DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1, 8, 14-15 are pending wherein claims 1 and 14 are in independent form.
4. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
5. Claims 2-7 and 9-13 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed on 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons set forth below.
7. On page 10 of the remarks, applicant argues, “Amended claim 1 structurally contrasts the resources to identify that a required slice is "absent" in the first SIM, but "present" in the second SIM. Furthermore, amended Claim 1 may involve session continuity by mapping the session to the target slice without terminating the active PDU session. In contrast, the cited art merely discloses whether packet parameters satisfy certain rules (simple filtering) and subsequent path changes. Paradkar fails to disclose or suggest, for example, cross-checking the "absence" and "presence" of specific resource(s) such as by comparing rules across multiple SIMs to determine a switch”.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Paradkar discloses that the first connection/SIM (SIM1) is associated with a RAT (3G or 4G RAT) providing lower data rate and the second connection/SIM2 is associated with a RAT (5G or millimeter wave RAT) providing a higher data rate or data capacity. When an application requiring higher data rate, the first connection/SIM (SIM1) does not have a network slice/RAT for supporting the higher data rate requirement (i.e., absence of dedicated network slice for application requiring higher data rate) and the second connection/SIM2 has a network slice/RAT for supporting the higher data rate requirement (i.e., presence of dedicated network slice for application requiring higher data rate) (Par 0070-0072, Par 0087-0088). Paradkar further discloses that the first connection/SIM (SIM1) is associated with a higher latency (i.e., eMBB) network slice and the second connection/SIM2 is associated with a low latency network slice (URLLC). When an application requiring low latency communication, the first connection/SIM (SIM1) does not have a network slice/RAT for supporting the low latency requirement (i.e., absence of dedicated network slice for application requiring low latency communication) and the second connection/SIM (SIM2) has a network slice/RAT for supporting the low latency requirement (i.e., presence of dedicated network slice for application requiring low latency communication) (Par 0072, Par 0074, Par 0100-0105).
8. On page 10 of the remarks, applicant argues, “Moreover, while Paradkar describes simple traffic routing changes, this is merely a temporary path diversion. The cited art fails to disclose or suggest the specific session continuity mechanism of claim 1, which for example and without limitation may maintain the PDU session in an active state while mapping it to a dedicated slice”.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Paradkar discloses to switch data session for an application requiring higher data rate or low latency to the second connection/SIM2 supporting the higher data rate or low latency requirement. By switching the data session to the second connection/SIM2, the data session is mapped to the network slice (i.e., dedicated network slice supporting higher data rate/low latency communication) providing higher data rate/low latency communication and an active data session for the higher data rate/low latency application is maintained by communicating traffic using the low latency/URLLC/higher data rate network slice. The data session for the higher data rate/low latency application is continued by routing traffic via the low latency network slice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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)(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.
10. Claims 1, 8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paradkar et al (US 20220303869 A1, hereinafter referred to as Paradkar).
Re claim 1, Paradkar teaches a method for switching a data session for an application in a user equipment (UE) with a dual subscriber identity module (SIM) (Fig. 4-6) the method comprising:
(i) determining a User Equipment Route Selection Policy (URSP) rule (throughput, latency, network slice, default data subscription, type of service, port number etc.) for a primary SIM (SIM1) and a secondary SIM (SIM2), wherein the primary SIM is configured as a Default Data Subscription (DDS) providing a data session for the application running on the UE (SIM1 is configured as the DDS) (Fig. 4-5, Par 0064, Par 0069-0074, Par 0077-0080, Par 0084-0090, Par 0097, Par 0099-0105),
(ii) wherein the URSP rule includes a first URSP rule of the primary SIM (one or more routing parameters/rules (throughput, latency, network slice, default data subscription, type of service, port number etc.) are associated with both the first SIM (SIM1). Each parameter is associated with a combination of routing rules such as (i) satisfying the parameter and (ii) not satisfying the parameter) and a second URSP rule of the secondary SIM (one or more routing parameters/rules (throughput, latency, network slice, default data subscription, type of service, port number etc.) are associated with the second SIM (SIM2). Each parameter is associated with a combination of routing rules such as (i) satisfying the parameter and (ii) not satisfying the parameter) (Fig. 5, Par 0085-0090, Par 0099-0102);
(iii) evaluating a combination of the first URSP rule of the primary SIM and the second URSP rule of the secondary SIM (Each parameter (throughput, latency, network slice, default data subscription, type of service, port number etc.) is associated with a combination of routing rules such as (i) satisfying the parameter and (ii) not satisfying the parameter) by comparing at least one performance parameter, including an Aggregated Maximum Bit Rate (AMBR) (throughput) and a Quality of Service (QoS) parameter (QoS associated with each network slice), defined in the first URSP rule with a corresponding performance parameter in the second URSP rule (not satisfying one or more parameters associated with/configured for the primary SIM (SIM1) and satisfying one or more parameters for the secondary SIM (SIM2)) to determine which of the primary SIM and secondary SIM is to be used for continuing the data session of the application running on the UE (determining whether to route packets to a default/first network connection (SIM1) or a non-default/second network connection (SIM2)) (Fig. 5-7 Par 0070-0072, Par 0084-0090, Par 0097, Par 0099-0105);
(iv) detecting a trigger for switching the data session of the application to the secondary SIM (switching to a non-default connection associated with SIM2 based on matching one or more routing rules) based on the evaluation of the combination (Fig. 5-7 Par 0084-0090, Par 0097, Par 0099-0105, Par 0118-0124); wherein detecting the trigger comprises:
(v) identifying an absence of a dedicated network slice associated with the application in the first URSP rule (the first connection/SIM (SIM1) does not have a network slice/RAT for supporting the higher data rate requirement; the first connection/SIM (SIM1) does not have a network slice/RAT for supporting the low latency requirement) (Par 0070-0072, Par 0074, Par 0087-0088, Par 0100-0105);
(vi) identifying a presence of the dedicated network slice in the second URSP (the second connection/SIM (SIM2) has a network slice/RAT for supporting the higher data rate requirement; the second connection/SIM (SIM2) has a network slice/RAT for supporting the low latency requirement) (Par 0070-0072, Par 0074, Par 0087-0088, Par 0100-0105);
(v) configuring the secondary SIM for the DDS based on the trigger (switching DDS) (Fig. 5, Par 0079-880, Par 0097-0098, Par 0142); and
(vi) switching the data session of the application to the secondary SIM (routing the traffic through SIM2/second connection) for continuing the data session by mapping the data session to the dedicated network slice of the secondary SIM while maintaining an active Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session (By switching the data session to the second connection/SIM2, the data session is mapped to the network slice (i.e., dedicated network slice supporting higher data rate/low latency communication) providing higher data rate/low latency communication and an active data session for the higher data rate/low latency application is maintained by communicating traffic using the low latency/URLLC/higher data rate network slice) to ensure session-level continuity in response to the configuration (The data session for the higher data rate/low latency application is continued by routing traffic via the low latency network slice ) (Fig. 5-7 Par 0084-0090, Par 0097, Par 0099-0105, Par 0118-0124).
Claim 14 recites a system performing the steps recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Paradkar further teaches that the system (200, Fig. 2) comprises a memory (memory 282) including instructions; a processor (controller/processor 280) (Fig. 2, Par 0043-0050).
Re claims 8 and 15, Paradkar teaches to establish the data session for the application by the UE (establishing a first connection associated with a first subscription, establishing a second connection associated with a second subscription) prior to determining the URSP rule for the primary SIM and the secondary SIM (before routing traffic through the first connection or the second connection), the method further comprising: identifying whether the application is one of a first type or a second type (low latency/URLLC, eMBB service, data/internet traffic, voice service, high throughput etc.), wherein the first type is indicative of the application configured to establish the data session with one of a dedicated slice (default slice, eMBB slice), a dedicated Data Network Name (DNN), an Local Area Data Network (LADN), and a dedicated operator, and wherein the second type is indicative of the application configured to establish the data session with one of a specified type of slice (URLLC slice, non-default slice), a predefined type of DNN, a specified type of LADN, and a specified type of operator, wherein the application is supported through any one of a data connection type (first connection and second connection); identifying one of the primary SIM and the secondary SIM configured for supporting the application for establishing the data session based on the type of the application (identifying a first or second connection for eMBB traffic, URLLC traffic etc.) ; and establishing the data session for the application with the identified one of the primary SIM and the secondary SIM (routing traffic through the first (SIM1) or the second connection (SIM2)) (Fig. 5-7, Par 0079-0080, Par 0088-0089, Par 0098-0105, Par 0117-0122).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARUN UR R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 5712723182. 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.
/HARUN CHOWDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights