Detailed Action
1. The Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 01/29/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-15 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for benefit of entering national stage 371 of application which claims benefits of foreign applications as ADS filed on 01/29/2024 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.78 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luetzenkirchen Pub. No.: US 2022/0272660 A1 in view of Velev et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0053448 A1.
Claim 1
Luetzenkirchen discloses a user equipment (UE) (UE in fig. 1-4), in a wireless communication (wireless communication system in fig. 2), the UE (fig. 2) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
844
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a transceiver (network interface device 220 in fig. 2); and
a processor (processor 202 in fig. 2) coupled with the transceiver (processor and transceiver are linked with link 2-8 in fig. 2) and configured to:
decide to use 3GPP access (see par. 0064 for 3GPP access and non-3GPP access by UE) or non-3GPP access (decision to invoke service request procedure over non-3GPP or 3GPP explained in par. 0068), and
PNG
media_image2.png
392
937
media_image2.png
Greyscale
based on the decision, transmit a service request message or a registration request message to an access and mobility management function(AMF) (AMF in fig. 3-4) over the 3GPP access or the non-3GPP access (UE sends service request to AMF in fig. 3-4 and see par. 0067-0068 for condition or situation to invoke the service request over 3GPP access or non-3GPP access),
wherein in case that paging restriction information is not included in the service request message or the registration request message transmitted over the 3GPP access (see par. 0087 and Table in par. 0113 for connection release or paging reject without paging restriction: consider: service request over 3GPP for conditions explained in par. 0067-0068 and fig. 3A & C).
Although Luetzenkirchen does not disclose: “stored paging restriction information regarding context of the UE is removed at the AMF”, claim limitation is considered obvious by the following rationales.
In fact, let’s address the whole claim limitations “in case that paging restriction information is not included in the service request message or the registration request message received over 3GPP access, remove stored paging restriction information regarding context of the UE”. Although claim does not use the phrase “If … then …”, the claim limitations can be considered under MPEP 2111.04, II. Contingent Limitations. Does the claimed invention require both steps? It does not seem to require as claim does not specifically define: 1) what are required to be a paging restriction such as ID, paging area or tracking area; 2) it’s an open ended to other possibilities; 3) it’s uncertain that 3GPP is compulsory as 2 conditions relate to the paging restriction. So, it’s reasonable to assume the claimed invention may practice without either the first or second condition happening. However, to advance the prosecution, both will be addressed. Luetzenkirchen discusses connection release (par. 0087-0090) if service request includes paging restriction (par. 0121) and the connection release is intrinsic feature and it means that to delete all of the contextual information such as paging information along with all of the related informing concerned with the connection. In particular, Velev teaches deleting the UE’s context stored in AMF (par. 0102; better yet, it’s just for advancing the examination purpose only, see deleting the paging restriction information in par. 0194 and fig. 8-10 of Ke et al. Pub. No.: US 2024/0098700).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MUSIM UE connection release and paging restriction of Luetzenkirchen by providing connection suspension for multiple SIMS as taught in Velev. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to enable Dual SIM Dual Active DSDA so that there won’t be no interdependencies on idle or connected mode operating at the modem as suggested in par. 0008 of Velev.
Claim 2
Luetzenkirchen, in view of Velev, discloses the UE of claim 1, the processer is further configured to:
in case that the service request message or the registration request message is transmitted over the non-3GPP access (Luetzenkirchen, service request in fig. 3A-C and consider: the transmission over the non-3GPP access condition as explained in par. 0067=0068), the stored paging restriction information regarding the context of the UE is retained at the AMF (Luetzenkirchen, see fig. 3-4 and Table in par. 0113 and Tables on pg. 13-14, the UE context for IE paging striction such that all paging is restricted, all paging is restricted except PDU session in connection release table element in Table on pg. 14; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 3
Luetzenkirchen discloses an access and mobility management function (AMF) (AMF in fig. 1-4), in a wireless communication (wireless communication system in fig. 1), the AMF comprising:
a transceiver (as depicted in fig. 1-4, AMF could include at least a typical transceiver, see claim 17 on pg. 17); and
a processor coupled with the transceiver (AMF in fig. 1-4 would include a process as in claim 17, and fig. 2 could be cited for examining purpose) and configured to:
receive a service request message or a registration request message from a user equipment (UE) (fig. 3A-C, UE sends service request), and
in case that paging restriction information is not included in the service request message or the registration request message received over 3GPP access (consider: in fig. 3A-C for service request including paging reject or connection release).
Although Luetzenkirchen does not disclose “remove stored paging restriction information regarding context of the UE”, the claim limitation is considered obvious by the following rationale.
Initially, Luetzenkirchen discusses connection release (par. 0087-0090) if service request includes paging restriction (par. 0121) and the connection release is intrinsic feature and it means that to delete all of the contextual information such as paging information along with all of the related informing concerned with the connection. In particular, Velev teaches deleting the UE’s context stored in AMF (par. 0102; better yet, it’s just for advancing the examination purpose only, see deleting the paging restriction information in par. 0194 and fig. 8-10 of Ke et al. Pub. No.: US 2024/0098700).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MUSIM UE connection release and paging restriction of Luetzenkirchen by providing connection suspension for multiple SIMS as taught in Velev. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to enable Dual SIM Dual Active DSDA so that there won’t be no interdependencies on idle or connected mode operating at the modem as suggested in par. 0008 of Velev.
Claim 4
Luetzenkirchen, in view of Velev, discloses the AMF of claim 3, the processer is further configured to:
in case that the service request message or the registration request message is received over non-3GPP access (Luetzenkirchen, service request in fig. 3A-C and consider: the transmission over the non-3GPP access condition as explained in par. 0067-0068), retain the stored paging restriction information regarding the context of the UE. (Luetzenkirchen, see fig. 3-4 and Table in par. 0113 and Tables on pg. 13-14, the UE context for IE paging striction such that all paging is restricted, all paging is restricted except PDU session in connection release table element in Table on pg. 14; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F)
Claim 5
Luetzenkirchen discloses a user equipment (UE) (UE in fig. 1-4), in a wireless communication (wireless communication system in fig. 1), the UE comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
312
791
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a transceiver (network interface device 220 in fig. 2); and
a processor (processor 202) coupled with the transceiver (link 208 in fig. 2 for communication between the processor and the transceiver) and configured to:
perform operation on a radio resource control (RRC) connected state (UE and AMF in fig. 4A-C; see par. 0064 & 0067-0068, 5GMM-CONNECTED mode and see fig. 4b for indication to release of RRC connection and thus, connected mode fig. 4B is RRC connected mode or state), and
PNG
media_image4.png
444
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
initiate service request procedure or registration request procedure to be released from the RRC connected state (connected mode in par. 0067-0068 would be RRC connected state as fig. 4b depicts release of RRC connection) by transmitting a service request message (service request message form UE to AMF in fig. 3-4) or a registration request message including a release indication to access and mobility management function (AMF) (AMF receives service request including connection release as explained in par. 0113 and see connection release IE in the Table in par. 0113) over 3GPP access (see par. 0067-0068 to consider over 3GPP access condition),
wherein based on the service request message including the release indication over the 3GPP access (service request in fig. 3-4 includes the release indication as depicted in Table in par. 0113 and see condition or situation for transmitting over 3GPP access in par. 0067-0068), PDU session release procedure is triggered (par. 0065) or N1 NAS signaling (par. 0087-0088, 0089-0090, 0105-0108, 0121 & 0124), and
based on the registration request message including the release indication over the 3GPP access (par. 0071, a registration procedure in par. 0071), the release is triggered N1 NAS signaling (par. 0087-0088, 0089-0090, 0105-0108, 0121 & 0124).
Although Luetzenkirchen does not disclose: “access network (AN) release procedure is triggered, and the AN release procedure is triggered after completion of the registration procedure”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
In fact, Luetzenkirchen’s connection release is discussed to be performed in N1 NAS signaling as explained above in par. 0121 & 0124. In accordance with MPEP 2111, the claimed feature “access network AN release procedure” does not exclude N1 NAS signaling and claim does not specifically define what are involved in connection release, for instance, 3GPP connection or non-3GPP connection. Then, with teachings from Luetzenkirchen, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the addressing claimed limitation obvious. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Velev teaches registration complete (305 in fig. 3 and 421 in fig. 4A) and that if there is release assistance information RAI in UE request, the RAN node perform UE AS context release and access network AN connection release procedure (par. 0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MUSIM UE connection release and paging restriction of Luetzenkirchen by providing connection suspension for multiple SIMS as taught in Velev. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to enable Dual SIM Dual Active DSDA so that there won’t be no interdependencies on idle or connected mode operating at the modem as suggested in par. 0008 of Velev.
Claim 6
Luetzenkirchen, in view of Velev, discloses the UE of claim 5, the processer is further configured to:
in case that the service request message or the registration request message including the release indication is transmitted over non-3GPP access (Luetzenkirchen, service request in fig. 3-4 includes the release indication as depicted in Table in par. 0113 and see condition or situation for transmitting over 3GPP access in par. 0067-0068; Velev, consider non-3GPP for 305 in fig. 3 and 421 in fig. 4A), the release indication in the service request message or the registration request message is ignored at the AMF (Luetzenkirchen, fig. 3-4; Velev, ignoring communication trigger for USIM-1 while USIM-2 is active in par. 0072-0073 and over non-3GPP in fig. 1; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rational F).
Claim 7
Luetzenkirchen discloses an access and mobility management function (AMF) (AMF in fig. 1-4), in a wireless communication (wireless communication system in fig. 1), the AMF comprising:
a transceiver (as depicted in fig. 1-4, AMF could include at least a typical transceiver, see claim 17 on pg. 17); and
a processor coupled with the transceiver (AMF in fig. 1-4 would include a process as in claim 17, and fig. 2 could be cited for examining purpose) and configured to:
receive a service request message or a registration request message including a release indication from a user equipment (UE) (UE in fig. 4A-C transmits service request including connection release as explained in par. 0113 and see connection release IE in the Table in par. 0113) to be released from a radio resource control (RRC) connected state over 3GPP access (connected mode in par. 0067-0068 would be RRC connected state as fig. 4b depicts release of RRC connection; see par. 0067-0068 to consider over 3GPP access condition),
based on the service request message including the release indication over the 3GPP access (service request in fig. 3-4 includes the release indication as depicted in Table in par. 0113 and see condition or situation for transmitting over 3GPP access in par. 0067-0068), trigger PDU session release procedure (par. 0065) or N1 NAS signaling (par. 0087-0088, 0089-0090, 0105-0108, 0121 & 0124), and
based on the registration request message including the release indication over the 3GPP access (service request in fig. 3-4 includes the release indication as depicted in Table in par. 0113 and see condition or situation for transmitting over 3GPP access in par. 0067-0068), trigger N1 NAS signaling (par. 0087-0088, 0089-0090, 0105-0108, 0121 & 0124).
Although Luetzenkirchen does not disclose: “trigger access network (AN) release procedure, and trigger the AN release procedure after completion of the registration procedure”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
In fact, Luetzenkirchen’s connection release is discussed to be performed in N1 NAS signaling as explained above in par. 0121 & 0124. In accordance with MPEP 2111, the claimed feature “access network AN release procedure” does not exclude N1 NAS signaling. Then, with teachings from Luetzenkirchen, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the addressing claimed limitation obvious. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Velev teaches registration complete (305 in fig. 3 and 421 in fig. 4A) and that if there is release assistance information RAI in UE request, the RAN node perform UE AS context release and access network AN connection release procedure (par. 0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MUSIM UE connection release and paging restriction of Luetzenkirchen by providing connection suspension for multiple SIMS as taught in Velev. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment to enable Dual SIM Dual Active DSDA so that there won’t be no interdependencies on idle or connected mode operating at the modem as suggested in par. 0008 of Velev.
Claim 8
Luetzenkirchen, in view of Velev, discloses the AMF of claim 7, the processer is further configured to:
in case that the service request message or the registration request message including the release indication is received over non-3GPP access (Luetzenkirchen, service request in fig. 3-4 includes the release indication as depicted in Table in par. 0113 and see condition or situation for transmitting over 3GPP access in par. 0067-0068; Velev, consider non-3GPP for 305 in fig. 3 and 421 in fig. 4A), ignore the release indication in the service request message or the registration request message (Luetzenkirchen, fig. 3-4; Velev, ignoring communication trigger for USIM-1 while USIM-2 is active in par. 0072-0073 and over non-3GPP in fig. 1; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rational F).
Claim 9-10
Claims 9-10 are method claims corresponding to UE claims 1-2. All of the limitations in claims 9-10 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in claims 1-2. According claims 9-10 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 1-2 respectively set forth above.
Claim 11-12
Claims 11-12 are method claims corresponding to AMF claims 3-4. All of the limitations in claims 11-12 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in claims 3-4. According claims 11-12 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 3-4 respectively set forth above.
Claim 13-14
Claims 13-14 are method claims corresponding to UE claims 5-6. All of the limitations in claims 13-14 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in claims 5-6. According claims 13-14 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 5-6 respectively set forth above.
Claim 15
Claim 5 is a method claim corresponding to AMF claim 7. All of the limitations in claim 15 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in claim 7. According claim 15 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 7 set forth above.
7. There are eight independent claims sets in this instant application. Claims recites mainly for UE and AMF for two embodiments which may potentially patentable distinct. To advance the prosecution, it’s suggested to keep them under the same scope of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643