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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 18, the phrase "wherein the first SIM card and the second SIM card correspond to two base stations, and one of the base stations acquires the paging cause from the other one of the base stations" in combination with the phrase “A method for indicating information, performed by a base station” renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear whether either of the two base stations is the base station performing the method. Additionally, if neither of the two base stations is the base station performing the method, it is unclear how the one of the two base stations acquiring the paging cause is related to the rest of the claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 20, the phrase "acquiring [acquire in claim 20] the paging cause of the terminal from at least one of a core network or a neighboring base station of the base station" in combination with the phrase "wherein the first SIM card and the second SIM card correspond to two base stations, and one of the base stations acquires the paging cause from the other one of the base stations" renders the claims indefinite because "acquiring [acquire in claim 20] the paging cause of the terminal from … a neighboring base station of the base station” appears to be redundant with “one of the base stations acquires the paging cause from the other one of the base stations" and because "acquiring [acquire in claim 20] the paging cause of the terminal from … a core network" appears to contradict “one of the base stations acquires the paging cause from the other one of the base stations".
Claims 3-6, 10-14, and 21-23 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 1, 9, and 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 18, and 20-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering claims 1, 9, and 18, the best prior art found during the prosecution of the present application, Gurumoorthy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0014822 A1) and Jung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0116909 A1), fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of wherein the first SIM card and the second SIM card correspond to two base stations, and one of the base stations acquires the paging cause from the other one of the base stations in combination with and in the context of all of the other limitations in claims 1, 9, and 18.
Claims 2-6, 10-14, and 20-23 also include allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on claims 1, 9, and 18.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to MARK G. PANNELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4245. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 3:00 pm (Mountain Time).
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571) 272-7915. 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.
/Mark G. Pannell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642