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 .
Claims 9-11, 22-27 and 30-31 are canceled.
Claims 1-8, 12-21 and 28-29 have been presented for examination and are considered below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/271,016.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 of the copending Application in that claim 1 of the copending Application contains all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application is broader in every aspect than claim 1 of the copending Application, and therefore, are obvious variants thereof.
Regarding claim 1, the table below shows that claim 1 of the copending Application contains all the elements of claim 1 of the instant application, and therefore, is an obvious variant thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/256,502
Copending Application 18/271,016
(Currently Amended) A method for sending capability, performed by a base station, comprising:
sending system information, wherein the system information carries capability information; wherein the capability information is configured to indicate a problem, that the base station is capable of solving, of communication conflict of a plurality of subscriber identity module (SIM) cards in a terminal.
A method for sending a capability performed by a first base station,
comprising:
sending a first capability information to a second base station, wherein the first capability information is configured to indicate a capability of solving a multi-card communication conflict problem in a terminal by at least one of the first base station or a neighboring base station of the first base station.
Instant claim 2 and copending application claim 2 correspond.
Instant claim 3 and copending application claim 3 correspond.
Instant claim 4 and copending application claim 3 correspond.
Instant claim 5 and copending application claim 5 correspond.
Instant claim 6 and copending application claim 5 correspond.
Instant claim 7 and copending application claim 7 correspond.
Instant claim 8 and copending application claim 8 correspond.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/271,016.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 12 of the copending Application in that claim 12 of the copending Application contains all the limitations of claim 12 of the instant application. Claim 12 of the instant application is broader in every aspect than claim 12 of the copending Application, and therefore, are obvious variants thereof.
Instant claim 13 and copending application claim 13 correspond.
Instant claim 14 and copending application claim 13 correspond.
Instant claim 15 and copending application claim 14 correspond.
Instant claim 16 and copending application claim 16 correspond.
Instant claim 17 and copending application claim 16 correspond.
Instant claim 18 and copending application claim 16 correspond.
Instant claim 19 and copending application claim 19 correspond.
Instant claim 20 and copending application claim 20 correspond.
Instant claim 21 and copending application claim 16 correspond.
Claim 28 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of copending Application No. 18/271,016.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 28 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 24 of the copending Application in that claim 24 of the copending Application contains all the limitations of claim 28 of the instant application. Claim 28 of the instant application is broader in every aspect than claim 24 of the copending Application, and therefore, are obvious variants thereof.
Instant claim 29 and copending application claim 12 correspond.
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 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.
Claims 1-8, 12-21 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al (US 20130242935) in view of Kumar et al (US 20210022111).
Regarding claim 1, a method for sending capability, applicable to performed by a base station, comprising:
sending system information, wherein the system information carries capability information (The control unit 240 manages transmission resource according to an embodiment of the present invention, [0030], That is, the serving resource information includes at least one of downlink resource use amount at the eNB 120, i.e. number of serving resources, average resource amount for the UEs connected to the eNB 120, index and transmission power per serving resource, and reservation state per serving resource, [0037], At this time, the control unit 240 is capable of exchanging the resource information with the neighbor eNB 123 at a predetermined period to share the resource information. That is, the control unit 240 is capable of transmitting to the neighbor eNB 123 at least one of the serving resource information and reserved resource information when a predetermined period arrives, [0038]).
Lim does not expressly disclose wherein the capability information is [[used]] configured to indicate a problem, that the base station is capable of solving, of communication conflict of a plurality of [[SIM]] subscriber identity module (SIM) cards in a terminal.
However, in analogous art, Kumar discloses capability information is configured to indicate a problem, that the base station is capable of solving, of communication conflict of a plurality of subscriber identity module (SIM) cards in a terminal (for instance, solving conflict using offsets, see [0102]: “… to address the problems of persistent PO collisions for a multi-SIM/USIM UE, the base station may define multiple PO offsets for a single PO and pseudo-randomly select a PO offset. …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lim with Kumar’s of solving communication conflicts of a plurality of subscriber identity module (SIM) cards in a terminal, as taught by Kumar, for the purpose of effectively mitigating problems in wireless communications network.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lim with Kumar in order to properly manage the network communications.
Regarding claim 2, in the obvious combination Kumar discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the problem that the base station is capable of solving comprises at least one of the following: paging collision of the plurality of SIM cards in the terminal ([0102]: “… to address the problems of persistent PO collisions for a multi-SIM/USIM UE, the base station may define multiple PO offsets for a single PO and pseudo-randomly select a PO offset. …”); a first SIM card in the terminal being in a process of communication, and a second SIM card in the terminal being required to respond to a paging message ([0102], ll. 1-4); or the terminal leaving a currently accessed base station due to the communication conflict of the plurality of SIM cards.
Regarding claim 3, in the obvious combination Kumar discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the problem that the base station is capable of solving comprises the paging collision of the plurality of SIM cards in the terminal ([0102], ll. 1-4), and the capability information is further [[used]] configured to indicate a manner for the base station to solve the paging collision of the plurality of SIM cards in the terminal ([0102], ll. 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, in the obvious combination Kumar discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the manner comprises at least one of the following: changing a user equipment identification of the SIM card, providing an offset corresponding to a user equipment identification of the SIM card (solving conflict using offsets, [0102], ll. 1-4), or changing an algorithm for determining a paging occasion based on a user equipment identification of the SIM card.
Regarding claim 5, in the obvious combination Kumar discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the problem that the base station is capable of solving comprises that the first SIM card in the terminal is in the process of the communication, and the second SIM card in the terminal is required to respond to the paging message ([0102]: “… to address the problems of persistent PO collisions for a multi-SIM/USIM UE, the base station may define multiple PO offsets for a single PO and pseudo-randomly select a PO offset. …”), and the capability information is [[used]] configured to indicate that the base station is capable of solving the problem [[when]] in case that a paging reason of the paging message is a target reason ([0058], ll. 1-5; [0061], ll. 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, in the obvious combination Kumar discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the problem that the base station is capable of solving comprises that the terminal leaves the currently accessed base station due to the communication conflict of the plurality of SIM cards , and the capability information is [[used]] configured to indicate that the base station is capable of solving the problem [[when]] in case that a type of the communication conflict is a target type ([0058], ll. 1-5; [0061], ll. 1-3; [0102], ll. 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, in the obvious combination Kumar discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the type of the communication conflict comprises at least one of the following:
[[when]] in case that the terminal communicates with a first base station through the first SIM card, a paging message sent by a second base station being monitored through the second SIM card ([0058], ll. 1-5; [0061], ll. 1-3);
[[when]] in case that the terminal communicates with a first base station through the first SIM card, a signal sent by a second base station being measured through the second SIM card;
[[when]] in case that the terminal communicates with a first base station through the first SIM card, system information sent by a second base station being received through the second SIM card;
or [[when]] in case that the terminal communicates with a first base station through the first SIM card, tracking area update being performed through the second SIM card communicating with a second base station.
Regarding claim 8, in the obvious combination Kumar discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein the system information is one of:
newly set system information[[,]]; or the system information [[is]] determined by modifying existing system information (includes resource, [0030], ll. 1-2, 18-21; [0037], ll.1-6; [0038], ll. 1-4); minimum system information; or other system information, wherein the other system information is on demand system information.
Claims 9-11 cancelled.
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Lim, Figure 1, user equipment 110).
Regarding claim 13, in the obvious combination Kumar discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the plurality of SIM cards are provided in the terminal, and the method further comprises: sending, in response to that the plurality of SIM cards have a first problem of communication conflict and in case that the first problem of the communication conflict is the problem that the base station is capable of solving, the first problem of the communication conflict to the base station ([0058], ll. 1-5; [0061], ll. 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, in the obvious combination Kumar discloses the method according to claim 13, further comprising: sending auxiliary information to the base station, wherein the auxiliary information is configured to assist the base station to solve the first problem of the communication conflict of the terminal ([0009], may be configured to receive one or more modified parameters associated with a first conflict avoidance PO in a system information block (SIB) from a base station. The apparatus may be configured to determine the first conflict avoidance PO based on the one or more modified parameters. The apparatus may be further configured to receive a first paging message in the first conflict avoidance PO from the base station in a first DRX cycle).
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 contains subject matter similar to claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21 contains subject matter similar to claim 7, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
22-27. (Canceled)
Claim 28 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Lim, Figure 1, eNB 120).
Claim 29 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Lim, Figure 1, terminal 110 (e.g., UE)).
30. (Canceled)
31. (Canceled)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights