DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the application filed on 24 January 2024, having claims 1-20 and drawing figures 1-5.
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 .
Claim Objections
3. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “Claim” recited in claims 2-10 and 12-20 must be written in lowercase letters.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabrera Mercader et al. (US 2024/0114561 A1) (hereinafter “Cabrera”) in view of Ericsson, Discussions on Collision between MUSIM Gaps, October 2022, pages 1-6 (reference disclosed by applicant).
For claims 1 and 11, Cabrera discloses an apparatus (Fig 16, device 1600) implementable in a multiple-Universal Subscriber Identity Modules (MUSIM) user equipment (UE) (Fig 1, UE 104), comprising: a transceiver (Fig 16, transceiver 1608) which, during operation, communicates wirelessly ([0168] the transceiver transmits and receives signals via antenna 1610); and
a processor (Fig 16, processor 1602) coupled to the transceiver and which, during operation, performs operations comprising: detecting collision between MUSIM gaps or detecting collision between at least one MUSIM gap and MG occasion ([0114] the processing system of the UE may detect collision(s) between a first MUSIM gap occasion, a second MUSIM gap occasion, and a MG occasion); determining the priorities of the first MUSIM gap and the second MUSIM gap, wherein the MUSIM gap with the lower priority is dropped while the MUSIM gap with the higher priority is kept [0116].
For claims 1 and 11, Cabrera does not expressly disclose determining that there is a collision between a Type-1 measurement gap (MG) and at least one MUSIM gap; and prioritizing the Type-1 MG or the at least one MUSIM gap to keep one of the Type-1 MG and the at least one MUSIM gap while dropping the other of the Type-1 MG and the at least one MUSIM gap.
Ericsson, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches determining that there is a collision between a Type-1 measurement gap (MG) and at least one MUSIM gap and prioritizing the Type-1 MG or the at least one MUSIM gap to keep one of the Type-1 MG and the at least one MUSIM gap while dropping the other of the Type-1 MG and the at least one MUSIM gap (page 3, lines 4-5 and proposal 5, wherein when a collision is detected between Type-1 MG and a MUSIM gap, the MRGP value of the type-1 MG is compared the MRGP value of the MUSIM gap; the one with the higher MRGP is prioritized (i.e., kept) while the one with the lower MRGP is dropped). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the prioritization method of Ericsson in the communication network of Cabrera at the time of the invention to prioritize one of the MUSIM gap and Type-1 MG based on their priority.
For claims 2 and 12, Ericsson discloses the prioritizing of the Type-1 MG or the at least one MUSIM gap comprises prioritizing the at least one MUSIM gap over the Type-1 MG (page 3, lines 4-7, comparing the MRGP of a MUSIM Gap with the MRGP of a Type-1 MG, and prioritizing the one which the larger MRGP).
For claims 3 and 12, Ericsson discloses the prioritizing of the Type-1 MG or the at least one MUSIM gap comprises prioritizing the Type-1 MG over the at least one MUSIM gap (page 3, lines 4-7, comparing the MRGP of a MUSIM Gap with the MRGP of a Type-1 MG, and prioritizing the one which the larger MRGP).
For claims 4 and 14, Ericsson discloses the prioritizing of the Type-1 MG or the at least one MUSIM gap comprises prioritizing either the Type-1 MG or the at least one MUSIM gap based on a respective measurement or MUSIM gap repetition periodicity (MGRP) and not based on a type of gap thereof (page 3, lines 4-7, comparing the MRGP of a MUSIM Gap with the MRGP of a Type-1 MG, and prioritizing the one which the larger MRGP).
For claims 5 and 15, Ericsson discloses the at least one MUSIM gap comprises a single MUSIM gap, and wherein the prioritizing of the Type-1 MG or the single MUSIM gap comprises: comparing a measurement gap repetition periodicity (MGRP) of the Type-1 MG (MGRPType-1 MG) and a MGRP of the single MUSIM gap (MGRPMUSIM); and prioritizing the Type-1 MG and the single MUSIM gap based on a result of the comparing (page 3, lines 4-7, comparing the MRGP of a MUSIM Gap with the MRGP of a Type-1 MG, and prioritizing the one which the larger MRGP).
For claims 6 and 16, Ericsson discloses the prioritizing of the Type-1 MG and the single MUSIM gap based on the result of the comparing comprises: prioritizing the single MUSIM gap over the Type-1 MG responsive to MGRPMUSIM> MGRPType-1 MG; or prioritizing the Type-1 MG over the single MUSIM gap responsive to MGRPType-1 MG> MGRPMUSIM (page 3, lines 4-7, comparing the MRGP of a MUSIM Gap with the MRGP of a Type-1 MG, and prioritizing the one which the larger MRGP.
