Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/420,825

Method And Apparatus For Physical Downlink Control Channel Monitoring And Scheduled Cells Combination For Multi-Cell Scheduling

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 24, 2024
Examiner
MAGLOIRE, ELISABETH BENOIT
Art Unit
2471
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
MediaTek Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
707 granted / 791 resolved
+31.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
819
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.7%
-34.3% vs TC avg
§103
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 791 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 1. The following Office Action is based on the application filed on 24 January 2024, having claims 1-20 and drawing figures 1-6. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Objections 3. Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Claim” recited in claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 must be written in lowercase letters. The word “such that” recited in claim 8 must be deleted to render the claim affirmative. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4. 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 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. Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nory et al. (US 2023/0284205 A1). For claims 1 and 8, Nory discloses an apparatus (Fig 20, UE 4530 or Fig 17, UE 4200), comprising: a transceiver (Fig 17, communication subsystem 4231) which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with a network node (Fig 20, base station 4520) of a wireless network (Fig 17, Network 4243a); and a processor (Fig 17, processor 4201) communicatively coupled to the transceiver (Fig 17, processor 4201 is coupled to communication subsystem 4231 (transceiver) via bus 4202) such that, during operation, the processor performs operations comprising: receiving, via the transceiver, a configuration of one or more search spaces for a downlink control information (DCI) indicating a scheduling on a first cell in a second cell ([0082-0083] the UE is configured with a plurality of search space sets for a DCI with a scheduling cell A (first cell or primary cell) and a scheduled cell B (second cell or Scell)); detecting, via the transceiver, the DCI indicating the scheduling on the first cell in the second cell according to the configuration ([0083] the scheduling information for the first and second cells are indicated in a PDCCH (downlink) DCI); and determining not to monitor physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidates on an active downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP) of the first cell ([0092] the UE does not monitor PDDCH candidates on an active BWP of the primary cell). For claims 2 and 9, Nory discloses the DCI is a multi-cell scheduling DCI ([0097] cross-carrier scheduling allows multi-cell (primary cell and Scell) scheduling DCI format). For claims 5 and 12, Nory discloses the configuration is received via a radio resource control (RRC) signaling ([0087] the configuration information is sent via RRC signaling). For claims 6 and 13, Nory discloses the detecting of the DCI comprises monitoring PDCCH candidates for the one or more search spaces in the second cell ([0092] the UE monitors PDCCH candidates on the Scell only which is the second cell, the second cell has a search space set). For claims 7 and 14, Nory discloses the monitoring of PDCCH candidates is performed only in the second cell ([0092] the UE monitors PDCCH candidates on the Scell only which is the second cell). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. 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. Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nory et al. (US 2023/0284205 A1). For claim 15, Nory discloses receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, a configuration of one or more search spaces and a plurality of cells for multi-cell scheduling downlink control information (DCI) in a cell group ([0082-0083] the UE is configured with a plurality of search space sets for a DCI for [0062] multiple cells in a cell group, wherein the multiple cells comprise a primary cell and an Scell or special Scell)); detecting, by the processor, a DCI indicating a scheduling on one of the sets of cells in the cell group according to the configuration ([0083] the UE detects a DCI format indicating scheduling on the primary cell) performing, by the processor, a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) reception or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission on at least one cell among the one of the sets of cells ([0062] when UE is configured with sScell, PDSCH or PUSCH transmission is scheduled on the primary cell). For claim 15, Nory does not expressly disclose multiple sets of cells or cell group. However, each set of cells may comprise only 1 cell (or more than one cell). For claim 15, Nory does not expressly disclose a scheduled cells combination in one set of cells is not included in another set of cells. However, Nory discloses that Cell A may be the scheduling cell while Cell B is the scheduled cell ([0082-0083]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to one skilled in the art that the first set (scheduling cell A) is different from the second set (scheduled cell B), and that adding additional cells to each set would not depart from the scope of the invention. For claim 16, Nory does not expressly disclose a cell in one set of cells is not included in another set of cells. However, Nory discloses that Cell A may be the scheduling cell while Cell B is the scheduled cell ([0082-0083]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to one skilled in the art that the first set (scheduling cell A) is different from the second set (scheduled cell B), and that adding additional cells to each set would not depart from the scope of the invention. For claim 17, Nory discloses the DCI is a multi-cell scheduling DCI ([0097] cross-carrier scheduling allows multi-cell (primary cell and Scell) scheduling DCI format). For claims 3, 10, and 18, Nory does not expressly disclose a DCI format 0_3 for scheduling of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission on the first cell among a plurality of cells. However, Nory discloses DCI format (0_2) and DCI format (1_2) may be used for PDSCH or PUSCH transmission on the primary cell [0037] and other DCI formats may be used. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use DCI format (0_3) or DCI format (1_3) based on the teachings on Nory without departing from the scope of the invention. For claims 4, 11, and 19, Nory does not expressly disclose the DCI comprises a DCI format 1_3 for scheduling of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) reception on the first cell among a plurality of cells. However, Nory discloses DCI format (0_2) and DCI format (1_2) may be used for PDSCH or PUSCH transmission on the primary cell [0037] and other DCI formats may be used. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use DCI format (0_3) or DCI format (1_3) based on the teachings on Nory without departing from the scope of the invention. For claim 20, Nory discloses the configuration is received via a radio resource control (RRC) signaling ([0087] the configuration information is sent via RRC signaling). Conclusion 5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET. 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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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. /ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604233
Quality Management for Wireless Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604160
DEVICE FOR TRANSMITTING PUSH-TO-TALK MESSAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598542
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANAGING USER EQUIPMENT IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598509
METHOD FOR ALIGNMENT OF MINIMIZATION DRIVE TEST AND QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE MEASUREMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592793
SN SYNCHRONIZATION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MULTICAST BROADCAST SERVICE, DEVICE, AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+8.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 791 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