CTNF 17/605,038 CTNF 84552 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. DETAIL ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 25, 27 and 29 are amended. Claims 25-29 are pending. Response to Arguments Examiner’s Remarks -35 USC § 103 Rejection – Independent Claims 25, 27 and 29 The examiner notes that the applicant has amended each independent claim to recite the new feature(s) of, “wherein a unique International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) is assigned to each of the two or more USIMs”. In view of the claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference FU (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0239575) to the record. The examiner notes that Fu teaches a multi-unique International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) device environment. See rejection below. Examiner’s Remarks -35 USC § 103 Rejection – Dependent Claims 26 & 28 07-37-12 AIA Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHIN (WO 2012030671 and Chin1 hereinafter) in view of GHASEMZADEH (WO 2014/070066) and further in view of FU (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0239575) . 1. through 24. (canceled) As to claims 25, 27 and 29, Chin1 teaches a method for a User Equipment (UE) operating two or more Universal Subscriber Identity Modules (USIMs), the method comprising: performing a registration with a core network node (i.e., …teaches in par. 0050 the following: “both IMSIs register”). Chin1 does not expressly teach: and transmitting, to the core network node, via a radio access node in a radio access network, capability information related to the UE, the capability information indicating a Multi-USIM feature. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference GHASEMZADEH. GHASEMZADEH teaches on pg. 56 par. 004 & pg. 67 par. 001 the following: “The network node may determine whether or not a wireless device supports multi-SIM operation. The network node may also determine whether or not a multi-SIM capable wireless device is currently using or intends to use multi-SIM operation within a certain time. The network may determine that the wireless device is using or intends to use when the wireless device informs the network that it wants to establish multi-SIM operation or seeks permission to do so. The wireless device may also indicate to the network its capability in terms of supported multi-SIM operation. The network may also determine wireless device multi-SIM operational capability and/or its current multi-SIM operation based on information received from another network node e.g. from network node such as core network node (e.g. MME) of another PLMN which is involved in multi-SIM operation for this wireless device.”. Further teaches in pg. 57 par. 0002 the following: “The network, in response to the determined multi-SIM operational capability and/or current multi-SIM operation of the wireless device, may take into account the unassigned time periods and/or the assigned time periods when permitting the wireless device to perform the multi-SIM operation or configuring the wireless device with a scheme or resources to enable multi-SIM operation. For example, if the unassigned time period is longer than a threshold (e.g. at least 20 ms at least every 50 ms), then the network node may assign fewer resources (e.g. subframes) for wireless device with gaps to enable multi-SIM operation. In this case, the wireless device can use the assigned time period for the radio communication related to the PLMN of a first SIM. The unassigned time periods can be used by the wireless device for the radio communication(s) related to the PLMN of the second or subset or remaining SIMs. In this way, the wireless device can operate using multiple SIMs with different PLMNs without degrading performance since interruptions due to measurements and/or emissions across carriers can be avoided.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Chin1 with the teachings of GHASEMZADEH by having their system comprise an enhanced device configuration verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to verify device configuration, wherein the enhanced device configuration verification process helps facilitate easier device registration and makes it easier to identify the network devices for communication. The system of Chin1 and GHASEMZADEH do not expressly teach: wherein a unique International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) is assigned to each of the two or more USIMs. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference FU. FU teaches in par. 0043 the following: “two IMEIs in the memory device 106 for two subscriber identity cards respectively inserted into two sockets (e.g. sockets 303 and 304).”. Teaches in par. 0034 the following: “the subscriber identity card 101 or 102 may be the subscriber identity module (SIM) card corresponding to the GSM, or the universal subscriber identity module (USIM) card corresponding to the UMTS, or the removable user identity module (RUIM) card or the CDMA Subscriber Identity Module (CSIM) card corresponding to the CDMA2000 communication system, or others.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Chin1 and GHASEMZADEH with the teachings of FU by having their system comprise an enhanced service quality improvement process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to reduce user and provider costs, wherein the enhanced service quality improvement process helps facilitate better device communication and makes it easier to manage communication connections. As to claim 26, the system of Chin1, GHASEMZADEH and FU as applied to claim 25 above teaches the use of USIMs, specifically Chin1 does not expressly teach a method for the UE according to claim 25 further comprising: receiving information related to the Multi-USIM feature from the core network node. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference GHASEMZADEH. GHASEMZADEH teaches on pg. 56 par. 004 & pg. 67 par. 001 the following: “The network node may determine whether or not a wireless device supports multi-SIM operation. The network node may also determine whether or not a multi-SIM capable wireless device is currently using or intends to use multi-SIM operation within a certain time. The network may determine that the wireless device is using or intends to use when the wireless device informs the network that it wants to establish multi-SIM operation or seeks permission to do so. The wireless device may also indicate to the network its capability in terms of supported multi-SIM operation. The network may also determine wireless device multi-SIM operational capability and/or its current multi-SIM operation based on information received from another network node e.g. from network node such as core network node (e.g. MME) of another PLMN which is involved in multi-SIM operation for this wireless device.”. Further teaches in pg. 57 par. 0002 the following: “The network, in response to the determined multi-SIM operational capability and/or current multi-SIM operation of the wireless device, may take into account the unassigned time periods and/or the assigned time periods when permitting the wireless device to perform the multi-SIM operation or configuring the wireless device with a scheme or resources to enable multi-SIM operation. For example, if the unassigned time period is longer than a threshold (e.g. at least 20 ms at least every 50 ms), then the network node may assign fewer resources (e.g. subframes) for wireless device with gaps to enable multi-SIM operation. In this case, the wireless device can use the assigned time period for the radio communication related to the PLMN of a first SIM. The unassigned time periods can be used by the wireless device for the radio communication(s) related to the PLMN of the second or subset or remaining SIMs. In this way, the wireless device can operate using multiple SIMs with different PLMNs without degrading performance since interruptions due to measurements and/or emissions across carriers can be avoided.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Chin1 with the teachings of GHASEMZADEH by having their system comprise an enhanced device configuration verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to verify device configuration, wherein the enhanced device configuration verification process helps facilitate easier device registration and makes it easier to identify the network devices for communication. As to claim 28, the system of Chin1, GHASEMZADEH and FU as applied to claim 25 above teaches the use of USIMs, specifically Chin1 does not expressly teach a method for the core network node according to claim 27 further comprising: transmitting information related to the Multi-USIM feature to the UE. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference GHASEMZADEH. GHASEMZADEH teaches on pg. 56 par. 004 & pg. 67 par. 001 the following: “The network node may determine whether or not a wireless device supports multi-SIM operation. The network node may also determine whether or not a multi-SIM capable wireless device is currently using or intends to use multi-SIM operation within a certain time. The network may determine that the wireless device is using or intends to use when the wireless device informs the network that it wants to establish multi-SIM operation or seeks permission to do so. The wireless device may also indicate to the network its capability in terms of supported multi-SIM operation. The network may also determine wireless device multi-SIM operational capability and/or its current multi-SIM operation based on information received from another network node e.g. from network node such as core network node (e.g. MME) of another PLMN which is involved in multi-SIM operation for this wireless device.”. Further teaches in pg. 57 par. 0002 the following: “The network, in response to the determined multi-SIM operational capability and/or current multi-SIM operation of the wireless device, may take into account the unassigned time periods and/or the assigned time periods when permitting the wireless device to perform the multi-SIM operation or configuring the wireless device with a scheme or resources to enable multi-SIM operation. For example, if the unassigned time period is longer than a threshold (e.g. at least 20 ms at least every 50 ms), then the network node may assign fewer resources (e.g. subframes) for wireless device with gaps to enable multi-SIM operation. In this case, the wireless device can use the assigned time period for the radio communication related to the PLMN of a first SIM. The unassigned time periods can be used by the wireless device for the radio communication(s) related to the PLMN of the second or subset or remaining SIMs. In this way, the wireless device can operate using multiple SIMs with different PLMNs without degrading performance since interruptions due to measurements and/or emissions across carriers can be avoided.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Chin1 with the teachings of GHASEMZADEH by having their system comprise an enhanced device configuration verification process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to verify device configuration, wherein the enhanced device configuration verification process helps facilitate easier device registration and makes it easier to identify the network devices for communication. Prior Art Made of Record 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Kim et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0104163) . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826. 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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BRYAN F WRIGHT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2497 Application/Control Number: 17/605,038 Page 2 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 17/605,038 Page 3 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 17/605,038 Page 4 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 17/605,038 Page 5 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 17/605,038 Page 6 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 17/605,038 Page 7 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 17/605,038 Page 8 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 17/605,038 Page 9 Art Unit: 2497
Prosecution Insights