For claims 7 and 17, Ericsson does not expressly disclose the prioritizing of the Type-1 MG and the single MUSIM gap based on the result of the comparing comprises: prioritizing the single MUSIM gap over the Type-1 MG responsive to MGRPMUSIM = MGRPType-1 MG and the single MUSIM gap being configured with a highest priority level; or prioritizing the Type-1 MG over the single MUSIM gap responsive to MGRPType-1 MG = MGRPMUSIM and the single MUSIM gap being not configured with the highest priority level. However, Ericsson discloses the network may indicate a specific priority level for each MUSIM gap via configuration signaling (page 2, lines 1-4) and that the paging gap may be configured with the highest priority level (proposal 1, solution, page 2). Ericsson discloses that MUSIM gaps have higher priority than legacy MGs (including Type-1 MG) (page 2, lines 1-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that a MUSIM gap in the communication network of Cabrera could be prioritized over a Type-1 MG even if the MUSIM gap is not configured with the highest priority level based on the teachings of Ericsson at the time of the invention.
For claims 8 and 18, Cabrera discloses the at least one MUSIM gap comprises at least a first MUSIM gap and a second MUSIM gap ([0114] the at least one MUSIM gap may be a first MUSIM gap occasion and a second MUSIM gap occasion), and prioritizing of the Type-1 MG or the at least one MUSIM gap in an event that there is a collision among the Type-1 MG, the first MUSIM gap and the second MUSIM gap ([0116] determining the priorities of the first MUSIM gap and the second MUSIM gap, wherein the MUSIM gap with the lower priority is dropped while the MUSIM gap with the higher priority is kept; wherein the priorities of each MUSIM gap is pre-defined [0110] or received from the network(s) via MUSIM gap configurations).
For claims 8 and 18, Ericsson and Cabrera do not expressly disclose comparing a measurement gap repetition periodicity (MGRP) of the first MUSIM gap (MGRPMUSIM#1) and a MGRP of the second MUSIM gap (MGRPMUSIM#2) to identify one of the first MUSIM gap and the second MUSIM gap as a winner MUSIM gap which has a higher priority level; comparing a MGRP of the Type-1 MG (MGRPType-1 MG) and the MGRP of the winner MUSIM gap, which is either the MGRPMUSIM#1 or the MGRPMUSIM#2, and prioritizing the Type-1 MG and the winner MUSIM gap based on a result of the comparing.
However, Ericsson discloses comparing the MRGP of a MUSIM Gap with the MRGP of a Type-1 MG, and prioritizing the one which the larger MRGP (page 3, lines 4-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to compare the MRGP of the “winner” MUSIM gap (the first MUSIM gap or the second MUSIM gap) of Cabrera with the MRGP of the Type-1 MG to select which one to prioritize based on the teachings of Ericsson at the time of the invention.
For claims 9 and 19, Cabrera discloses the at least one MUSIM gap comprises at least a first MUSIM gap and a second MUSIM gap ([0114] the at least one MUSIM gap may be a first MUSIM gap occasion and a second MUSIM gap occasion).
For claims 9 and 19, Ericsson and Cabrera do not expressly disclose the prioritizing of the Type-1 MG or the at least one MUSIM gap in an event that there is a collision between the Type-1 MG and one of the first MUSIM gap and the second MUSIM gap comprises: comparing a measurement gap repetition periodicity (MGRP) of the Type-1 MG (MGRPType-1 MG) and a MGRP of the one of the first MUSIM gap and the second MUSIM gap (MGRPMUSIM#1 or MGRPMUSIM#2) which collides with the Type-1 MG; and prioritizing the Type-1 MG and the one of the first MUSIM gap and the second MUSIM gap based on a result of the comparing.
However, Ericsson discloses comparing the MRGP of a MUSIM Gap with the MRGP of a Type-1 MG, and prioritizing the one which the larger MRGP (page 3, lines 4-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to compare the MRGP of the “winner” MUSIM gap (the first MUSIM gap or the second MUSIM gap) of Cabrera with the MRGP of the Type-1 MG to select which one to prioritize based on the teachings of Ericsson at the time of the invention.
For claims 10 and 20, Ericsson discloses the at least one MUSIM gap comprises an aperiodic MUSIM gap, and wherein the prioritizing of the Type-1 MG or the at least one MUSIM gap comprises prioritizing the aperiodic MUSIM gap over the Type-1 MG (page 2, line 4, “P3: aperiodic MUSIM gaps are always prioritized over legacy MGs (Type-1 MG is a legacy MG)).
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM 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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471