DETAILED ACTION
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s remarks/arguments 6/26/2026 for
response of the office action mailed on 4/07/2026. Claims 71, 73, 75-78, 81, and 85 have been amended. Claims 83-84, and 86-88 have been canceled. Claims 89-97 have been added. Claims 71, 73-81, 85, and 89-97 remain pending in the application.
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 Amendment
The Amendment filed on 6/26/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 4/07/2026.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments (page 10-13), filed on 6/26/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of
claim 71 have been fully considered but are moot because new ground of rejections using a newly introduced reference (JIN et al. US 2020/0229076 Al) are applied in the current rejection.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 71, 74-77, 79-81, 85, 90-93, and 95-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Bergstrom et al. (US 2022/0408518 Al, hereinafter “Bergstrom”) in view of Araujo et al. (US 2023/0389119 Al, hereinafter “Araujo”) and in further view of JIN et al. (US 2020/0229076 Al, hereinafter “Jin”).
Regarding claim 71, Bergstrom discloses:
A method for wireless communication, comprising (a method performed by a wireless communication device, Bergstrom: [0009]):
sending, by a user equipment (UE), UE capability restriction to a network (UE is allowed to send multiple capability profiles to the network may be indicated to the UE by the network. UE sends the primary/default capabilities, Bergstrom: [0089], [0092], [0097]),
Bergstrom does not explicitly disclose:
wherein: the UE capability restriction comprises a set of band combinations (BCs) combined with maximum component carriers (CCs); and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Araujo teaches:
wherein: the UE capability restriction comprises a set of band combinations (BCs) combined with maximum component carriers (CCs) (The first indication may be used mostly for periodical/predictable operations that a multi-SIM UE should perform in another network, while the second indication may be used for dynamic, less predictable operations to be performed in another network. including upon having a maximum number of secondary component carriers preference and upon change of its maximum number of secondary component carriers preference. If the UE has the possibility to support up to six carriers in total, the UE would, if it is operating using only a single SIM, indicate in its capabilities that it supports six carriers. the UE indicates the number of carriers in its supported band-combinations, Araujo: [0131], [0214]); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom in view of Araujo in order to further modify comprising a set of band combinations combined with maximum component carriers from the teachings of Araujo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the teachings of these embodiments
may improve the signaling overhead and reduce latency, which may provide faster internet access for users (Araujo: [0364]).
Yet, Bergstrom in view of Araujo does not explicitly disclose:
sending, by the UE, a capability limitation revoke indication to the network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jin teaches:
sending, by the UE, a capability limitation revoke indication to the network (If the terminal needs to release the temporary change of the UE capability in the state in which the temporarily changed UE capability is reflected through the above process of temporarily changing the UE capability. the terminal explicitly requests the release of the temporary UE capability change, Jin: Fig. 6, [0181]-[0184]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom and Araujo in view of Jin in order to further modify sending, by the UE, a capability limitation revoke indication to the network from the teachings of Jin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the base station may determine that the terminal has returned to the static UE capability, and may then transmit a new RRC reconfiguration message. In general, in the case where the UE capability is temporarily reduced, compared to the static UE capability, the terminal needs to report the same to the base station to make a request for scheduling and management conforming to the reduced UE capability (Jin: [0181], [0196]).
Regarding claim 74, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 71 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
the set of band combinations comprises a band information (if the UE in a multi-SIM scenario has to perform communication with respect to multiple SIMs, the UE will have to share the UE resources (carriers, capabilities, processing, etc.) between these SIMs. capability information comprises information that indicates one or more of the following: a number of carriers supported by the wireless communication device, Bergstrom: [0094], [0097], [0115]).
Regarding claim 75, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 71 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
the UE capability restriction comprises the set of band combinations (BCs) and a feature set applicable to at least one carrier of one band entry of an associated band combination (capability information comprises information that indicates: (a) a number of carriers supported by the wireless communication device, (b) one or more carrier combinations supported by the wireless communication device, (c) one or more processing capabilities of the wireless communication device, (d) one or more features supported by the wireless communication device, Bergstrom: [0011]-[0015]); and
the feature set comprises a feature set per band applicable to a carrier of band entry of associated band combination (If a UE supports X number of carriers in total, it would, if it only considers a single SIM, indicate that it supports X carriers (this in indicated in terms of supported band combinations and a number of carriers within each band in the band combinations), Bergstrom: [0094]).
