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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/23 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 55-60, 64, and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HONG (US 2022/0312292).
Regarding claim 55, Hong teaches a method of wireless communication, comprising:
selecting, by a wireless device configured with at least a first subscriber identity module (SIM) and a second SIM (N subscriber identity modules), a primary SIM (see “In some embodiments, receiving measurement configuration information of one or more subscriber identification modules in the N subscriber identification modules includes: receiving measurement configuration information of each subscriber identification module in the N subscriber identification modules; and selecting one from the N subscriber identification modules for measuring the wireless signal quality [par 51] wherein the selected one subscriber identification module for measuring wireless signal quality reads on the claimed “primary SIM”);
performing a measurement of a reference signal configured for the primary SIM to obtain a primary result associated with the primary SIM (see “Step 201 may include measuring the wireless signal quality using the selected one subscriber identification module according to the measurement configuration information of the selected one subscriber identification module” [par 52]); and
reporting, by the wireless device, the primary result (measurement result) (see “The measurement report comprises content of the measurement result, and the source base station determines whether to carry out cell handover” [par 60] which suggests that the measurement result, or “primary result”, is reported to the source base station).
Regarding claim 56, Hong teaches the method of claim 55, wherein the measurement is a radio resource management (RRM) measurement (see “The measurement of wireless signal quality may be
the measurement of cell signal quality. The cell signal quality may include: the signal quality of the cell and the signal quality of the neighboring cell…The measurement result can be used as the basis
of cell handover” [par 46] wherein the signal quality is “a RRM measurement” since it is used for handover which involves management of radio resources) or a radio frequency (RF) calibration measurement comprising a positioning measurement.
Regarding claim 57, Hong teaches the method of claim 55, wherein the measurement is configured for a serving cell or a neighboring cell (see “see “The measurement of wireless signal quality may be the measurement of cell signal quality. The cell signal quality may include: the signal quality of the cell and the signal quality of the neighboring cell…” [par 46]).
Regarding claim 58, Hong teaches the method of claim 55, wherein at least the first SIM and the second SIM are associated with a same mobile network operator (MNO) or with different MNOs (see “The application scenario of embodiments of the disclosure is that for a multi-subscriber identification module terminal, namely a multi-SIM terminal, different subscriber identification modules are considered as different terminals in the current network” [par 40]).
Regarding claim 59, Hong teaches the method of claim 55, further comprising:
reporting a secondary result associated with a secondary SIM configured with the wireless device, wherein the secondary result is set to the primary result (see “Here, the N-subscriber identification module terminal can select one of N subscriber identification modules to measure the wireless signal quality after receiving the measurement configuration information sent to each subscriber identification module. Other subscriber identification modules take the measurement result
of this subscriber identification module as reference.” [par 53] which suggests that the measurement result of other subscriber identification modules as measurement result of the one selected subscriber identification module reported to the base station).
Regarding claim 60, Hong teaches the method of claim 55, further comprising:
transmitting an indication that the primary result applies to a secondary SIM configured with the wireless device (see “Other subscriber identification modules take the measurement result of this subscriber identification module as reference” [par 53] wherein a measurement report comprising the same measurement results for the subscriber identification modules would indicate “that the primary result applies to a secondary SIM configured with the wireless device”).
Claim 64 recites subject matter similar to claim 55 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 74 recites subject matter similar to claims 55 and 64, but from the perspective of the base station and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
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.
Claim(s) 65-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG (US 2022/0312292) in view of Tambaram Kailasam et al. (US 2018/0070303) (hereinafter “Tambaram”).
Regarding claim 65, Hong does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from a network device, a message indicating the network device is shared between a plurality of MNOs. In an analogous prior art reference, Tambaram teaches a wireless device (multi-SIM device) [par 42] is configured to receive, from a network device, a message (SIB) indicating the network device is shared between a plurality of MNOs (see “In some embodiments, both the first SIM 240 and the second SIM 250 may be camped on the same Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), frequency, or primary scrambling code (PSC). Therefore, the information contained in the system information block (SIB) broadcasted by the network (e.g., the communication network 120 or the communication network 130) is same for both (or all) of the SUBs” [par 51] and “For example, the individual SUBs, as particular relationships between the mobile communication device 110 having a SIM usable with a specific MNO, for example, may "share" information with another SUB using a different SIM with a different MNO” [par 36] which suggests that multi-SIM device may receive a SIB containing the same information for all the SUBs which would indicate that “the network device is shared between a plurality of MNOs” since each SUB may be associated with a different MNO. 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 the invention of Hong to allow the device for wireless communication to receive, from a network device, a message indicating the network device is shared between a plurality of MNOs, as taught by Tambarm, in order to conserve time and power when a base station is shared between a plurality of MNOs.
