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 .
Response to Arguments
2. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 01/29/2026. Claims 3-6 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
3. Applicant arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR et al. (US 20220191824) in view of KUMAR et al. (US 20200120585) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner thoroughly reviewed Applicant’s arguments but firmly believes that the cited reference reasonably and properly meets the claimed limitation as rejected.
Applicant’s argument: Therefore, Kumar '824 does not teach or suggest "sending, to the AMF, a service request message that includes a reject paging indication and requesting release of a Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) signaling connection."
Examiner’s response: at step 4, figures 14, Kumar 824 shows UE 100 sending a request message that includes a reject paging indication and causes, timer value (requesting release of a Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) signaling connection) to the AMF 2000. Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
In par 0158, Kumar 824 teaches “the NAS or the AS signalling message to suspend or release the connection (e.g. extended service request with the cause value for suspending in dual SIM case or RRCConnection release) over the second SIM of the UE (100) is executed”. I par 0190, Kumar 824 teaches “the UE (100) sends the paging rejects for the unwanted services, when the UE (100) receives the paging with cause value (service type) then at step 3, the UE (100) checks the ongoing service in the first SIM and based on one of: the USIM configuration and the user preferences or both, if the UE (100) decides that the current paging is not a priority compared to the service on the first SIM, then the UE (100) sends the paging reject message to the network (step 4). In the paging reject (AS or NAS message) message the UE (100) includes the reject cause value, a timer value and list of services for which the UE (100) wants to receive the paging and the list of paging cause/services for which the UE (100) does not want to receive the paging.”
Thus, Kumar 824 does teach "sending, to the AMF, a service request message that includes a reject paging indication and requesting release of a Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) signaling connection" as recited in rejected claims 3-4.
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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR et al. (US 20220191824) (hereinafter Kumar) in view of KUMAR et al. (US 20200120585) (hereinafter Kumar 85).
Regarding claims 3-4:
As shown in figures 1-17, Kumar 24 discloses a User Equipment (UE) (see figures 1A, 3B), with multiple Universal Subscriber Identity Modules (USIMs) (figure 1A and 3B shows UE 100 with multiple SIMs (Multi SIM)) (par 0015), configured to maintain a separate registration state with network for each of the multiple USIMs (figure 3B shows UE maintain a separate registration state with a public land mobile network (PLMN) (first network and second network) for each of the multiple USIMs (first SIM and second SIM). Also see figure 4-17), the UE comprising:
a memory (140 in figure 1A) storing instructions (par 0099); and
at least one processor (160 in figure 1A) configured to process the instructions to (par 0059, 0099):
receive, from Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (1000 and 2000 in figure 14, par 0187), a message that includes a paging cause information for a voices service (see step 2 in figure 14, par 0190), and
send (see step 4 in figure 14), to the AMF (1000 and 2000 in figure 14, par 0187-0190), a service request message that includes a reject paging indication and requesting release of a Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) signaling connection (see steps 3-4 in figure 14, par 0190).
Kumar 24 discloses all of the subject matter as described above, including first and second network, except for specifically teaching a public land mobile network (PLMN).
However, Kumar 85 in the same field of endeavor teaches a public land mobile network (PLMN) (figure 8, par 0088-0089). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PLMN as taught by Kumar 85 to modify the system and method of Kumar 24 in order to provide communication services for the UE (par 0063) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 5-6:
The method of claim 3, wherein the NAS signaling connection is different from a Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection (par 0158-0170).
Conclusion
8. 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 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 PM.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights