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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application (specifically claim 10’s limitations) that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: Figure 9, paragraph 90-91.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 recite “A computer-readable medium..." however the specification mentions that “computer-readable media can include… any other medium that can be used to store computer executable code in the form of instructions or data structures that can be accessed by a computer” (Specification, paragraph 23). As thus, when considering the claim in light of the specification, “computer-readable medium” can be interpreted as non-statutory subject matter (for example, carrier waves, transitory propagating signals). Claims that are broad enough to include nonstatutory subject matter as well as statutory subject matter are considered to be unpatentable.
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 of this title, 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 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, 10-11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, US 20220353774 in view of Dhanani, US 20200359278.
For claim 1. Agarwal teaches: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on stored information that is stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 47, 63-64, UE includes memory storing instructions execute by processor to perform operations)
establish a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 47, 48, 53, UE connects with network based on first SIM and second SIM since paragraph 47 mentions that UE support Dual SIM Dual Standby (DSDS) and paragraph 48 mentions that UE monitors network broadcasted parameters of the second SIM while performing a 5G data session over the first SIM and paragraph 53 mentions that second SIM already operating in 5G mode when the switching occurs; paragraph 10, SIM means subscriber identity module)
communicate with the network based on the first subscriber identity based on the first subscriber identity being a preferred data subscription; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 48, UE performs data session over the first SIM, first SIM is configured for a default data service (DDS))
determine to recommend to switch the preferred data subscription to the second subscriber identity based on a utility function based on one or more performance factors and one or more non-performance factors; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 52, determine to switch to second SIM based on detecting that a fee for data consumption from the second SIM is accepted by a user (non-performance factor), a mobile data plan of the second SIM is active (non-performance factor), and mobile data for the second SIM is available (non-performance factor), upon estimating that the second SIM is capable to continue the data session with the optimal network performance (performance factor); paragraph 53, switching to second SIM is configuring the second SIM for the DDS)
and use the second subscriber identity as the preferred data subscription for data service associated with the UE. (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 53, second SIM is configured for DDS and 5G data session is continued over the second SIM)
Even though, as discussed above, Agarwal implicitly teaches establish a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity, as a show of good faith to compact prosecution, Examiner had provided prior art to explicitly teaches it.
Dhanani from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: establish a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity (Dhanani, fig 3, paragraph 45-47, UE in DSDS mode connects to the same network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Dhanani into Agarwal, since Agarwal suggests a technique for UE in DSDS mode connect to network, and Dhanani suggests the beneficial way of having such UE in DSDS mode connect to network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2 since it’s well-known in the art for UE in DSDS mode to connect to network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2 (Dhanani, fig 3, paragraph 45-47) thus doing so would ease implementation and improve compatibility in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 10. Agarwal teaches: An apparatus for wireless communication performed at a user equipment (UE), comprising: (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 47, 63-64, UE with various means such as data session switching engine, a memory, a processor, a communicator…)
means for establishing a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 47, 48, 53, UE connects with network based on first SIM and second SIM since paragraph 47 mentions that UE support Dual SIM Dual Standby (DSDS) and paragraph 48 mentions that UE monitors network broadcasted parameters of the second SIM while performing a 5G data session over the first SIM and paragraph 53 mentions that second SIM already operating in 5G mode when the switching occurs; paragraph 10, SIM means subscriber identity module)
means for communicating with the network based on the first subscriber identity based on the first subscriber identity being a preferred data subscription; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 48, data session switching engine of UE performs data session over the first SIM, first SIM is configured for a default data service (DDS))
means for determining to recommend to switch the preferred data subscription to the second subscriber identity based on a utility function based on one or more performance factors and one or more non-performance factors; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 52, data session switching engine of UE determines to switch to second SIM based on detecting that a fee for data consumption from the second SIM is accepted by a user (non-performance factor), a mobile data plan of the second SIM is active (non-performance factor), and mobile data for the second SIM is available (non-performance factor), upon estimating that the second SIM is capable to continue the data session with the optimal network performance (performance factor); paragraph 53, switching to second SIM is configuring the second SIM for the DDS)
and means for using the second subscriber identity as the preferred data subscription for data service associated with the UE. (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 53, data session switching engine of UE configures the second SIM for DDS and 5G data session is continued over the second SIM)
Even though, as discussed above, Agarwal implicitly teaches means for establishing a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity, as a show of good faith to compact prosecution, Examiner had provided prior art to explicitly teaches it.
