Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/277,275

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MONITORING DOWNLINK CONTROL INFORMATION

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Aug 15, 2023
Examiner
BLANTON, JOHN D
Art Unit
2466
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Lenovo (Beijing) Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
784 granted / 1014 resolved
+19.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
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
52.7%
+12.7% 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) 1 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) 1-4, 7, 10-16, and 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hakola et al. (US 2022/0232546) (“Hakola”). For claims 1, 10, 24, and 25; Hakola discloses: receiving a downlink control information (DCI) from a base station (BS) (paragraph 321, 328: The UE may be signalled the COT's QCL assumption in the GC-PDCCH. In this regard, DCI transmitted as GC-PDCCH may have a field indicating the COT's QCL assumption, which could be in form of an SSB index or SSB indexes, This can be in the form of TCI states where same or different spatial filters can be used for the reception and transmission at the UE), the DCI including an indicator indicating one or more sensing beam indexes (paragraph 323: spatial domain of a directional LBT beam used by the gNB in an LBT procedure such that the one or more SSBs effectively define the LBT beam) and one or more transmission beam indexes (paragraph 335,336: the indication of the QCL assumption for he COT is SSB index #a…It can be determined that CSI-RS resources #1-#3 are valid resources for the COT, and beams associated with such CSI-RSs are valid beams that are available for use for transmissions during the COT. In other words, such beams are within the beamwidth(s) of the directional LBT beam(s) that were used in one or more directional Listen Before Talk (LBT) measurements indicating a vacant channel); determining one or more sensing beams for a Listen-Before-Talk (LBT) procedure according to the one or more sensing beam indexes and a higher layer signaling (paragraph 318: the UE (not shown) may be configured with resources, e.g. CSI-RS resources #0-#4. When configuring the CSI-RS resources, the gNB gives a QCL assumption for each resource. For example: CSI-RS #0.fwdarw.SSB #d…CSI-RS #1.fwdarw.SSB #a…CSI-RS #2.fwdarw.SSB #a…CSI-RS #3.fwdarw.SSB #a…CSI-RS #4.fwdarw.SSB #e); and determining one or more transmission beams for transmission of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) according to the one or more transmission beam indexes and the higher layer signaling (paragraph 335-336: the indication of the QCL assumption for he COT is SSB index #a. Based on the configuration of the CSI-RS resources…It can be determined that CSI-RS resources #1-#3 are valid resources for the COT, and beams associated with such CSI-RSs are valid beams that are available for use for transmissions during the COT. In other words, such beams are within the beamwidth(s) of the directional LBT beam(s) that were used in one or more directional Listen Before Talk (LBT) measurements indicating a vacant channel), the one or more transmission beams being within a spatial region of a channel occupancy (CO) initiated by the BS after completing the LBT procedure with the one or more sensing beams (paragraph 321, 333: the gNB signals an indication of an initiation of a COT for the gNB. This may be signalled via a DCI or via transmission of discovery signal or predefined reference signal. The gNB also signals a QCL assumption for the COT. The indication and the QCL assumption may also be signalled via the DCI which is included in PDCCH, GC-PDCCH, PDSCH, or short control signal… QCL chain is defined by a chain of TCI states where a first node in the chain comprises an SSB as QCL-TypeD RS (first QCL assumption) and the QCL-TypeD RS of the next TCI state has a first TCI state as the QCL source, and so on. An example of a QCL chain with an SSB defining a root node of the chain is depicted in FIG. 6. In FIG. 6, SSB #3 corresponds to a “root” beam having the widest beam). For claims 2, 11, and 26; Hakola discloses: wherein the higher layer signaling includes a table indicating one or more relations between the one or more sensing beam indexes and the one or more transmission beam indexes (paragraph 318: the UE (not shown) may be configured with resources, e.g. CSI-RS resources #0-#4. When configuring the CSI-RS resources, the gNB gives a QCL assumption for each resource. For example: CSI-RS #0.fwdarw.SSB #d…CSI-RS #1.fwdarw.SSB #a…CSI-RS #2.fwdarw.SSB #a…CSI-RS #3.fwdarw.SSB #a…CSI-RS #4.fwdarw.SSB #e). For claims 3, 12, and 27; Hakola discloses: wherein the indicator is used to identify at least one row of the table (paragraph 323: one or more SSB indexes may indicate one or more SSBs whose directivity and spatial domain effectively correspond to directivity and spatial domain of a directional LBT beam used by the gNB in an LBT procedure such that the one or more SSBs effectively define the LBT beam). For claims 4 and 13; Hakola discloses: determining a plurality of transmission beams according to the at least one row of the table (paragraph 328: DCI transmitted as GC-PDCCH may have a field indicating the COT's QCL assumption, which could be in form of an SSB index or SSB indexes, This can be in the form of TCI states where same or different spatial filters can be used for the reception and transmission at the UE). For claims 7, 16, and 29; Hakola discloses: wherein each of the one or more transmission beams used by the BS to transmit the PDCCH corresponds to at least one control resource set (CORESET) (paragraph 322-325, 346: When a DCI transmitted, for example on PDCCH and GC-PDCCH, indicates the QCL assumption for the COT, the indication may contain: …bitmap over a configured subset of SSB indexes associated with the received DCI (e.g. associated with a CORESET on which the DCI is detected)). For claims 14; Hakola discloses: determine if at least one of the plurality of transmission beams is associated with another sensing beam indicated by an additional row of the table. (paragraph 325: an indication of an SSB group, wherein the UE is configured with a number of SSB groups that are associated with a CORESET for the DCI. The SSB groups may be partially overlapping or nested. The DCI may contain an indication of the SSB group that can be used as QCL assumption for the COT). For claims 15; Hakola discloses: determine one or more additional transmission beams based on the additional row of the table (paragraph 318, 325: an indication of an SSB group, wherein the UE is configured with a number of SSB groups that are associated with a CORESET for the DCI. The SSB groups may be partially overlapping or nested. The DCI may contain an indication of the SSB group that can be used as QCL assumption for the COT). For claims 28; Hakola discloses: wherein the at least one row of the table indicates that at least one of the one or more transmission beams is associated with at least one sensing beam (paragraph 318: the UE (not shown) may be configured with resources, e.g. CSI-RS resources #0-#4. When configuring the CSI-RS resources, the gNB gives a QCL assumption for each resource. For example: CSI-RS #0.fwdarw.SSB #d…CSI-RS #1.fwdarw.SSB #a…CSI-RS #2.fwdarw.SSB #a…CSI-RS #3.fwdarw.SSB #a…CSI-RS #4.fwdarw.SSB #e). 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) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakola in view of Myung et al. (US 2023/0300881) (“Myung”). For claim 17; Hakola discloses the subject matter in claim 16 as described above in the office action. Hakola does not expressly disclose, but Myung from similar fields of endeavor teaches: monitor the PDCCH only in the at least one CORESET during a remaining CO duration (paragraph 372: If the UE receives DCI format 2_0 in search space set #2, the UE may monitor only search space sets #0/1/2/3 sharing the same CORESET ID as the corresponding search space set during a COT duration indicated by DCI format 2_0. In other words, search spaces #4/5/6 may not be monitored during the corresponding COT duration). 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 Myung in the directional LBT as described by Hakola. The motivation is to PDCCH monitoring. For claim 17; Hakola discloses the subject matter in claim 16 as described above in the office action. Hakola does not expressly disclose, but Myung from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the at least one CORESET corresponds to a first group of search space sets and a second group of search space sets, and the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: monitor the PDCCH in the at least one CORESET according to the second group of search space sets instead of the first group of search space sets if a value of a field predefined for search space set switching is received in the DCI (paragraph 373: when one or more search space set groups are configured for search space sets configured in a specific BWP, and when the UE is instructed to monitor search space sets included in a specific search space set group through a search space set group switching flag in received DCI, the UE may monitor only a search space set associated (e.g., in the QCL relationship) with a beam direction or beam group direction in which the UE receives a DL signal/channel among the search space sets in the search space set group). 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 Myung in the directional LBT as described by Hakola. The motivation is to PDCCH monitoring. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moon et al. (US 2020/0280971); Moon discloses receiving, from a base station, first configuration information of a CORESET and second configuration information of a search space associated with the CORESET; receiving, from the base station, third configuration information indicating one or more PDCCH monitoring resource sets associated with the CORESET and the search space; and performing a PDCCH monitoring operation on the one or more PDCCH monitoring resource sets. 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

Aug 15, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 22, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 04, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 04, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 18, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 10, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 17, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 17, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

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
86%
With Interview (+9.1%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1014 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month