity of a domain which is according to the at least one transmission. Note that a PCID may be configured in a TCI state, hence Cirik indeed discloses determining an TCI state within the domain. Therefore, Cirik indeed teaches or suggests the feature of “...identity of a domain according to the at least one transmission, and wherein both the TCI and the identity are determined based on the at least one transmission...”, as recited in claim 1. Further, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any): “Second, Cirik does not describe that both the TCI and the identity being determined based on the at least one transmission as recited in amended claim 1. While Cirik describes using the PCID as a basis for determining a TCI state grouping, Cirik is silent as to both an identity of the domain and a TCI state being determined according to the at least one transmission as recited in claim 1.” (Remarks, page 8) Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, Cirik in at least para. 507 discloses a PCID may be configured in a TCI state of a wireless device to differentiate Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) and Physical Broadcasting CHannel (PBCH) from each TRP. In other words, Cirik discloses PCID configured in TCI state in Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) and Physical Broadcasting CHannel (PBCH). Hence, Cirik indeed discloses both the TCI and the identity being determined based on the at least one transmission. Therefore, Cirik indeed teaches or suggests the feature of “...wherein both the TCI and the identity are determined based on the at least one transmission...”, as recited in claim 1. Regarding independent claims 18, 19, and 20, the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 1 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented. Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 1, 18, 19, and 20, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained. 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 extension fee 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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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. /YEE F LAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 23, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 20, 2025
Response Filed
May 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 28, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 15, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604300
Prioritization Between Uplink and Sidelink Communications
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587822
DISCOVERY OF SIDELINK DEVICES USING A DISCOVERY SEQUENCE AND A DISCOVERY REPLY SEQUENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574917
SCHEDULING REQUEST CONFIGURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574849
TECHNIQUES FOR BITRATE CONTROL IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568414
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DUAL ACTIVE PROTOCOL STACK (DAPS) HANDOVER IN NEXT GENERATION MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 632 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