Regarding claim 76, Bergstrom discloses:
A method for wireless communication, comprising (a method performed by a wireless communication device, Bergstrom: [0009]):
receiving, by a network, UE capability restriction from a UE (UE indicates two capability sets where different capabilities apply for when the UE is operating only using one SIM and different capabilities apply for when the UE operates using two SIMs, Bergstrom: [0069]-[0072]),
Bergstrom does not explicitly disclose:
wherein: the UE capability restriction comprises a set of band combinations (BCs) combined with maximum component carriers (CCs), and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Araujo teaches:
wherein: the UE capability restriction comprises a set of band combinations (BCs) combined with maximum component carriers (CCs) (The first indication may be used mostly for periodical/predictable operations that a multi-SIM UE should perform in another network, while the second indication may be used for dynamic, less predictable operations to be performed in another network. including upon having a maximum number of secondary component carriers preference and upon change of its maximum number of secondary component carriers preference. If the UE has the possibility to support up to six carriers in total, the UE would, if it is operating using only a single SIM, indicate in its capabilities that it supports six carriers. the UE indicates the number of carriers in its supported band-combinations, Araujo: [0131], [0214]), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom in view of Araujo in order to further modify a set of band combinations combined with maximum component carriers from the teachings of Araujo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the teachings of these embodiments
may improve the signaling overhead and reduce latency, which may provide faster internet access for users (Araujo: [0364]).
Yet, Bergstrom in view of Araujo does not explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the network, a capability limitation revoke indication from the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jin teaches:
receiving, by the network, a capability limitation revoke indication from the UE (If the terminal needs to release the temporary change of the UE capability in the state in which the temporarily changed UE capability is reflected through the above process of temporarily changing the UE capability. the terminal explicitly requests the release of the temporary UE capability change, Jin: Fig. 6, [0181]-[0184]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom and Araujo in view of Jin in order to further modify receiving, by the network, a capability limitation revoke indication from the UE from the teachings of Jin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the base station may determine that the terminal has returned to the static UE capability, and may then transmit a new RRC reconfiguration message. In general, in the case where the UE capability is temporarily reduced, compared to the static UE capability, the terminal needs to report the same to the base station to make a request for scheduling and management conforming to the reduced UE capability (Jin: [0181], [0196]).
Regarding claim 77, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 76 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
The method according to claim 76, wherein:
the UE capability restriction comprises the set of BCs and a feature set applicable to at least one carrier of one band entry of an associated band combination (capability profiles for the wireless communication device. capability information comprises information that indicates: (a) a number of carriers supported by the wireless communication device, (b) one or more carrier combinations supported by the wireless communication device, (c) one or more processing capabilities of the wireless communication device, (d) one or more features supported by the wireless communication device, Bergstrom: [0011], [0016]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 79, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 76 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
The method according to claim 76, wherein:
the set of band combinations comprises a band information (if the UE in a multi-SIM scenario has to perform communication with respect to multiple SIMs, the UE will have to share the UE resources (carriers, capabilities, processing, etc.) between these SIMs. capability information comprises information that indicates one or more of the following: a number of carriers supported by the wireless communication device, Bergstrom: [0094], [0097], [0115]).
Regarding claim 80, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 77 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
The method according to claim 77, wherein:
the feature set comprises a feature set per band applicable to a carrier of band entry of associated band combination (If a UE supports X number of carriers in total, it would, if it only considers a single SIM, indicate that it supports X carriers (this in indicated in terms of supported band combinations and a number of carriers within each band in the band combinations), Bergstrom: [0094]).
Regarding claim 81, Bergstrom discloses:
A user equipment (UE) comprising (wireless communication device includes one or more modules, Bergstrom: Fig. 9, [0110]):
a memory storing instructions (function(s) are implemented in software that is stored, e.g., in the memory, Bergstrom: [0103]); and
a processor in communication with the memory, wherein, when the processor executes the instructions, the processor is configured to cause the UE to perform (executed by the one or more processors, Bergstrom: [0103], [0106], [0109]):
sending UE capability restriction to a network (UE is allowed to send multiple capability profiles to the network may be indicated to the UE by the network. UE sends the primary/default capabilities, Bergstrom: [0089], [0092], [0097]),
Bergstrom does not explicitly disclose:
the UE capability restriction comprises a set of band combinations (BCs) combined with maximum component carriers (CCs); and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Araujo teaches:
the UE capability restriction comprises a set of band combinations (BCs) combined with maximum component carriers (CCs) (The first indication may be used mostly for periodical/predictable operations that a multi-SIM UE should perform in another network, while the second indication may be used for dynamic, less predictable operations to be performed in another network. including upon having a maximum number of secondary component carriers preference and upon change of its maximum number of secondary component carriers preference. If the UE has the possibility to support up to six carriers in total, the UE would, if it is operating using only a single SIM, indicate in its capabilities that it supports six carriers. the UE indicates the number of carriers in its supported band-combinations, Araujo: [0131], [0214]); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom and Park in view of Araujo in order to further modify the UE capability restriction which comprises a set of band combinations combined with maximum component carriers from the teachings of Araujo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the teachings of these embodiments
may improve the signaling overhead and reduce latency, which may provide faster internet access for users (Araujo: [0364]).
Yet, Bergstrom in view of Araujo does not explicitly disclose:
sending a capability limitation revoke indication to the network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jin teaches:
sending a capability limitation revoke indication to the network (If the terminal needs to release the temporary change of the UE capability in the state in which the temporarily changed UE capability is reflected through the above process of temporarily changing the UE capability. the terminal explicitly requests the release of the temporary UE capability change, Jin: Fig. 6, [0181]-[0184]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom and Araujo in view of Jin in order to further modify sending a capability limitation revoke indication to the network from the teachings of Jin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the base station may determine that the terminal has returned to the static UE capability, and may then transmit a new RRC reconfiguration message. In general, in the case where the UE capability is temporarily reduced, compared to the static UE capability, the terminal needs to report the same to the base station to make a request for scheduling and management conforming to the reduced UE capability (Jin: [0181], [0196]).
Regarding claim 85, Bergstrom discloses:
A network comprising (network node may be a radio access node such as a base station, Bergstrom: Fig. 5, [0103]):
a memory storing instructions (function(s) are implemented in software that is stored, e.g., in the memory, Bergstrom: [0103]); and
processor in communication with the memory, wherein, when the processor executes the instructions, the processor is configured to cause the network to perform (executed by the one or more processors, Bergstrom: [0103], [0106], [0109]):
receiving UE capability restriction from a UE (UE indicates two capability sets where different capabilities apply for when the UE is operating only using one SIM and different capabilities apply for when the UE operates using two SIMs, Bergstrom: [0069]-[0072]),
Bergstrom does not explicitly disclose:
wherein: the UE capability restriction comprises a set of band combinations (BCs) combined with maximum component carriers (CCs), and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Araujo teaches:
wherein: the UE capability restriction comprises a set of band combinations (BCs) combined with maximum component carriers (CCs) (The first indication may be used mostly for periodical/predictable operations that a multi-SIM UE should perform in another network, while the second indication may be used for dynamic, less predictable operations to be performed in another network. including upon having a maximum number of secondary component carriers preference and upon change of its maximum number of secondary component carriers preference. If the UE has the possibility to support up to six carriers in total, the UE would, if it is operating using only a single SIM, indicate in its capabilities that it supports six carriers. the UE indicates the number of carriers in its supported band-combinations, Araujo: [0131], [0214]); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom and Park in view of Araujo in order to further modify the UE capability restriction which comprises a set of band combinations combined with maximum component carriers from the teachings of Araujo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the teachings of these embodiments
may improve the signaling overhead and reduce latency, which may provide faster internet access for users (Araujo: [0364]).
Yet, Bergstrom in view of Araujo does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a capability limitation revoke indication from the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jin teaches:
receiving a capability limitation revoke indication from the UE (If the terminal needs to release the temporary change of the UE capability in the state in which the temporarily changed UE capability is reflected through the above process of temporarily changing the UE capability. the terminal explicitly requests the release of the temporary UE capability change. if the temporary capability restriction release message is received in operation, the base station may transmit a new RRC reconfiguration message to the terminal, instead of responding thereto, Jin: Fig. 6, [0181]-[0184]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom and Araujo in view of Jin in order to further modify receiving a capability limitation revoke indication from the UE from the teachings of Jin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the base station may determine that the terminal has returned to the static UE capability, and may then transmit a new RRC reconfiguration message. In general, in the case where the UE capability is temporarily reduced, compared to the static UE capability, the terminal needs to report the same to the base station to make a request for scheduling and management conforming to the reduced UE capability (Jin: [0181], [0196]).
Regarding claim 90, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 71 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
receiving, by the UE, a response message from the network, the response message comprising at least one of the following: an acceptance indication, a partial acceptance indication, or a rejection indication (a network node (e.g., a base station 102) sends an indication to the wireless communication device 112 that indicates whether the wireless communication device 112 is allowed to send multiple capability information sets, as described above (step 300), Bergstrom: Fig. 3, [0097]).
Regarding claim 91, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 90 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
in response to determining an acceptance by the network based on the UE capability restriction, the UE receives the acceptance indication from the network (The method of any of embodiments 20 to 23 further comprising providing (300), to the wireless communication device (112), an indication that the wireless communication device (112) is allowed to provide multiple capability profiles to the network, Bergstrom: [0137]);
in response to determining a partial acceptance by the network based on the UE capability restriction, the UE receives the partial acceptance indication from the network (The method of any of embodiments 20 to 24 further comprising: (re)configuring (312) the wireless communication device (112) in accordance with the particular one of the two or more capability profiles for the wireless communication device (112), Bergstrom: [0137]); and
in response to determining a rejection by the network based on the UE capability restriction, the UE receives the rejection indication from the network (Whether or not the UE is allowed to send multiple capability profiles to the network may be indicated to the UE by the network. the network may indicate it with a flag in the UE, Bergstrom: Fig. 3, [0089], [0097]).
Regarding claim 92, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 71 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
wherein the sending, by the UE, the UE capability restriction to the network comprises (the capability information indicates less than full capabilities of the wireless communication device. UE is allowed to send multiple capability profiles to the network may be indicated to the UE by the network. UE sends the primary/default capabilities, Bergstrom: [0010], [0089], [0092], [0097]):
the UE updates a set of configuration parameters or capability restriction (FIG. 4 illustrates the operation of a wireless communication device to request or suggest a connection release in order to update capability information reported to that network, Bergstrom: Fig. 4, [0046], [0101]); and
the UE sends the updated set of configuration parameters or capability restriction to the network (FIG. 4 illustrates the operation of a wireless communication device to request or suggest a connection release in order to update capability information reported to that network, Bergstrom: Fig. 4, [0046], [0101]).
Regarding claim 93, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 71 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
wherein: the UE capability restriction comprises at least one of the following: a capability restriction, or a configuration restriction (capability information for the wireless communication device that indicates less than full capabilities of the wireless communication device, Bergstrom: [0009], [0114]):
Regarding claim 95, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 76 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
sending, by the network, a response message to the UE, the response message comprising at least one of the following: an acceptance indication, a partial acceptance indication, or a rejection indication (a network node (e.g., a base station 102) sends an indication to the wireless communication device 112 that indicates whether the wireless communication device 112 is allowed to send multiple capability information sets, as described above (step 300), Bergstrom: Fig. 3, [0097]).
