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 filed July 13 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicants arguments regarding amended claim 23 with respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Harada (Of Record) in view of Chauhan (Of Record), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
More specifically the applicant argues the claim limitation in claims 23 and 31 of “performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity, in a case where no priority is assigned to either the first gap or the second gap” is not disclosed with respect to the teachings of Harada. However the examiner respectfully disagrees. For example a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been issued below for the claim limitation in which the claim feature of “in a case where no priority is assigned to either the first gap or the second gap” is not described in the applicants specification as the applications specification describes that the first gap and the second gap are always assigned pre-defined priorities (see Para’s [0071-0077] & [0103-0104]). For purposes of examination the examiner interprets the claim feature to be performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity based on the first and second gaps having pre-defined priorities assigned to them as also explained below in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Referring to the teachings of Harada, the applicant argues (Para’s [0118] & [0197-0198]) of Harada, that the UE determines that when the RSSI measurement gap and RSRP/RSRQ measurement gap overlap, the UE determines to perform measurement in one of the determined gaps (i.e., RSSI measurement gap or RSRP/RSRQ measurement gap) based on the determined priority. However for the reasons explained above in accordance with the applicants specification, the first gap and the second gap are always assigned pre-defined priorities (i.e., applicants specification Para’s [0071-0077] & [0103-0104]), and therefore Harada determination is based on pre-defined priorities associated with the respective measurement gaps (Harada, i.e., Para [0115], [0125], & [0197-0198]). In regards to the claim limitation of performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity, with broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, the teachings of Harada discloses that the UE may perform an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity (Harada, see Fig. 2A, Fig. 3 & Para’s [0056-0057] i.e., “measurement gap repetition period” (MGRP) (i.e., “periodicity”) associated with the gap patterns, [0080] i.e., MGRP associated with gap patterns & [0114-0115] i.e., Also, if the carriers that are subject to measurements have equal indices, the user terminal decides the measurement gap to prioritize based on the information that is measured). Therefore it is possible, based on the user terminal deciding the measurement gap to prioritize based on the information that is measured, for a measurement gap with a longer periodicity to be measured (Harada, see Para’s [0056-0057], [0080], [0114-0115], & [0125]). For the reasons explained, Harada discloses the claim limitation of “performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity”.
For the reasons explained above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Harada in view of Chauhan is maintained for amended claims 23 and 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 23, lines 4-6 recite the claim limitation “performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity, in a case where no priority is assigned to either the first gap or the second gap”. The claim feature or subject matter of “in a case where no priority is assigned to either the first gap or the second gap” in the claim limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For example in light of the applicants specification in US (2024/0357632), the first gap and the second gap are assigned pre-defined priorities (see Para’s [0071-0077] & [0103-0104]).
Referring to Para’s [0078-0080] of the applicants specification (i.e., embodiment 2), Para’s [0078-0080] describe the terminal alternatively determining to perform the operation in either the first gap or the second gap based on longer periodicity, however the first gap and the second gap still have preconfigured priorities assigned to them according to (i.e., Para’s [0071-0072] & [0103-0104] of the applicants specification).
Therefore the claim limitation in claim 23 of “performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity, in a case where no priority is assigned to either the first gap or the second gap” is not described in the applicants specification. For purposes of examination the examiner interprets the claim feature to be performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity based on the first and second gaps having pre-defined priorities assigned to them according to the applicants specification in (Para’s [0071-0077] & [0103-0104]). Independent claim 31 which recites the same claim limitation of “performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity, in a case where no priority is assigned to either the first gap or the second gap” as claim 23 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reasons as claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. US (2018/0324619) in view of Chauhan et al. US (2021/0006963).
Regarding Claim 23, Harada discloses a method of communication performed by a terminal device (see Fig. 14 i.e., user terminal 20 & Fig.’s 17-19), the method comprising: determining that a first gap and a second gap are colliding, (see Figures 10-12 & Para’s [0110-0111], [0114-0117] i.e., when the RSRP/RSRQ measurement gap and the RSSI measurement gap collide with each other, the user equipment decides which measurement gap should be prioritized…the user terminal decides the measurement gap to prioritize based on priorities determined in advance (for example, RSRQ/RSRQ may be prioritized, [0119], [0120-0125] i.e., Accordingly, even when an RSSI measurement gap and an RSRQ/RSRQ measurement gap collide with each other, a user terminal still can adequately decide which measurement gap should be prioritized, & [0196-0198] i.e., Furthermore, when an RSSI measurement gap and an RSRP/RSRQ measurement gap overlap (i.e., first gap and second gap are “colliding”), the control section 401 may command the measurement section 405, to stop (skip) the measurement in the RSSI measurement gap or the measurement in the RSRP/RSRQ measurement gap based on the priorities indicated by priority information that is provided from the radio base station 10)
and performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity, in a case where no priority is assigned to either the first gap or the second gap. For purposes of examination the examiner interprets the claim feature to be performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity based on the first and second gaps having pre-defined priorities assigned to them according to the applicants specification in (Para’s [0071-0077] & [0103-0104]). (Harada, see Fig. 2A, Fig. 3 & Para’s [0056-0057] i.e., “measurement gap repetition period” (MGRP) (i.e., “periodicity”) associated with the gap patterns, [0080] i.e., MGRP associated with gap patterns, [0114-0115] i.e., Also, if the carriers that are subject to measurements have equal indices, the user terminal decides the measurement gap to prioritize based on the information that is measured) (i.e., operation corresponding to measurement gap with a longer periodicity or MGRP may be performed), & [0125])
wherein the second gap is for performing a measurement (see Para’s [0012], [0125], & [0196-0197])
Harada does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the first gap is for Multi-Universal Subscriber Identity Module (MUSIM) operation in which the terminal device is configured to switch from a first network device associated with a first USIM to a second network device associated with a second USIM. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chauhan et al. US (2021/0006963).
Chauhan discloses wherein a gap is for Multi-Universal Subscriber Identity Module (MUSIM) operation in which a terminal device is configured to switch from a first network device associated with a first USIM to a second network device associated with a second USIM (see Para’s [0049-0050], [0054], [0075] i.e., first SIM and second SIM of multi-SIM user device (i.e., the DSDS UE), [0076] i.e., The tune away gap may include a time duration for which the multi-SIM user device switches from one RAT to another RAT & [0077] i.e., Further, the tune away gap comprises a time duration for which the multi-SIM user device switches from a second RAT network of the second SIM to a first RAT network of the first SIM & [0103-0104])
(Chauhan suggests the tune away gap comprises a time duration for which the multi-SIM user device switches from a second RAT network of the second SIM to a first RAT network of the first SIM in order to listen to necessary signaling in order to perform network selection to the switched network having a certain RF quality and to filter out poor RF conditions in DSDS scenarios (see Para’s [0049-0053], [0076-0077], & [0078])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first gap which is used by the UE for performing inter-frequency measurements for a non-serving cell and stops performing communication with the serving cell as disclosed in Harada to switch to the non-serving cell by performing the Multi-Universal Subscriber Identity Module (MUSIM) operation in the gap as disclosed in the teachings of Chauhan who discloses a tune away gap is for the MUSIM operation in which a dual SIM terminal device is configured to switch from a first network device of a first RAT associated with a first USIM to a second network device of a second RAT associated with a second USIM, because the motivation lies in Chauhan that the tune away gap comprises a time duration for which the multi-SIM user device switches from a second RAT network of the second SIM to a first RAT network of the first SIM in order to listen to necessary signaling in order to perform network selection to the switched network having a certain RF quality and to filter out poor RF conditions in DSDS scenarios.
Regarding Claim 31, Harada discloses a terminal device (see Fig. 14 i.e., user terminal 20 & Fig.’s 17-19), comprising: at least one memory having program instructions stored therein (see Fig. 19 i.e., primary storage apparatus memory 1002 & Para’s [0210-0214]); and at least one processor (see Fig. 19 i.e., processing apparatus 1001 & Para [0212]) configured to execute the program instructions that, when executed, performs a process (see Fig. 19 & Para’s [0210-0214]) comprising: determining that a first gap and a second gap are colliding, (see Figures 10-12 & Para’s [0110-0111], [0114-0117] i.e., when the RSRP/RSRQ measurement gap and the RSSI measurement gap collide with each other, the user equipment decides which measurement gap should be prioritized…the user terminal decides the measurement gap to prioritize based on priorities determined in advance (for example, RSRQ/RSRQ may be prioritized, [0119], [0120-0125] i.e., Accordingly, even when an RSSI measurement gap and an RSRQ/RSRQ measurement gap collide with each other, a user terminal still can adequately decide which measurement gap should be prioritized, & [0196-0198] i.e., Furthermore, when an RSSI measurement gap and an RSRP/RSRQ measurement gap overlap (i.e., first gap and second gap are “colliding”), the control section 401 may command the measurement section 405, to stop (skip) the measurement in the RSSI measurement gap or the measurement in the RSRP/RSRQ measurement gap based on the priorities indicated by priority information that is provided from the radio base station 10)
and performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity, in a case where no priority is assigned to either the first gap or the second gap. For purposes of examination the examiner interprets the claim feature to be performing an operation corresponding to one of the first gap and the second gap that has a longer periodicity based on the first and second gaps having pre-defined priorities assigned to them according to the applicants specification in (Para’s [0071-0077] & [0103-0104]). (Harada, see Fig. 2A, Fig. 3 & Para’s [0056-0057] i.e., “measurement gap repetition period” (MGRP) (i.e., “periodicity”) associated with the gap patterns, [0080] i.e., MGRP associated with gap patterns, [0114-0115] i.e., Also, if the carriers that are subject to measurements have equal indices, the user terminal decides the measurement gap to prioritize based on the information that is measured) (i.e., operation corresponding to measurement gap with a longer periodicity or MGRP may be performed), & [0125])
wherein the second gap is for performing a measurement (see Para’s [0012], [0125], & [0196-0197])
Harada does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the first gap is for Multi-Universal Subscriber Identity Module (MUSIM) operation in which the terminal device is configured to switch from a first network device associated with a first USIM to a second network device associated with a second USIM. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chauhan et al. US (2021/0006963).
Chauhan discloses wherein a gap is for Multi-Universal Subscriber Identity Module (MUSIM) operation in which a terminal device is configured to switch from a first network device associated with a first USIM to a second network device associated with a second USIM (see Para’s [0049-0050], [0054], [0075] i.e., first SIM and second SIM of multi-SIM user device (i.e., the DSDS UE), [0076] i.e., The tune away gap may include a time duration for which the multi-SIM user device switches from one RAT to another RAT & [0077] i.e., Further, the tune away gap comprises a time duration for which the multi-SIM user device switches from a second RAT network of the second SIM to a first RAT network of the first SIM & [0103-0104])
(Chauhan suggests the tune away gap comprises a time duration for which the multi-SIM user device switches from a second RAT network of the second SIM to a first RAT network of the first SIM in order to listen to necessary signaling in order to perform network selection to the switched network having a certain RF quality and to filter out poor RF conditions in DSDS scenarios (see Para’s [0049-0053], [0076-0077], & [0078])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first gap which is used by the UE for performing inter-frequency measurements for a non-serving cell and stops performing communication with the serving cell as disclosed in Harada to switch to the non-serving cell by performing the Multi-Universal Subscriber Identity Module (MUSIM) operation in the gap as disclosed in the teachings of Chauhan who discloses a tune away gap is for the MUSIM operation in which a dual SIM terminal device is configured to switch from a first network device of a first RAT associated with a first USIM to a second network device of a second RAT associated with a second USIM, because the motivation lies in Chauhan that the tune away gap comprises a time duration for which the multi-SIM user device switches from a second RAT network of the second SIM to a first RAT network of the first SIM in order to listen to necessary signaling in order to perform network selection to the switched network having a certain RF quality and to filter out poor RF conditions in DSDS scenarios.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN A BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-7511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ADNAN BAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights