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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of CON of PCT/JP22/30007 filed on 8/4/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JAPAN 2021-128806 filed on 8/5/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 5/24/2024, 11/19/2024, 1/27/2025, and 6/18/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of following informalities:
The abstract contains reference numbers of elements such as (200) in line 1 and (100) in line 6. For clarity, it is suggested to remove the reference numbers from the Abstract. It is also suggested use parenthesis instead of comma for definition of acronyms such as “radio resource control (RRC)” and “system information block (SIB)” for clarity. See, MPEP §608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-6 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-6, it is suggested to remove reference numbers such as (200), (100), and (300) for clarity.
In claims 1, 3, and 5, it is also suggested use parenthesis instead of comma for definition of acronyms such as “radio resource control (RRC)” and “system information block (SIB)” 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 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.”);
determine a parameter value of a periodic gap for switching the apparatus to the second network in a case where the apparatus is in a radio resource control, RRC, connected state in the first network, the periodic gap being used for acquiring a periodic system information block, SIB, from the second network (see, Kumar: Col. 11, lines 41-46, “As one example of MSIM operation, a UE may operate using Dual Sim Dual Standby (DSDS), in which the UE may use one subscription to actively communicate, e.g., transmit and/or receive data or voice calls while the other SIM remains on standby. The other subscription may be in an idle mode, and the UE may monitor for pages on the other subscription based on a DRX cycle.”; Fig. 4 and Col. 11, line 49 - Col. 12, line 2, “the UE initiates periodic gaps in communication on the active subscription in order to monitor for a page on the idle subscription and to perform idle mode searches. … During time periods 402, the UE may actively communicate, e.g., transmit and/or receive communication with a network based on the active subscription. FIG. 4 also shows periodic gaps 404 during which the UE monitors for communication, e.g., pages, etc., based on an idle subscription”, wherein the UE’s monitoring for communication based on an idle subscription (i.e., second subscription) includes system information (e.g., MIB, SIBs) of the idle subscription (Also, see : “the controller/processor 359 provides RRC layer functionality associated with system information (e.g., MIB, SIBs) acquisition, RRC connections, and measurement reporting; …, scheduling information reporting, error correction through HARQ, priority handling, and logical channel prioritization.”);
receive, from a base station in the first network, 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.”.
Although it is implied in the disclosure of Kumar, Kumar does not explicitly teach wherein the UEAssistanceInformation message includes second information for indicating the parameter value of the periodic gap.
In the same field of endeavor, Samsung teaches wherein the UEAssistanceInformation message includes second information for indicating the parameter value of the periodic gap (see, Samsung: Section 2.1, “In order to indicate a preference about when and how long UE wants to temporarily switch to network B, UE can provide scheduling gap assistance information to network A. We believe that it can be done using existing UE Assistance Information procedure. Proposal 1: UE Assistance information procedure is used to provide scheduling gap assistance information 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 combination of the teachings of Samsung in order for the UE to indicate a preference about when and how long UE wants to temporarily switch to network B so that network can re-configure scheduling gap configuration by using RRC reconfiguration procedure based on reception of the UEAssistanceInformation message (see, Samsung: Section 2.1).
Kumar in view of Samsung further teaches wherein transmitting, to the base station in the first network, the UEAssistanceInformation message including the second information for indicating the parameter value of the periodic gap based on the reception of the first information for instructing the transmission of the UEAssistanceInformation message (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.”; Fig. 7 and Col. 16, lines 53-58, “At 709, the UE may provide MSIM assistance information to the network for the first subscription. As an example of MSIM assistance information, the UE may indicate a Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI), such as a Cell RNTI (C-RNTI), associated with the second subscription. As another example, the UE may indicate, to the network associated with the first subscription, a cell ID associated with the second subscription.”. See, Samsung: Section 2.1, “UE can provide scheduling gap assistance information to network A.”).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Kumar in view of Samsung teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Samsung further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the program to: receive, from the base station in the first network, an RRCReconfiguration message including third information for configuring a periodic gap based on the parameter value of the periodic gap (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.”); and
acquire, from a base station in the second network, the periodic 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
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