Regarding claim 96, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 95 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
in response to determining an acceptance by the network based on the UE capability restriction, the network sends the acceptance indication to the UE (The method of any of embodiments 20 to 23 further comprising providing (300), to the wireless communication device (112), an indication that the wireless communication device (112) is allowed to provide multiple capability profiles to the network, Bergstrom: [0137]);
in response to determining a partial acceptance by the network based on the UE capability restriction, the network sends the partial acceptance indication to the UE (The method of any of embodiments 20 to 24 further comprising: (re)configuring (312) the wireless communication device (112) in accordance with the particular one of the two or more capability profiles for the wireless communication device (112), Bergstrom: [0137]); and
in response to determining a rejection by the network based on the UE capability restriction, the network sends the rejection indication to the UE (Whether or not the UE is allowed to send multiple capability profiles to the network may be indicated to the UE by the network. the network may indicate it with a flag in the UE, Bergstrom: Fig. 3, [0089], [0097]).
Claims 73, 78, 89, and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin in view of Park et al. (US 2024/0340853 Al, hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 73, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 71 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
The method according to claim 71, wherein:
the UE capability restriction comprises the set of BCs and a feature set (capability information comprises information that indicates: (a) a number of carriers supported by the wireless communication device, (b) one or more carrier combinations supported by the wireless communication device, (c) one or more processing capabilities of the wireless communication device, (d) one or more features supported by the wireless communication device, Bergstrom: [0011]-[0015]); and
Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin does not explicitly disclose:
the feature set comprises baseband and RF capabilities, the feature set comprising at least one of the following:
maximum CCs,
maximum multiple input multiple output (MIMO) layer,
at least one feature set combination,
at least one per feature set capability, or
at least one per component carrier (CC) per feature set capabilities.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches:
the feature set comprises baseband and RF capabilities, the feature set comprising at least one of the following (multi SIM device may use common radio and/or baseband components that may be shared among the multiple SIMs of the multi-SIM device, Park: [0317], [0417], [0420]):
maximum CCs (wireless device may communicate with multiple CCs when configured with CA. Park: [0243]),
at least one per component carrier (CC) per feature set capabilities (gNB may transmit a first type of service to a UE on a first component carrier. The gNB may transmit a second type of service to the UE on a second component carrier. Also, examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features to be mapped because of the presence of “at least one of” in the limitation, Park: [0243]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin in view of Park in order to further modify the feature set for baseband and RF capabilities comprising maximum CCs and at least one per component carrier (CC) per feature set capabilities from the teachings of Park.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may provide enhanced signaling mechanisms for wireless devices that support communications with multiple wireless systems (Park: [0312]).
Regarding claim 78, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 77 above.
Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin does not explicitly disclose:
The method according to claim 77, wherein:
the feature set comprises baseband and RF capabilities, the feature set comprising at least one of the following:
maximum CCs,
maximum multiple input multiple output (MIMO) layer,
at least one feature set combination,
at least one per feature set capability, or
at least one per component carrier (CC) per feature set capabilities.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches:
the feature set comprises baseband and RF capabilities, the feature set comprising at least one of the following (multi SIM device may use common radio and/or baseband components that may be shared among the multiple SIMs of the multi-SIM device, Park: [0317], [0417], [0420]):
maximum CCs (wireless device may communicate with multiple CCs when configured with CA. Park: [0243]),
at least one per component carrier (CC) per feature set capabilities (gNB may transmit a first type of service to a UE on a first component carrier. The gNB may transmit a second type of service to the UE on a second component carrier. Also, examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features to be mapped because of the presence of “at least one of” in the limitation Park: [0243]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin in view of Park in order to further modify the feature set for baseband and RF capabilities comprising maximum CCs and at least one per component carrier (CC) per feature set capabilities from the teachings of Park.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may provide enhanced signaling mechanisms for wireless devices that support communications with multiple wireless systems (Park: [0312]).
Regarding claim 89, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 71 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
the UE is equipped with multiple subscriber identity module (MUSIM) and connects with the multiple networks (performed by a wireless communication device having multiple SIMs comprises registering with a first network associated with a first SIM and registering with a second network associated with a second SIM such that the wireless communication device is simultaneously registered with both the first network and the second network, Bergstrom: [0009], [0014]-[0015]); and
the method further comprises: in response to the UE being at a dual connection (DC) with the network and the UE wanting to connect with another network (wireless communication device adapted to, when simultaneously registered with a first network and a second network, determine that the wireless communication device is to connect to the second network. capability/-ies which may be affected may comprise and/or relate to Dual/Multi-Connectivity and/or Carrier Aggregation (CA) capabilities. a multi-carrier-capable UE is registered with two different PLMNs where communication may occur simultaneously with both PLMNs. performed by a wireless communication device that is simultaneously registered with a first network and a second network, Bergstrom: [0030]-[0031], [0078]-[0079], [0129]),
Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin does not explicitly disclose:
indicating, by the UE, the network to release a second cell group (SCG).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches:
indicating, by the UE, the network to release a second cell group (SCG) (If the received RRC Connection Reconfiguration message includes the sCellToReleaseList, the wireless device may perform an SCell release. secondary base station may provide a secondary cell group (SCG) comprising a primary secondary cell (PSCell) and/or one or more secondary cells for a wireless device, Park: [0212], [0277]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin in view of Park in order to further modify indicating, by the UE, the network to release a second cell group (SCG) from the teachings of Park.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may provide enhanced signaling mechanisms for wireless devices that support communications with multiple wireless systems (Park: [0312]).
Regarding claim 94, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 76 above.
Bergstrom further discloses:
the UE is equipped with multiple subscriber identity module (MUSIM) and connects with the multiple networks (performed by a wireless communication device having multiple SIMs comprises registering with a first network associated with a first SIM and registering with a second network associated with a second SIM such that the wireless communication device is simultaneously registered with both the first network and the second network, Bergstrom: [0009], [0014]-[0015]); and
the method further comprises: in response to the UE being at a dual connection (DC) with the network and the UE wanting to connect with another network (wireless communication device adapted to, when simultaneously registered with a first network and a second network, determine that the wireless communication device is to connect to the second network. capability/-ies which may be affected may comprise and/or relate to Dual/Multi-Connectivity and/or Carrier Aggregation (CA) capabilities. a multi-carrier-capable UE is registered with two different PLMNs where communication may occur simultaneously with both PLMNs. performed by a wireless communication device that is simultaneously registered with a first network and a second network, Bergstrom: [0030]-[0031], [0078]-[0079], [0129]),
Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin does not explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the network from the UE, an indication to release a second cell group (SCG).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches:
receiving, by the network from the UE, an indication to release a second cell group (SCG) (If the received RRC Connection Reconfiguration message includes the sCellToReleaseList, the wireless device may perform an SCell release. secondary base station may provide a secondary cell group (SCG) comprising a primary secondary cell (PSCell) and/or one or more secondary cells for a wireless device, Park: [0212], [0277]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin in view of Park in order to further modify receiving, by the network from the UE, an indication to release a second cell group (SCG) from the teachings of Park.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may provide enhanced signaling mechanisms for wireless devices that support communications with multiple wireless systems (Park: [0312]).
Claim 97 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin in view of WANG et al. (US 2022/0053382 Al, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 97, Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 76 above.
Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin does not explicitly disclose:
modifying, by the network, the UE capability restriction based on a quality of service (QoS) requirement.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches:
modifying, by the network, the UE capability restriction based on a quality of service (QoS) requirement (if the maximum support capability of the UE is updated, it can be determined whether or not the number of authorized QoS rules, number of packet filters, and/or number of authorized QoS flow descriptions configured by the network device, Wang: [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergstrom-Araujo-Jin in view of Wang in order to further modifying, by the network, the UE capability restriction based on a quality of service (QoS) requirement from the teachings of Wang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because if the maximum support capability set by the user equipment for the PDU session is updated PDU session release request is transmitted to the network device in the case that the at least one of the authorized QoS rule, packet filter, and/or authorized QoS flow description configured by the network device for the PDU session exceeds the updated maximum support capability set by the user equipment for the PDU session (Wang: [0065]).
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 SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/MOHAMMED S CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights