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 .
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.
FINAL ACTION
This action is response to applicant's submission filed on 09/11/2025. 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 argues: “Neither of the cited references, either alone or in combination, teach or suggest at least: a UE “operating two or more [USIM]” and “performing a registration with a core network node, wherein a unique equipment identifier is assigned to each of the two or more USIMs,” as recited.”. The examiner respectfully notes that the stated argument(s) and remarks are inconsistent with the teachings of the cited prior art. Moreover, the examiner respectfully contends that applicant’s argued claim limitation(s) of, “performing a registration with a core network node”, does not constrain the registration process with the core network node to a specific process. Therefore, the examiner contends that there many reasonable interpretation(s)/implementation(s) of a registration process.
The examiner draws attention to par. 0031 and par. 0033 of prior art reference Chin1. The examiner contends that Chin1 teaches in par. 31 the following: “The node Bs 108 provide wireless access points to a core network 104 for any number of mobile apparatuses…”. The examiner further notes that par. 0033 of Chin1 discloses the following: “the core network 104 supports circuit-switched services with a mobile switching center (MSC) 1 12 and a gateway MSC (GMSC) 114. One or more RNCs, such as the RNC 106, may be connected to the MSC 112. The MSC 1 12 is an apparatus that controls call setup, call routing, and UE mobility functions. The MSC 112 also includes a visitor location register (VLR) (not shown) that contains subscriber-related information for the duration that a UE is in the coverage area of the MSC 112. The GMSC 114 provides a gateway through the MSC 1 12 for the UE to access a circuit- switched network 116. The GMSC 1 14 includes a home location register (HLR) (not shown) containing subscriber data, such as the data reflecting the details of the services to which a particular user has subscribed. The HLR is also associated with an authentication center (AuC) that contains subscriber-specific authentication data. When a call is received for a particular UE, the GMSC 1 14 queries the HLR to determine the UE's location and forwards the call to the particular MSC serving that location.”.
The applicant argues, “Neither of the cited references, either alone or in combination, teach or suggest at least: a UE “operating two or more [USIM]”. The examiner notes that prior art reference Chin1 discloses in par. 0048 the following: “[0048] In certain countries, a mobile phone may have more than one Universal Subscriber Identity Module (USIM). … a user may have one personal phone number and one business phone number, both associated with his UE. Each USIM has a unique International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI)”. The examiner further notes that Chin1 teaches in par. 0049 the following: “When the UE has multiple USIMs, each USIM can be provisioned”.
The applicant argues: “Neither of the cited references, either alone or in combination, teach or suggest at least: a UE “wherein a unique equipment identifier is assigned to each of the two or more USIMs,” as recited.”. The examiner notes that applicant’s claim limitation simply reads a unique equipment identifier. The examiner contends that there are no constraints recited in the claim as currently constructed that limits the applicant’s unique equipment identifier to a IMEI as argued (…“As described in the present Application!: a mobile device may support multiple USIMs which “identify unequivocally the identities of the subscription information” ([0062]), while there may be a common or unique equipment identifier (e.g. IMEI) for each USIM, where the equipment identifier is the identity of the device/hardware ([0201], [0202]).”). The examiner notes that limitation(s) cannot be read into the claims from the specification. The examiner contends that applicant must positively recite that the unique equipment identifier is a “IMEI” in the claim structure.
As such the examiner respectfully notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, there are a many of reasonable interpretation(s)/implementation(s) of a unique equipment identifier. The examiner notes that International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) contains a Mobile Network Code (MNC) from which one can reasonably associate/identify unique operator owned equipment (i.e., “AT&T” mobile network equipment or “T-Mobile” network equipment). The examiner contends that the mobile network is comprised of equipment. The examiner contends that Chin1 discloses in par. 0048 the following: “Each USIM has a unique International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI).”. Again, the examiner notes that limitation(s) cannot be read into the claims. The examiner contends that the applicant must positively recite that the unique equipment identifier is a “IMEI” in the claim structure to constrain the unique equipment identifier.
Examiner’s Remarks -35 USC § 103 Rejection – Dependent Claims 26 & 28
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
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.
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).
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”),
wherein a unique equipment identifier is assigned to each of the two or more USIMs (i.e. …teaches in par. 0048 the following: “a mobile phone may have more than one Universal Subscriber Identity Module (USIM) which enables the user to make and receive phone calls using different phone numbers. For example, a user may have one personal phone number and one business phone number, both associated with his UE. Each USIM has a unique International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI).”).
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.
As to claim 26, the system of Chin1 and GHASEMZADEH 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 and GHASEMZADEH 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.
Conclusion
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.
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