Regarding claim 66, Tambaram teaches the device of claim 65, wherein the message includes a plurality of PLMN values associated with the plurality of MNOs (see “An equivalent PLMN list may be provided for each SUB which defining the frequencies on which the SUB is allowed to camp. This neighbor PLMN information may be obtained through reading a SIB18 broadcasted by the network” [par 54]).
Regarding claim 67, Tambaram teaches the device of claim 65, wherein the message is received via a Master Information Block (MIB), a System Information Block (SIB) (see “Therefore, the information contained in the system information block (SIB) broadcasted by the network (e.g., the communication network 120 or the communication network 130) is same for both (or all) of the SUBs” [par 51]), a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB), or a Channel State Information reference signal (CSI-RS).
Regarding claim 68, Tambaram teaches the device of claim 65, wherein the message indicates one or more frequency bands shared between at least two of the plurality of MNOs (see “In some embodiments, a similar method may be used when all of the SUBs ( e.g., the first SIM 240 and the second SIM 250) are camped on different PLMNs or cells, but have at least one neighbor frequency in common in the same PLMN or in an equivalent PLMN list. An equivalent PLMN list may be provided for each SUB which defining the frequencies on which the SUB is allowed to camp. This neighbor PLMN information may be obtained through reading a SIB18 broadcasted by the network” [par 54]).
Regarding claim 69, Tambaram teaches the device of claim 65, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive, from a second network device, a second message indicating the second network device is shared between a second plurality of MNOs (see “Therefore, the information contained in the system information block (SIB) broadcasted by the network (e.g., the communication network 120 or the communication network 130) is same for both (or all) of the SUBs” [par 51] which suggests multi-SIM device may receive SIB from first or second communication network).
Regarding claim 70, Hong does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless device is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) idle, RRC inactive, or RRC connected mode. Tambaram further teaches a device for wireless communication (multi-SIM device) is in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) idle, RRC inactive, or RRC connected mode (see “The proactive or reactive sharing may be conducted when the first and second SUBs are in the CONNECTED mode or when they are in the IDLE mode” [par 76]). 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 the invention of Hong to allow the wireless device to be in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) idle, RRC inactive, or RRC connected mode, as taught further taught by Tambaram, in order to conserve time and power in different operation modes of the wireless device.
Regarding claim 71, Tambaram teaches the device of claim 64, wherein the primary SIM is selected at least based on a first RRC mode of the primary SIM (see “As noted above, an active SUB may measure received signal strength from one or more cells within range of the device 110. The active SUB may be the first SUB 142 associated with the first SIM 240 or the second SUB 144 associated with the second SIM 250 depending on which is conducting a measurement search (e.g., the MS 306)” [par 72] which suggests that a SUB, or SIM, is selected based on whether it is active or in a RRC connected mode).
Regarding claim 72, Tambaram teaches the device of claim 71, wherein (a) the first RRC mode of the primary SIM is connected and a second RRC mode of a secondary SIM is idle or inactive (see “The active SUB may also share the results of the measurement search (e.g., the MS 306), the full search (e.g.,
the full search 308), or the cell-specific search (e.g., the GSM search 310, the LTE search 316) results with the passive SUB” [par 74] which suggests that an active, or “connected”, SUB performs the measurements and shares it with a passive, or “idle or inactive”, SUB), or (b) the first RRC mode of the primary SIM is idle and the second RRC mode of the secondary SIM is idle.
Regarding claim 73, Tambaram teaches the device of claim 64, wherein the first SIM and the second SIM operate (a) on a same frequency range (FR), (b) on different FRs, or (c) under different cellular network generations (see “In some embodiments, a similar method may be used when all of the SUBs ( e.g., the first SIM 240 and the second SIM 250) are camped on different PLMNs or cells, but have at least one neighbor frequency in common in the same PLMN or in an equivalent PLMN list” [par 54] which suggests “different FRs” and “In some embodiments, the first communication network 120 and the second communication network 130 may be associated with different MNOs. Additionally, the first communication network 120 and the second communication network 130 may each support the same or different radio access technologies (RATs )” [par 36] which suggests “same FR” and “under different cellular network generations”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 61-63 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nam T Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-5970. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/NAM T HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647