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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7,9-13, 15-16, 18, 21-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 12, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The conditional statement, “wherein the method further comprises: sending type indication information to the terminal, wherein, the type indication information indicates the terminal to report the problem of communication conflict to the base station in a case that a type of the problem of communication conflict belongs to a target type.” the respective functions are not required to be performed if the respective condition does NOT happen. In order to give a patentable weight for the contingent limitations, the limitations should be amended by adding the respective determining steps for the conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 12-13,15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meredith et al. (3 GPP “Study on system enablers for devices having multiple Universal Subscriber Identity Modules (USIM)” 3GP TR 23.761 V.4.0, hereinafter Meredith). in view of Chen et al. (US 20230189212 A1, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 12 Meredith discloses:
A method for reporting a problem, applicable for a terminal provided with a plurality of subscriber identity module (SIM) cards, the method comprising: in response to determining that a problem of communication conflict exists between at least two SIM cards among the plurality of SIM cards (Page 62 line 5, “2. The Multi-USIM UE calculates Paging Occasion and it determines whether Paging Collision can happen”)
Meredith does not explicitly disclose:(NOTE: Meredith discloses the actions taken by the UE to resolve the problem of communication by requesting new ID and it is inherent that the UE reports the problem to the network to kickstarting this procedure but it is not explicitly disclosed.)
reporting the problem of communication conflict to one or more base stations
reporting at least one of the following to the one or more base stations: identity information of the SIM cards corresponding to the problem of communication conflict, or a recommended solution of the problem of communication conflict.
Chen discloses:
reporting the problem of communication conflict to one or more base stations (Paragraph [0109], “the UE may inform a network before/after a paging collision via MAC CE/UCI/lower-layer signal (e.g., upon a UE detects the paging collision or upon a UE has expected the paging collision).” UE reporting the collision.)
reporting at least one of the following to the one or more base stations:
identity information of the SIM cards corresponding to the problem of communication conflict, (Paragraph [0108], “a UE may provide assistance information (e.g., suggested/assisted paging parameters/paging information or the paging factors of another network) for a network to resolve paging collision… assistance information may include… a UE_ID, and an offset to the current UE_ID. The UE_ID may be a permanent subscription identifier (e.g., an IMSI)” IMSI is stored on a SIM and uniquely identifies it.)
or a recommended solution of the problem of communication conflict. (Paragraph [0107], “In some implementations, a UE may inform a network that a paging collision resolution procedure is initiated.” And paragraph [0084], “ a UE encounters a problem of paging collision (e.g., a PO of Network A may collide with a PO of Network B), a UE may initiate a paging collision resolution procedure.” Also as stated above UE may provide assistance information to the network to resolve the conflict.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Meredith’s steps for resolving PO collision in view of Chen to include steps of the UE reporting the problem. One would have been motivated to do this to provide standardization support for a multi-USIM UE. (Paragraph [0031], Chen).
Specifically, regarding claim 21 and 22 Meredith inherently discloses a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. There must be these components inherently within the UE described in this 3GPP report for it to even execute the methods disclosed within the report.
Regarding claim 13 Meredith does not fully disclose:
The method of claim 12, further comprising: sending the solution to the terminal.
Chen discloses:
The method of claim 12, further comprising: sending the solution to the terminal. (Paragraph [0109], “the UE may inform a network before/after a paging collision via MAC CE/UCI/lower-layer signal (e.g., upon a UE detects the paging collision or upon a UE has expected the paging collision).” And Paragraph [0108], “a UE may provide assistance information (e.g., suggested/assisted paging parameters/paging information or the paging factors of another network) for a network to resolve paging collision… In some implementations, assistance information may include an offset value for the current determined PO(s). The offset value may be in, but not limited to, the unit of ms, subframe, or slot… a UE_ID, and an offset to the current UE_ID. The UE_ID may be a permanent subscription identifier (e.g., an IMSI)” UE reporting the collision.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Meredith’s steps for resolving PO collision in view of Chen to include steps of the UE reporting the problem. One would have been motivated to do this to provide standardization support for a multi-USIM UE. (Paragraph [0031], Chen).
Regarding claim 15 Meredith discloses:
The method of claim12 further comprising: receiving capability information sent by the terminal, wherein, the capability information is configured to indicate whether the terminal has a capability of reporting the problem of communication conflict. (Page 62 lines 1-4 “The Multi-USIM device registers to network-A and network-B respectively. During the registration procedure if the UE desires to have network assistance for collision avoidance (e.g. because the use has activated more than one USIM) the UE indicates Multi-USIM capabilities support and the networks indicate whether they support paging collision avoidance by changing of NAS parameters.” If the terminal wants to get assistance in collision avoidance, then it will send its capability to tell the network if it can report the problem or not.)