Dhanani from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: means for establishing a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity (Dhanani, fig 3, paragraph 45-47, UE in DSDS mode connects to the same network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Dhanani into Agarwal, since Agarwal suggests a technique for UE in DSDS mode connect to network, and Dhanani suggests the beneficial way of having such UE in DSDS mode connect to network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2 since it’s well-known in the art for UE in DSDS mode to connect to network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2 (Dhanani, fig 3, paragraph 45-47) thus doing so would ease implementation and improve compatibility in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 11. Agarwal teaches: A method for wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 46)
establishing a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 47, 48, 53, UE connects with network based on first SIM and second SIM since paragraph 47 mentions that UE support Dual SIM Dual Standby (DSDS) and paragraph 48 mentions that UE monitors network broadcasted parameters of the second SIM while performing a 5G data session over the first SIM and paragraph 53 mentions that second SIM already operating in 5G mode when the switching occurs; paragraph 10, SIM means subscriber identity module)
communicating with the network based on the first subscriber identity based on the first subscriber identity being a preferred data subscription; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 48, UE performs data session over the first SIM, first SIM is configured for a default data service (DDS))
determining to recommend to switch the preferred data subscription to the second subscriber identity based on a utility function based on one or more performance factors and one or more non-performance factors; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 52, determine to switch to second SIM based on detecting that a fee for data consumption from the second SIM is accepted by a user (non-performance factor), a mobile data plan of the second SIM is active (non-performance factor), and mobile data for the second SIM is available (non-performance factor), upon estimating that the second SIM is capable to continue the data session with the optimal network performance (performance factor); paragraph 53, switching to second SIM is configuring the second SIM for the DDS)
and using the second subscriber identity as the preferred data subscription for data service associated with the UE. (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 53, second SIM is configured for DDS and 5G data session is continued over the second SIM)
Even though, as discussed above, Agarwal implicitly teaches establishing a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity, as a show of good faith to compact prosecution, Examiner had provided prior art to explicitly teaches it.
Dhanani from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: establishing a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity (Dhanani, fig 3, paragraph 45-47, UE in DSDS mode connects to the same network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Dhanani into Agarwal, since Agarwal suggests a technique for UE in DSDS mode connect to network, and Dhanani suggests the beneficial way of having such UE in DSDS mode connect to network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2 since it’s well-known in the art for UE in DSDS mode to connect to network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2 (Dhanani, fig 3, paragraph 45-47) thus doing so would ease implementation and improve compatibility in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 20. Agarwal teaches: A computer-readable medium storing computer executable code at a user equipment (UE), the code when executed by a processor causes the processor to: (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 47, 63-64, memory at UE storing instructions execute by processor to perform operations)
establish a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 47, 48, 53, UE connects with network based on first SIM and second SIM since paragraph 47 mentions that UE support Dual SIM Dual Standby (DSDS) and paragraph 48 mentions that UE monitors network broadcasted parameters of the second SIM while performing a 5G data session over the first SIM and paragraph 53 mentions that second SIM already operating in 5G mode when the switching occurs; paragraph 10, SIM means subscriber identity module)
communicate with the network based on the first subscriber identity based on the first subscriber identity being a preferred data subscription; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 48, UE performs data session over the first SIM, first SIM is configured for a default data service (DDS))
determine to recommend to switch the preferred data subscription to the second subscriber identity based on a utility function based on one or more performance factors and one or more non-performance factors; (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 52, determine to switch to second SIM based on detecting that a fee for data consumption from the second SIM is accepted by a user (non-performance factor), a mobile data plan of the second SIM is active (non-performance factor), and mobile data for the second SIM is available (non-performance factor), upon estimating that the second SIM is capable to continue the data session with the optimal network performance (performance factor); paragraph 53, switching to second SIM is configuring the second SIM for the DDS)
and use the second subscriber identity as the preferred data subscription for data service associated with the UE. (Agarwal, fig 1, paragraph 53, second SIM is configured for DDS and 5G data session is continued over the second SIM)
Even though, as discussed above, Agarwal implicitly teaches establish a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity, as a show of good faith to compact prosecution, Examiner had provided prior art to explicitly teaches it.
Dhanani from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: establish a connection with a network based on a first subscriber identity and a second subscriber identity (Dhanani, fig 3, paragraph 45-47, UE in DSDS mode connects to the same network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Dhanani into Agarwal, since Agarwal suggests a technique for UE in DSDS mode connect to network, and Dhanani suggests the beneficial way of having such UE in DSDS mode connect to network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2 since it’s well-known in the art for UE in DSDS mode to connect to network using subscription associated with SIM 1 and subscription associated with SIM 2 (Dhanani, fig 3, paragraph 45-47) thus doing so would ease implementation and improve compatibility in the analogous art of communication.
Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, US 20220353774 in view of Dhanani, US 20200359278 in view of Zhao, US 20230071751.
For claim 9. Agarwal and Dhanani disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Agarwal further teaches: wherein to use the second subscriber identity as the preferred data subscription for the data service associated with the UE, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: render a graphics component for confirming the preferred data subscription on a screen associated with the UE. (Agarwal, paragraph 52, data switching engine receives user consent for the data session switching to the second SIM; paragraph 53, switching to second SIM is configuring the second SIM for the DDS; paragraph 57, UE reports 5G data service to user interface; render a graphics component for confirming the preferred data subscription on a screen associated with the UE is implicit since data switching engine receives user consent for the data session switching and UE reports 5G data service to user interface)
Even though, as discussed above, Agarwal implicitly teaches render a graphics component for confirming the preferred data subscription on a screen associated with the UE, as a show of good faith to compact prosecution, Examiner had included prior art to explicitly teaches it.
Zhao from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: render a graphics component for confirming the preferred data subscription on a screen associated with the UE (Zhao, paragraph 63, AP (application processor) display DDS switch recommendation to user by employing UI, if user accepts, modem performs a switch from one SIM being DDS to another SIM being DDS; paragraph 59, UI provides visual information to a user through an appropriate interface device)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Zhao into Agarwal and Dhanani, since Agarwal suggests a technique for receiving user consent for DDS switching, and Zhao suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique displaying DDS switch recommendation to user by employing UI and receiving user consent for such DDS switching through such UI since it’s well-known in the art to receive user consent for DDS switching by displaying DDS switch recommendation to user by employing UI and receiving user consent for such DDS switching through such UI (Zhao, paragraph 59, 63) thus doing so would ease implementation and improve compatibility in the analogous art of communication.
For claim 19. Agarwal and Dhanani disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and Agarwal further teaches: wherein using the second subscriber identity as the preferred data subscription for the data service associated with the UE further comprises: rendering a graphics component for confirming the preferred data subscription on a screen associated with the UE. (Agarwal, paragraph 52, data switching engine receives user consent for the data session switching to the second SIM; paragraph 53, switching to second SIM is configuring the second SIM for the DDS; paragraph 57, UE reports 5G data service to user interface; render a graphics component for confirming the preferred data subscription on a screen associated with the UE is implicit since data switching engine receives user consent for the data session switching and UE reports 5G data service to user interface)
Even though, as discussed above, Agarwal implicitly teaches rendering a graphics component for confirming the preferred data subscription on a screen associated with the UE, as a show of good faith to compact prosecution, Examiner had included prior art to explicitly teaches it.
Zhao from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: rendering a graphics component for confirming the preferred data subscription on a screen associated with the UE (Zhao, paragraph 63, AP (application processor) display DDS switch recommendation to user by employing UI, if user accepts, modem performs a switch from one SIM being DDS to another SIM being DDS; paragraph 59, UI provides visual information to a user through an appropriate interface device)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Zhao into Agarwal and Dhanani, since Agarwal suggests a technique for receiving user consent for DDS switching, and Zhao suggests the beneficial way of including into such technique displaying DDS switch recommendation to user by employing UI and receiving user consent for such DDS switching through such UI since it’s well-known in the art to receive user consent for DDS switching by displaying DDS switch recommendation to user by employing UI and receiving user consent for such DDS switching through such UI (Zhao, paragraph 59, 63) thus doing so would ease implementation and improve compatibility in the analogous art of communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 12-18 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 KHOA B HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1:00 PM - 9:35 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/KHOA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462