DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 12/11/2025.
Claim(s) 15-16, 18-20, 22-24, 26-28, and 30 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 15, 23 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 15-16, 18-20, 22-24, 26-28, and 30 is/are rejected.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/11/2025 have been considered.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 15-16, 18-20, 22-24, 26-28, and 30 have been considered and are persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 15 and 23, Applicant argues that paragraph 74 of Dash does not clearly disclose the limitation(s) “identifying that the RAN does not support the paging cause indication for the voice service in case that the paging message does not include the paging cause indication”, the applicant’s argument is persuasive. However, Examiner reconsidered the reference Dash, and found paragraphs 92-94 clearly discloses the aforementioned limitation(s), therefore, the 35 USC § 103 rejections of 15-16, 18-20, 22-24, 26-28, and 30 have been updated with new citations. Please see the detailed rejections below.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-16, 18, 20, 23-24, 26, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20240172178_A1_Ryu in view of WO_2018005419_A1_Dash.
Regarding claim 15, Ryu discloses a method for receiving a paging message by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system supporting multi-universal subscriber identity modules (USIMs) (Ryu figures 8, 19), the method comprising: receiving the paging message from a radio access network (RAN) (Ryu figure 27, the UE receives paging message from the AMF via the Base station); identifying whether the paging message includes a paging cause indication for a voice service (Ryu paragraphs 325, “…paging message for an IMS voice service…” ,and paragraph 317, “…If the AMF accepts the request, the AMF may add one or more paging cause values in a paging message for the UE…”); and determining whether to respond to the paging message upon reception of the paging cause indication in the paging message based on the paging cause indication (Ryu figure 27, step of “Determining to respond based on the paging cause”), but does not discloses identifying that the RAN supports the paging cause indication for the voice service in case that the paging message includes the paging cause indication; identifying that the RAN does not support the paging cause indication for the voice service in case that the paging message does not include the paging cause indication.
Dash discloses identifying that the RAN supports the paging cause indication for the voice service in case that the paging message includes the paging cause indication (Dash, paragraph 93, “…it can determine whether the network or network device is supporting the paging cause parameter or not… the UE determines the support from analyzing the paging messages the network is sending on the paging channel”, paragraph 94, “In an aspect, the paging cause parameter can be added to the paging message by a network device or component”, also see paragraphs 74, 92, 96. Therefore, the UE can determine the network or network device supports the paging cause parameter when the paging message including the paging cause parameter); identifying that the RAN does not support the paging cause indication for the voice service in case that the paging message does not include the paging cause indication (Dash, paragraph 93, “…it can determine whether the network or network device is supporting the paging cause parameter or not… the UE determines the support from analyzing the paging messages the network is sending on the paging channel”, paragraph 94, “In an aspect, the paging cause parameter can be added to the paging message by a network device or component”, also see paragraphs 74, 92, 96. Therefore, the UE can determine the network or network device does not support the paging cause parameter when the paging message does not include the paging cause parameter).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Dash’s the UE can determine whether the network or network device supports the paging cause parameter by determining whether the paging message including the paging cause parameter in Ryu’s system to let the UE decide the appropriate response for the paging message (paragraph 87, figure 5). This method for improving the system of Ryu was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Dash. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ryu and Dash to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Ryu and Dash disclose the method of claim 15, and Ryu further discloses wherein the UE in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state receives the paging message which is a RAN paging message (Ryu figure 37, the UE monitors the paging message when it is in CM-IDLE state or CM-CONNECTED/RRC-INACTIVE state), and wherein at least one of the multi-USIMs is active on the UE (Ryu figure 37, and paragraphs 359-363).
Regarding claim 18, Ryu and Dash disclose the method of claim 15, and Ryu further discloses further comprising performing a service request procedure in case that the UE determines to respond to the paging message (Ryu figures 27, step of “UE triggered service request (procedure)”. Also see figure 22).
Regarding claim 20, Ryu and Dash disclose the method of claim 15, and Ryu further comprising: transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF) via the RAN, a registration request message including information indicating that the UE has a capability using the multi-USIMs (Ryu figure 8, step 805, paragraph 311, “…the UE may include a dual-SIM UE capability in the registration request message instead of the request to include paging cause values for the paging messages…”); and receiving, via the RAN from the AMF, a registration accept message indicating that the paging cause indication for the voice service is supported in the RAN
(Ryu figure 9, step 955, and paragraph 213, “…the new AMF 155 may send to the UE 100 a registration accept 955 (comprising: 5G-GUTI, registration area, mobility restrictions, PDU session status, allowed NSSAI, [mapping of allowed NSSAI], periodic registration update timer, LADN information and accepted MICO mode, IMS voice over PS session supported indication…”).
Regarding claim 23, Ryu and Dash disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 15.
Regarding claim 24, Ryu and Dash disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 16.
Regarding claim 26, Ryu and Dash disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 26.
Regarding claim 28, Ryu and Dash disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 28.
Claim(s) 19 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20240172178_A1_Ryu in view of WO_2018005419_A1_Dash and US_20220240212_A1_Chun.
Regarding claim 19, Ryu and Dash disclose the method of claim 15, but do not explicitly disclose further comprising rejecting the paging message in case that the UE determines not to respond to the paging message.
Chun discloses rejecting the paging message in case that the UE determines not to respond to the paging message (Chun paragraphs 410, “…When the terminal does not respond to paging, the terminal may transmit a response message ( eg, a message indicating that it does not respond to paging) to the SMF node and/or the AMF node…”, and paragraph 430, “…When the terminal does not respond to paging, the terminal may transmit a response message ( eg, a message indicating that it does not respond to paging) to the SMF node and/or the AMF node…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Chun’s when the terminal does not respond to paging, the terminal may transmit a response message (eg, a message indicating that it does not respond to paging) to the SMF node and/or the AMF node in Ryu and Dash’s system to explicitly notify the AMF the UE’s decision. This method for improving the system of Ryu and Dash was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chun. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ryu, Dash and Chun to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Regarding claim 27, Ryu, Dash and Chun disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 19.
Claim(s) 22 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20240172178_A1_Ryu in view of WO_2018005419_A1_Dash and US_20220053448_A1_Velev.
Regarding claim 22, Ryu, Dash and Chun disclose the method of claim 15, but do not disclose further comprising transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF) via the RAN, information indicating that the UE does not support a capability for the multi-USIMs in case that only one USIM among the multi-USIMs is active on the UE in a registration procedure.
Velev discloses further comprising transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF) via the RAN, information indicating that the UE does not support a capability for the multi-USIMs in case that only one USIM among the multi-USIMs is active on the UE in a registration procedure (Velev paragraph 102, “…the UE 205 includes an explicit indication about no more MuSIM support required, this would mean that the UE 205 may have deactivated the one USIM card and from now on the UE 205 operates in single USIM mode.…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Velev’s the UE 205 includes an explicit indication about no more MuSIM support required to the AMF in Ryu and Dash’s system to let the network (e.g. AMF or MME) deletes the previously stored MuSIM support from the UE context for better resource management (Velev paragraph 102). This method for improving the system of Ryu and Dash was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Velev. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ryu, Dash and Velev to obtain the invention as specified in claim 22.
Regarding claim 30, Ryu, Dash and Velev disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 22.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference WO_2019101858_A1_Chiranji, teaches the paging indication message is, by a message type in the message type field, configured to be skipped by network devices according to a 3GPP technical specification release which supports the extended coverage common control channel but which does not support the paging indication message (P148).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights