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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are amended.
Title of the invention is amended.
Abstract is amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/22/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 4/15/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment to the title of the invention has overcome the objection to the title of the invention previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 1/15/2026.
Applicant’s amendment to the Abstract has overcome the objection to the Abstract previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 1/15/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-6 have overcome the objections to claims 1-6 previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 1/15/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 3, and 5, it is suggested to replace “RRCReconfiguration” (in line 10 of claim 1, in line 5 of claim 3, and in line 8 of claim 5) with “radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration (RRCReconfiguration)”, “UEAssistanceInformation” (in line 11 of claim 1, in line 4 of claim 3, and in line 9 of claim 5) with “User Equipment Assistance Information (UEAssistanceInformation)”, and “radio resource control (RRC) connected state” (in lines 18-19 of claim 1, in line 14 of claim 3, and lines 16-17 of claim 5) with “RRC connected state” for the use of the acronyms and for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 10,623,946 B1, hereinafter Kumar) in view of Qualcomm Incorporated (“Network switching procedures for Multi-SIM”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #114-e, R2-2105257, May 17-29, 2021, hereinafter Qualcomm) further in view of Samsung (“Open issues on network switching for Multi-USIM devices”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #114-e, R2-2105437, May 17-29, 2021, hereinafter Samsung).
Regarding claim 1:
Kumar teaches an apparatus (see, Kumar: Fig. 7, UE 702; Fig. 3, UE 350) comprising: a memory (see, Kumar: Fig. 3, Memory 360) storing a program; and one or more processors (see, Kumar: Fig. 3, Controller/Processor 359) configured to execute the program to:
communicate with a first network and a second network (see, Kumar: Fig. 7 and Col. 16, lines 53-58, “FIG. 7 illustrates an example, communication flow 700 between a UE 702 that is actively communicating on a first subscription with base station 704 and on a second subscription with base station 706. UE may transmit/receive communication 701 on the first subscription and may transmit/receive communication 703 on the second subscription.”);
receive, from a base station in the first network (see, Kumar: Fig. 7, base station 704), an RRCReconfiguration message including first information for instructing a transmission of a UEAssistanceInformation message (see, Kumar: Fig. 7 and Col. 16, lines 53-58, “The UE may receive an indication 707 from the base station 704 configuring the UE to provide the MSIM assistance information. The indication 707 may cause the UE to report the MSIM assistance information, e.g., identifying the second subscription.”; Col. 18, lines 11-13, “The MSIM assistance information, as provided at 607 or 709, may be provided to the network as UE assistance information, e.g., as a UE assistance information IE.”).
Kumar does not explicitly teach wherein the UEAssistanceInformation message including second information for indicating a value of a periodicity for a periodic gap and a value of a length for the periodic gap, the periodic gap being used for acquiring a system information block (SIB) from the second network.
In the same field of endeavor, Qualcomm teaches wherein the UEAssistanceInformation message including second information for indicating a value of a periodicity for a periodic gap and a value of a length for the periodic gap (see, Qualcomm: Section 2 (page 3), “For these configuration, appropriate values of parameters (e.g. duration and periodicity) is important to minimize the interruption to the Connected state operation. Since the NW for USIM A is not assumed to be coordinating with NW for USIM B, the only way for NW A to get this information is via the UE. Thus, UE assistance information is necessary.”), the periodic gap being used for acquiring a system information block (SIB) from the second network (see, Qualcomm: Proposal 4, “UE provides assistance information to the gNB in Connected state based on the configuration of other USIM for the gNB to determine the necessary switching parameters.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kumar in combination of the teachings of Qualcomm in order for the UE to provide the NW for USIM A (i.e., first network of Kumar) with the appropriate values of parameters (e.g. duration and periodicity) of the NW for USIM B via the UE assistance information (see, Qualcomm: Section 2).
Kumar in view of Qualcomm teaches wherein the apparatus (see, Kumar: Fig. 7, UE 702; Fig. 3, UE 350) is configured to transmit, based on the reception of the first information, to the base station in the first network, the UEAssistanceInformation message including the second information for indicating the value of the periodicity for the periodic gap and the value of the length for the periodic gap (i.e., appropriate values of parameters (e.g. duration and periodicity)), in a case where the apparatus is in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state in the first network (see, Kumar: Col. 13, lines, 3-11, “The UE may also provide the base station with MSIM assistance information 607 regarding the other subscription. By providing a network with such MSIM assistance information, the network may adjust communication with the UE based on the MSIM assistance information to improve communication with the UE with knowledge that the UE may be experiencing periodic gaps 404 during which it will not receive/transmit communication with the network.”; see, Qualcomm: Section 1, “RRC signaling is used for switching procedure without leaving RRC_Connected state in network A for UE temporarily switching to network B as a baseline.”; Section 2, “For this discussion, we will assume that USIM-A is in Connected state and USIM-B is in Idle/Inactive mode.”).
Kumar in view of Qualcomm teaches wherein the apparatus (see, Kumar: Fig. 7, UE 702; Fig. 3, UE 350) is configured to receive, from the base station in the first network, an RRCReconfiguration message including third information for configuring the value of the periodicity for the periodic gap and the value of the length for the periodic gap, as indicated by the second information.
In the same field of endeavor, Samsung teaches wherein the apparatus (i.e., UE) is configured to receive, from the base station in the first network, an RRCReconfiguration message including third information (e.g., (re-)configure scheduling gap) for configuring the value of the periodicity for the periodic gap and the value of the length for the periodic gap, as indicated by the second information (i.e., appropriate values of parameters (e.g. duration and periodicity)) (see, Samsung: Section 2.1, “Based on reception of the UEAssistanceInformation message, network can (re-)configure scheduling gap configuration by using RRC reconfiguration procedure. Proposal 2: RRC reconfiguration procedure is used to (re-)configure switching gap configuration based on reception of the UEAssistanceInformation message for switching procedure without leaving RRC_CONNECTED state.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kumar in view of Qualcomm in combination of the teachings of Samsung in order for the network to re-configure scheduling gap configuration (i.e., duration and periodicity) based on reception of the UEAssistanceInformation message by using RRC reconfiguration procedure (see, Samsung: Section 2.1).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Kumar in view of Qualcomm and Samsung teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Samsung further teaches wherein: the one or more processors are configured to execute the program to: acquire, from a base station in the second network, the SIB within the configured periodic gap (see, Samsung: Section 2.1, “UE may need to perform one or multiple activities on network B. Each required activity on network B can be one-shot (e.g. SI acquisition) or periodic (e.g. paging monitoring, serving cell measurements). … Thus, common switching procedure should be used while supporting one or multiple scheduling gap(s) to cater any kind of temporary activities on network B.”).
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 recites a base station in the first network (see, Kumar: Fig. 7, Base Station 704; Fig. 3, Base Station 310) comprising: a memory (see, Kumar: Fig. 3, Memory 376) storing a program; and one or more processors (see, Kumar: Fig. 3, Controller/Processor 375) configured to execute the program to: perform the features of claim 1 from the perspective of the base station in the first network, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected by applying the same rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 is directed towards the base station according to claim 3 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2 from the perspective of the base station in the first network. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 recites the method performed by the apparatus of claim 1, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 is directed towards the method according to claim 5 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 2. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights