Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/272,279

TERMINAL, RADIO COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND BASE STATION

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jul 13, 2023
Examiner
BLANTON, JOHN D
Art Unit
2466
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
NTT Docomo Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
784 granted / 1014 resolved
+19.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1062
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.5%
-28.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1014 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claim(s) 7, 8, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cirik et al. (US 2021/0234640) (“Cirik”). For claims 7 and 9-11; Cirik discloses: monitor physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidates in a first control resource set (CORESET) and a second CORESET that is different from the first CORESET (paragraph 186, 200, 203, 266-268: when the wireless device monitors the one or more PDCCH candidates in the overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions in the plurality of coresets and the plurality of the coresets have the different QCL-TypeD property), among multiple CORESETs overlapped in time and having multiple QCL type D properties (paragraph 207: at least two monitoring occasions of at least two search space sets of the multiple search space sets may overlap in time (e.g., at least one symbol, at least one slot, subframe, etc.). In an example, the at least two search space sets may be associated with at least two first coresets. The at least two first coresets may have different QCL-TypeD properties); and a receiver that monitors the determined PDCCH candidates in the first CORESET and the second CORESET (paragraph 207: a wireless device may monitor multiple search space sets associated with different CORESETs for one or more cells (e.g., for a single cell operation or for an operation with carrier aggregation in a same frequency band). In an example, at least two monitoring occasions of at least two search space sets of the multiple search space sets may overlap in time (e.g., at least one symbol, at least one slot, subframe, etc.). In an example, the at least two search space sets may be associated with at least two first coresets. The at least two first coresets may have different QCL-TypeD properties), wherein the first CORESET is a CORESET having first QCL type D properties out of the multiple CORESETs (paragraph 207: a wireless device may monitor multiple search space sets associated with different CORESETs for one or more cells (e.g., for a single cell operation or for an operation with carrier aggregation in a same frequency band). In an example, at least two monitoring occasions of at least two search space sets of the multiple search space sets may overlap in time (e.g., at least one symbol, at least one slot, subframe, etc.). In an example, the at least two search space sets may be associated with at least two first coresets. The at least two first coresets may have different QCL-TypeD properties), wherein the second CORESET is a CORESET corresponding to a search space set linked with a search space set that is associated with a CORESET having the first QCL type D properties (paragraph 264: a search space set of the one or more search space sets may be associated with (or linked to) a coreset of the one or more coresets. In an example, the one or more configuration parameters may indicate the coreset (or coreset index of the coreset) for the search space set (e.g., provided by a higher layer parameter controlResourceSetId in the higher layer parameter SearchSpace)) and has second QCL type D properties that are different from the first QCL type D properties (paragraph 182: wireless device may monitor one or more PDCCH candidates in overlapping PDCCH monitoring occasions in a plurality of coresets on active DL BWP(s) of the one or more cells. In an example, the plurality of the coresets may have a different QCL-TypeD property), and wherein the association with the CORESET having the first QCL type D properties is configured by higher layer signaling (paragraph 264: a search space set of the one or more search space sets may be associated with (or linked to) a coreset of the one or more coresets. In an example, the one or more configuration parameters may indicate the coreset (or coreset index of the coreset) for the search space set (e.g., provided by a higher layer parameter controlResourceSetId in the higher layer parameter SearchSpace)). 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 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. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik in view of Cirik et al. (US 2020/0221485) (“Cirik2”). For claim 8; Cirik discloses the subject matter in claim 7 as described above in the office action. Cirik does not expressly disclose, but Cirik2 from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the processor determines the PDCCH candidates to monitor so as to monitor a CORESET corresponding to a common search space (CSS) set more preferentially than a CORESET corresponding to a UE-specific search space (USS) set, among the multiple CORESETs (paragraph 556: The CSS may have a higher priority than a USS. The wireless device may receive system information parameters and/or RA parameters in the common search space). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Cirik2in the M-TRP system as described by Cirik. The motivation is to improve cell configuration. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2022/0217694); Kim discloses receiving, from a base station, configuration information related to one or more search space sets for the PDCCH; and based on overlapping of one or more monitoring occasions in a plurality of control resource sets (CORESETs) with different QCL(quasi co-location) configurations for a spatial reception parameter, receiving, from the base station, the PDCCH in a first CORESET with a first QCL configuration for the spatial reception parameter and a second CORESET with a second QCL configuration for the spatial reception parameter among the plurality of CORESET. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu. 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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. /JOHN D BLANTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 13, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 13, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 24, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 15, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587929
METHOD AND APPARATUS SUPPORTING RANDOM ACCESS TRANSMISSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574416
MONITORING OVERLAY NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574943
METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING PHYSICAL DOWNLINK CONTROL CHANNEL AND DEVICE FOR SAME IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563533
RESOURCE ALLOCATION METHOD, APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556337
BANDWIDTH PART MAPPING FOR CONTROL AND DATA CHANNELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
77%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+8.1%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1014 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