Regarding claim 16 Meredith discloses:
The method of claim 15, further comprising: sending first configuration information to the terminal, wherein, the first configuration information is configured to indicate whether the terminal is allowed to report the problem of communication conflict. (Page 62 lines 1-4 “The Multi-USIM device registers to network-A and network-B respectively. During the registration procedure if the UE desires to have network assistance for collision avoidance (e.g. because the use has activated more than one USIM) the UE indicates Multi-USIM capabilities support and the networks indicate whether they support paging collision avoidance by changing of NAS parameters.” The terminal has a desire to have the network assist in case a collision happens the network sends a configuration information indicating if they support it to even allow the terminal to report the problem.)
Regarding claim 18 Meredith discloses:
The method of claim 15, further comprising: sending second configuration information to the terminal; wherein, the second configuration information is configured to indicate at least one of: a resource for reporting the problem of communication conflict, a format of reporting the problem of communication conflict, or a cycle time for reporting the problem of communication conflict. (Page 62 Lines 12-15, “4. The AMF allocates a new 5G-GUTI for the Multi-USIM device in the Registration Accept. When the AMF allocates the new 5G-GUTI, the AMF shall consider the assistance information provided by the UE. AMF should not allocate a new 5G-GUTI which does not fulfill the assistance information The AMF may also change the DRX parameters.” The second configuration of changing the DRX parameters which contains DRX cycles.)
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for the allowance of claims 1 and 21 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the method further comprises: receiving type indication information sent by the one or more base stations, wherein, the type indication information indicates the terminal to report the problem of communication conflict to the one or more base stations in a case that a type of the problem of communication conflict belongs to a target type; wherein, the problem of communication conflict is determined, and the problem of communication conflict is reported to the one or more base stations in a case that the type of the problem of communication conflict belongs to the target type.” In conjunction with all disclosed steps of functions or all disclosed steps of functions or all disclosed structures performing corresponding functions in claims 1 and 21.
Meredith (3 GPP “Study on system enablers for devices having multiple Universal Subscriber Identity Modules (USIM)” 3GP TR 23.761 V.4.0) discloses a Multi sim UE system that calculates paging occasions to detect paging collisions. Meredith further provides solutions to correct the collision or avoid it. (Page 69 lines 6-8, “4) When a MUSIM UE detects potential of paging conflict, it can indicate to one PLMN of one USIM (or, in >2 USIMs case, to all applicable PLMNs) assistance information to avoid paging conflict, e.g. a Replacement UE_ID for paging occasion computation.” When a problem occurs, the UE can report to one or all applicable networks and base stations.) However, Meredith does not disclose a typing indication sent by the base station such that when the problem occurs the UE will report it.
Chen (US 20230189212 A1) discloses UE reporting of the problem of communication and a recommended solution to the problem to the base stations (Paragraph [0108], “a UE may provide assistance information (e.g., suggested/assisted paging parameters/paging information or the paging factors of another network) for a network to resolve paging collision… assistance information may include… a UE_ID, and an offset to the current UE_ID. The UE_ID may be a permanent subscription identifier (e.g., an IMSI)” and Paragraph [0107], “In some implementations, a UE may inform a network that a paging collision resolution procedure is initiated.” And paragraph [0084], “ a UE encounters a problem of paging collision (e.g., a PO of Network A may collide with a PO of Network B), a UE may initiate a paging collision resolution procedure.”) However, there is no typing indication sent by the base station such that when a target typing occurs the UE will report it to the base station.
Tiwari (US 20200092836) discloses a fallback procedure in case the solution for solving the communication conflict does not reach the UE then the UE shall retry the process. (Paragraph [0034], “…At 104, the AMF sends Registration Accept message containing a new 5G-GUTI. (T)he UE cannot receive the Registration Accept message because of various reasons… When the timer T1 expires, as shown at 105, the UE aborts the registration procedure and releases the N1 NAS signaling connection if it exists. And then, at 105, the UE also starts another time T2…” and Fig.1. The solution of a new GUTI does not reach the UE for various reasons and the timer expires and anther time gets set up and retries the process.) However, there is no typing indication sent by the base station such that when a target typing occurs the UE will report it to the base station.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NAM P CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-0614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
/NAM P. CAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights