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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2025 ware filed after the filing of the instant application on 12/14/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Maintained as the replacement does not contain descriptive legends.
The drawings are objected to because fig 1, requires descriptive legends, see MPEP 608.02.V(o) “Legends” (R-Patent Rules: 1.84 “Standards for drawings”(o) Legends: Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below:
Applicant's arguments and the examiner’s response:
Applicant's arguments 1: Applicant's arguments, page 11, recites “However, the cited portions of Soliman do not disclose that "the transmission path [is] mapped to one of a first one or more antennas in accordance with a determination as to whether the UE supports at least one of frequency-division duplex (FDD) antenna-switched diversity or time-division duplex (TDD) antenna-switched diversity when concurrently performing wireless communication associated with the first SIM and wireless communication associated with a second SIM," as recited by independent claim 1. Independent claims 9, 17, and 25 have similar recitations as claim 1. Accordingly, the cited portions of Soliman also do not disclose the recitations of these claims. As such, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of record.”
The Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner’s rejection is based on the recited claim limitations and the examiner must interpret each and every claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). In reference to the “determination as to whether the UE supports at least one of frequency-division duplex (FDD) antenna-switched diversity or time-division duplex (TDD) antenna-switched diversity when concurrently performing wireless communication associated with the first SIM and wireless communication associated with a second SIM," as recited by independent claim 1”, Soliman teaches in paragraph [0043], where, “The communication links 125 may transmit bidirectional communications using FDD (e.g., using paired spectrum resources) or TDD operation (e.g., using unpaired spectrum resources). Frame structures for FDD (e.g., frame structure type 1) and TDD (e.g., frame structure type 2) may be defined. Similarly, communication links 135, also shown in wireless communications system 100, may include UL transmissions from a UE 115 to an access point 110, and/or DL transmissions from an access point 110 to a UE 115.” And in paragraph [0044], where, teaches antenna switch diversity, and paragraph [0046] teaches WWAN communication operation with multiple SIM. Therefore Soliman teaches the limitations in view of the fig. 7 and para [0043]-[0046] which is from the same embodiment. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are traversed and maintained the rejection.
Applicant's arguments 1: Applicant's arguments, page 11, recites “However, "a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art." Id Rather, it is "important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." Id To that end, "[r]ejections based on obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Federal Circuit in In re Kahn with approval). Therefore, in order to prove obviousness of a claim, the Examiner must demonstrate that each claim element was known in the prior art, as well as articulate reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
The Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner’s rejection is based on the recited claim limitations and the examiner must interpret each and every claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). In reference to the “Id Rather, it is "important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” . The examiner’s selection of the prior art based on the teaching of the claim limitations and under the guide lines stated below:
“I. THE KSR DECISION AND PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF OBVIOUSNESS
The Supreme Court in KSR reaffirmed the familiar framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), but stated that the Federal Circuit had erred by applying the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test in an overly rigid and formalistic way. KSR, 550 U.S. at 404, 82 USPQ2d at 1391. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that the Federal Circuit had erred in four ways: (1) "by holding that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve " (Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397); (2) by assuming "that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem" (Id.); (3) by concluding "that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘obvious to try’" (Id. at 421, USPQ2d at 1397); and (4) by overemphasizing "the risk of courts and patent examiners falling prey to hindsight bias" and as a result applying "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense" (Id.).
In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,"Id. at 415, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."Id. at 415-16, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. The Supreme Court stated that there are "[t]hree cases decided after Graham [that] illustrate this doctrine." Id. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (1) "In United States v. Adams, . . . [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result." Id. (2) "In Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., . . . [t]he two [pre-existing elements] in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation." Id. at 416-17, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (3) "[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.). The principles underlining these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent application claiming the combination of elements of prior art would have been obvious. The Supreme Court further stated that:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id.
The Supreme Court’s flexible approach to the obviousness inquiry is reflected in numerous pre-KSR decisions; see MPEP § 2144. That section provides many lines of reasoning to support a determination of obviousness based upon earlier legal precedent that had condoned the use of particular examples of what may be considered common sense or ordinary routine practice (e.g., making integral, changes in shape, making adjustable). Thus, the type of reasoning sanctioned by the opinion in KSR has long been part of the patent examination process. “
Therefore the applicant’s arguments are traversed and maintained the rejections.
All the remaining arguments are based on the arguments above and are responded to in full.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The applied reference has a common ownership of Qualcomm with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soliman et al (.US 2016/0119039 A1), hereinafter, “Soliman” .
Regarding claim 1, Soliman discloses: A method for wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (fig 4, para [0008], where, the UE 305-a perform the method for wireless communication), the method comprising: communicating via a transmission path associated with a first subscriber identification module (SIM) (fig 4, SIM 1 415 a first subscriber identification module associated to a transmission path), the transmission path mapped to one of a first one or more antennas (fig 5, para [0064], where, the first SIM 1 415-a is mapped to the antenna 205-a) in accordance with a determination as to whether the UE supports at least one of frequency-division duplex (FDD) antenna-switched diversity or time-division duplex (TDD) antenna-switched diversity (fig 1 and fig 5, para [0043]-[0046], where, the UE supports FDD and TDD operation) when concurrently performing wireless communication associated with the first SIM and wireless communication associated with a second SIM (fig 5 and fig 8, para [0085]-[0086], where, the UE supports concurrent operation/transmitting/receiving multiple wireless operation); and communicating via at least one reception path associated with the second SIM (fig 5-6, para [0071]-[0072], where, the UE supports communication using second SIM using the receive path through antenna diversity 515 or 520), the at least one reception path mapped to a second one or more antennas (fig 1 and fig 5-6, para [0043]-[0044], where, “The communication links 125 may transmit bidirectional communications using FDD (e.g., using paired spectrum resources) or TDD operation (e.g., using unpaired spectrum resources). Frame structures for FDD (e.g., frame structure type 1) and TDD (e.g., frame structure type 2) may be defined”) in accordance with the determination as to whether the UE supports at least one of FDD antenna-switched diversity or TDD antenna-switched diversity, (fig 1 and fig 5-6, para [0043]-[0044], where, “the system 100, base stations 105, APs 110, and/or UEs 115 may include multiple antennas for employing antenna diversity schemes to improve communication quality and reliability between base stations 105, APs 110”).
Regarding claim 9, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing of a user equipment (UE), and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a user equipment (UE). However, Soliman discloses the UE (Soliman: fig 2C, para [0052]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing with a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes non-transitory computer-readable medium. However, Soliman discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium (Soliman: para [0014]).
Regarding claim 25, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing of a user equipment (UE), and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a processor and Memory. However, Soliman discloses the processor and memory (Soliman: para [0013]).
Regarding claim 9, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing of a user equipment (UE), and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a user equipment (UE). However, Soliman discloses the UE (Soliman: fig 2C, para [0052]).
Regarding clams 3, 11, 19 and 26, Soliman disclosed antenna switch (Soliman: fig 5, para [0066], where, module 515 represents antenna switch): wherein the antenna switch conflict comprises reconfiguration of the transmission path or reconfiguration of the at least one reception path (Soliman: fig 5, para [0066]-[0067], where, “the portion of the Rx chain may be modified (equivalent to “reconfigured”) to support processing of the WWAN communication (e.g., to support GSM frequencies). After processing with the portion of the Rx chain in the WLAN processing module 510, the received WWAN communication may be routed to the wireless communications controller 315-b for further baseband processing”, see further para [0046]).
Regarding clams 4, 12, 20 and 27, Soliman disclosed: wherein the first one or more antennas comprises more antennas when the UE supports FDD antenna-switched diversity than when the UE supports TDD antenna-switched diversity (Soliman: fig 1, para [0043], where, “The communication links 125 may transmit bidirectional communications using FDD (e.g., using paired spectrum resources) or TDD operation (e.g., using unpaired spectrum resources). Frame structures for FDD (e.g., frame structure type 1) and TDD (e.g., frame structure type 2) may be defined”).
Regarding clams 5, 16, 21 and 28, Soliman disclosed: wherein the second one or more antennas comprise a subset of the first one or more antennas (Soliman: fig 5-6, para [000063]-[0064], where, WWAN module 260-b includes antenna 205-b comprises a subset of first antenna 205-a) .
Regarding clams 6, 13 and 22, Soliman disclosed: wherein the second one or more antennas do not include the first one or more antennas (Soliman: fig 5-6, para [000063]-[0064], where, WLAN module 265-b includes antenna 210-a which do not comprise a subset of first antenna).
Regarding clams 7, 14, 23 and 29, Soliman disclosed: wherein at least one of the transmission path associated with the first SIM or the at least one reception path associated with the second SIM is mapped in accordance with a determination as to whether antenna-switched diversity is limited (Soliman: fig 5, para [0063], where, “The wireless communications controller 315-b may support WWAN communications over multiple communications networks and/or multiple RATs through the use of multiple SIMs, such as first SIM 415-a and second SIM 420-a. In some examples, the wireless communications controller 315-b may include additional SIMs (not shown). In some examples, the first SIM 415-a may support a first WWAN communication”), wherein the first one or more antennas comprises less antennas when antenna-switched diversity is limited than when antenna-switched diversity is not limited (Soliman: fig 5, para [0048], where, “The one or more diversity WWAN antennas 205 may also be used for WWAN communications with base station 105-a-1 and/or base station 105-a-2, where the WWAN communication supports one SIM in a carrier aggregation (CA) or multi-carrier mode”).
Regarding clams 8, 15 and 24, Soliman disclosed: wherein the at least one reception path is mapped to additional second one or more antennas in accordance with a determination that the additional second one or more antennas are needed for wireless communication associated with the second SIM (Soliman: fig 5-6, para [0007], where, “UEs typically include different WWAN and WLAN receive (Rx) and transmit (Tx) chains in different modules. Instead of adding additional Rx and Tx chains to support additional SIMs, components within the UE's WLAN module may be used for WWAN processing in support of one or more SIMs. For example, in a DSDS or MSMS situation, components of the UE's WLAN module may be used as part of an Rx chain for a second or additional WWAN signal being received by the UE. In a DSDA or MSMA situation, components of the UE's WLAN module may also be used as part of a Tx chain for a second or additional WWAN signal being transmitted by the UE”), and wherein the transmission path is mapped to a reduced number of the first one or more antennas in accordance with the determination that the additional second one or more antennas are needed for wireless communication associated with the second SIM (Soliman: fig 4, para [0060], where, “the wireless communications controller 315-a may include additional SIMs (not shown). WWAN communications over a first communications network may support the first SIM 415. WWAN communications over a second communications network may support the second SIM 420”).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman et al (.US 2016/0119039 A1), hereinafter, “Soliman” in view of Li et al (US 2017/0127436 A1), hereinafter, “Li”.
Regarding clams 2, 10 and 18, Soliman disclosed: wherein the transmission path and the at least one reception path are respectively mapped to the one of the first one or more antennas (Soliman: fig 5, para [0032], where, the transmit path and reception paths are mapped with the antennas 205-a and/or 205-b) and Soliman does not explicitly teach:
Li teaches: the one of the second one or more antennas to prevent an antenna switch conflict (Li: fig 3, step 304, para [0024], where, detected conflict) from occurring when concurrently performing wireless communication associated with the first SIM and wireless communication associated with the second SIM (Li: fig 3, step 304, para [0024], where, detected conflict, steps 304-310, where, “the UE may first acquire timing information of the multiple subscriptions. Once the UE detects a conflict in a subframe, the UE may then estimate future conflicts and those time slots that will be affected by the future conflicts based on the timing of the conflict and the timing information of the multiple subscriptions. By adjusting the TBS of each subsequent subframe that will be affected by the future conflicts, the UE may lower the BLER and improve the overall data throughput”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “the one of the second one or more antennas to prevent an antenna switch conflict from occurring when concurrently performing wireless communication associated with the first SIM and wireless communication associated with the second SIM” as taught by Li into Soliman, in order to improve the overall data throughput (para [0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/NIZAM U AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461