Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/559,708

TERMINAL AND RADIO COMMUNICATION METHOD

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 08, 2023
Examiner
OVEISSI, MANSOUR
Art Unit
2415
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
NTT Docomo Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
741 granted / 893 resolved
+25.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
935
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§103
53.6%
+13.6% vs TC avg
§102
9.0%
-31.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 893 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of Claims 2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/08/2023. Claims 1 and through 5 are presently pending and are presented for examination. 3. 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. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112 4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Regarding claims 1 and 3 use of the word “unit” (means) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word "means" (or "step for'') in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that§ 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. Claim elements in this application that use the word "means" (or "step for'') are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word "means" (or "step for'') are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The limitations of claim 1 and 3 recite(s) a reception unit (means) that receives downlink control information ... and a control unit (means) that performs feedback of an automatic retransmission request in response to the downlink control information for activation when a semi-persistent scheduling of a downlink data channel common to a terminal group is activated based on the downlink control information for a downlink control channel specific to the terminal ... are being treated in accordance with 112(f). Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 3 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation: (a) Regarding claim 1 and 3, the specification in discloses a terminal (UE200) provided with a reception unit (radio signal transmission and reception unit 210) that receives a terminal specific downlink control channel, and a control unit (control unit 270) that performs feedback of an automatic retransmission request in response to a first downlink data channel when a semi-persistent scheduling of a downlink data channel common to a terminal group is activated based on downlink control information for the terminal-specific downlink control channel (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 10). If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5. 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. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2021/0282114 A1) in view of Prasad et al. (US 2024/0106607 A1). For claim 1 Liu teaches a terminal (see paragraph 11 “UE (terminal)”) comprising: a reception unit that receives downlink control information (DCI) (see Fig. 15 “reception component (unit or means)1504” and paragraph 93 “UE may receive and decode the same DCI…the DCI that is common (common DCI) to all UEs of a group”); and a control unit that performs feedback of an automatic retransmission request in response to the downlink control information for activation when a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) of a downlink data channel common to a terminal group is activated based on the downlink control information for a downlink control channel specific to the terminal (see paragraphs 307 “means to transmit feedback to base station”, paragraph 48 “the base station may communicate with the UE according to the SPS configuration through activation (or "triggering") of the SPS configuration. That is, the base station may transmit downlink data to the UE and receive corresponding ACK and/or NACK feedback from the UE while the SPS configuration is activated. In order to activate the SPS configuration, the base station may set a corresponding bit in downlink control information (DCI)”, paragraph 93 “The DCI that is common to all UEs 404a-c of the group may include multicast DCI that indicates an SPS activation or release associated with a set of SPS occasions or associated with other SPS scheduling common to the group of UEs (terminals) 404a-c.”, paragraph 107 “the base station 402 may configure each of the UEs 404a-c with at least one UE-specific feedback resource on an uplink channel (e.g., an uplink control channel, such as a PUCCH)” and claims 17-19 “determining whether at least one of downlink data on a downlink data channel over at least one multicast semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) occasion or multicast downlink control information (DCI) indicating an SPS activation or release for a multicast group is unsuccess fully received from a base station; and receiving a retransmission of at least one of the downlink data or the SPS activation or release for the multicast group when the at least one of the downlink data or the multicast DCI is determined to be unsuccessfully received”). Liu does not explicitly teach a common downlink control information (DCI) for a downlink control channel (PDCCH) specific to the terminal (UE). However, Prasad teaches the term "UE-specific" implies that the PDCCH information is scheduled individually for all the UEs interested in receiving MBS traffic, and the term "group-common" implies that the PDCCH information is scheduled for a group of UEs (see Prasad: paragraph 39). In addition, Prasad teaches detailed processes are still for further study (FFS). For example, it is FFS whether to use group-common PDCCH or UE-specific PDCCH for SPS group-common PDSCH activation/deactivation, whether to support more than one SPS group-common PDSCH configuration per UE, whether and how to configure uplink feedback, how to retransmit SPS group-common PDSCH, or the like (see Prasad: paragraph 45). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Prasad in the semi-persistent scheduling of Liu in order to determine whether to use group-common PDCCH or UE-specific PDCCH for SPS group-common PDSCH activation/deactivation (see Prasad: paragraph 45). For claim 2 Liu in view of Prasad teaches the terminal, wherein the control unit determines a method for transmitting a result of the feedback based on a content of the downlink control information for the activation (see Liu: paragraph 48 “The base station may communicate with the UE according to the SPS configuration through activation ( or "triggering") of the SPS configuration. That is, the base station may transmit downlink data to the UE and receive corresponding ACK and/or NACK feedback from the UE while the SPS configuration is activated. In order to activate the SPS configuration, the base station may set a corresponding bit in downlink control information (DCI)”). For claim 3 Liu in view of Prasad teaches a terminal (see paragraph 11 “UE (terminal)”) comprising: a reception unit that receives a terminal-specific downlink control channel (see Liu: paragraphs 107-108 “UE-specific resource” and prasad: paragraphs 39 and 45 UE specific PDCCH (DCI)”); and a control unit that performs feedback of an automatic retransmission request in response to a first downlink data channel when a semi-persistent scheduling of a downlink data channel common to a terminal group is activated based on downlink control information for the terminal-specific downlink control channel (as discussed in claim 1). For claim 4 Liu in view of Prasad teaches a radio communication method (as discussed in claim 1) comprising the steps of: receiving downlink control information (as discussed in claim 1); and performing feedback of an automatic retransmission request in response to the downlink control information for activation when a semi-persistent scheduling of a downlink data channel common to a terminal group is activated based on the downlink control information for a downlink control channel specific to the terminal. For claim 5 Liu in view of Prasad teaches a radio communication method (as discussed in claim 1) comprising the steps of: receiving a terminal-specific downlink control channel (as discussed in claim 1); and performing feedback of an automatic retransmission request in response to a first downlink data channel when a semi-persistent scheduling of a downlink data channel common to a terminal group is activated based on downlink control information for the terminal-specific downlink control channel (as discussed in claim 1). Conclusion 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270 - 1215. 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. /MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 08, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598018
METHOD FOR MITIGATING INTERFERENCE FROM COEXISTING OFDM-BASED RADIO ACCESS TECHNOLOGIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598618
SOUNDING REFERENCE SIGNAL RESOURCE INDICATORS ASSOCIATED WITH CONFIGURED GRANT PHYSICAL UPLINK SHARED CHANNEL REPETITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581322
TRANSMISSION CONFIGURATION METHOD, TRANSMISSION CONFIGURATION DETERMINATION METHOD, BASE STATION AND TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574982
COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562842
TRANSPORT BLOCK SCALING FOR PHYSICAL UPLINK SHARED CHANNEL REPETITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
83%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+11.6%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 893 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