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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Gopal does not disclose “enabling or disabling the at least one RF component” because Gopal describes restricting or not allowing SRS antenna switching, which Applicant characterizes as an operational procedure rather than an RF component.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in Gopal (¶0072]), a transceiver management component monitors concurrent operation of multiple SIMs that share a cross-switch and, based on that monitoring, restricts or does not allow SRS antenna switching. SRS antenna switching necessarily requires operation of the disclosed RF cross-switch that connects the transceiver to different antennas. According to dependent claim 10 and the Specification (¶0077]), the RF component may be a cross switch. Accordingly, preventing or not allowing antenna switching renders the shared RF component unavailable for that operation, which meets the claimed step of disabling the at least one RF component based on the monitoring. The claims do not require physical power-down or permanent deactivation of the RF component, and Gopal’s disclosure of conditionally blocking use of the RF component during monitored concurrent operation is sufficient to meet the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 14-16, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Gopal et al. (US 20210112399, hereinafter Gopal).
Regarding claim 1, Gopal discloses a method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
monitoring (Par. 44: Lines 9-19; The UE has a transceiver management component that monitors the SIMs and their operating conditions) a concurrent operation on multiple operating bands within a same subscriber identity module (SIM) or between multiple SIMs (Par. 6: Lines 3-9; UE may perform concurrent communication activities for multiple SIMs; Table 1 shows a variety of band combinations for the first and second SIM) that involves sharing at least one radio frequency (RF) component (Par. 71: Lines 9-11; Cross-switch (i.e. RF component) is shared); and
enabling or disabling the at least one RF component based on the monitoring (Par. 72: Lines 1-7; SRS antenna switching may not be allowed (i.e. disabled) if it is determined that the first and second SIM share a cross switch; Preventing or not allowing antenna switching renders the shared RF component unavailable for that operation).
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Gopal discloses wherein the UE performs the monitoring with a common entity that coordinates between one or more radio access technologies (RATs) shared within the same SIM or multiple SIMs (Par. 76: Lines 1-10; When the first and second SIM are active concurrently, they both contend for the same RF cross switch. The transceiver management component acts as a common entity to coordinate use of the shared RF component; Par. 69: Lines 32-34; The first SIM and second SIM may operate using different RATs; Table 1 shows different RAT combinations for the SIMs).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2, Gopal discloses wherein the common entity is implemented in software (Par 29. Lines 1-2; Functions described may be implemented in software).
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, Gopal discloses wherein the UE operates with a single SIM in a dual connectivity mode involving a first radio access technology (RAT) and a second RAT (Table 1: SIM1 can be shown to be operating in E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity (ENDC) mode, in which it concurrently utilizes an LTE RAT and an NR RAT).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6, Gopal discloses wherein the dual connectivity mode corresponds to an evolved universal terrestrial radio access (E-UTRA) new radio (NR) – dual connectivity (ENDC) mode (Table 1: SIM1 can be shown to be operating in E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity (ENDC) mode, in which it concurrently utilizes an LTE RAT and an NR RAT).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 6, Gopal discloses wherein: the first RAT comprises a new radio (NR) RAT; and the second RAT comprises a long term evolution (LTE) RAT (Table 1: SIM1 can be shown to be operating in E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity (ENDC) mode, in which it concurrently utilizes an LTE RAT and an NR RAT).
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1, Gopal discloses wherein the UE operates with the multiple SIMs in a dual-SIM dual active (DSDA) or dual-SIM dual standby (DSDS) mode (Par. 82: Lines 3-8; Transceiver management component determines if SIM is in dual SIM dual standby (DR-DSDS) mode).
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, Gopal discloses wherein the at least one RF component comprises a low noise amplifier (LNA), an antenna switch module (ASM), or a cross switch (Par. 71: Lines 9-11; Cross-switch (i.e. RF component) is shared).
Regarding claim 14, Gopal discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one or more processors and memories configured to (A UE capable of performing the stated functions necessarily includes one or more processors and memories):
The remaining limitations were addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the remaining limitations of claim 14 are addressed.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 14, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 5. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 are addressed.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 15, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 16. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 are addressed.
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 14, the rejection of claim 6 addresses the limitations presented in claim 19. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 are addressed.
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 19, the rejection of claim 7 addresses the limitations presented in claim 20. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 are addressed.
Regarding claim 21 as applied to claim 19, the rejection of claim 8 addresses the limitations presented in claim 21. Therefore, the limitations of claim 21 are addressed.
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 14, the rejection of claim 9 addresses the limitations presented in claim 22. Therefore, the limitations of claim 22 are addressed.
Regarding claim 23 as applied to claim 14, the rejection of claim 10 addresses the limitations presented in claim 23. Therefore, the limitations of claim 23 are addressed.
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 (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.
Claims 4,5,17,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal et al. (US 20210112399, hereinafter Gopal) in view of Shahidi et al. (US 20210360530, hereinafter Shahidi).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 2, Gopal does not disclose wherein the at least one RF component is disabled when the common entity determines, based on the monitoring, that each of the RATs vote to disable the at least one RF component.
Shahidi, however, discloses wherein the at least one RF component is disabled when the common entity determines (Par. 85: Line 5; Communications manager (i.e. common entity)), based on the monitoring, that each of the RATs has provided a disable indication for the at least one RF component (Par. 85: Lines 8-12; The RF transceiver chain (i.e. RF component) can only be disabled when each RAT votes to disable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gopal with Shahidi, because Gopal already teaches multi-SIM monitoring and coordination of shared RF components, and Shahidi shows a conventional mechanism where a communications manager disables an RF component only if all RATs vote to disable. Combining these techniques would have been a predictable design choice to ensure consistent coordination and avoid conflicts when multiple RATs share the same RF resources.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 2, Gopal does not disclose wherein the at least one RF component is enabled when the common entity determines, based on the monitoring, that at least one of the RATs vote to enable the at least one RF component.
Shahidi, however, discloses wherein the at least one RF component is enabled when the common entity (Par. 85: Line 5; Communications manager (i.e. common entity)) determines, based on the monitoring, that at least one of the RATs has provided an enable indication for the at least one RF component (Par. 85: Lines 8-12; The RF transceiver chain (i.e. RF component) will not be powered off unless all RATs vote to disable. This means that if at least one RAT votes to keep the chain active, the component remains enabled. Thus, the RF component is enabled when at least one RAT votes to enable, as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gopal with Shahidi, because Gopal already teaches multi-SIM monitoring and coordination of shared RF components, and Shahidi shows that an RF component remains enabled if at least one RAT votes to keep it active. Combining these teachings would have been a predictable design choice to improve reliability of RF component management by ensuring that shared resources remain available to RATs still requiring them.
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 15, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 are addressed.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 15, the rejection of claim 5 addresses the limitations presented in claim 18. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 are addressed.
Claims 11,24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal et al. (US 20210112399, hereinafter Gopal) in view of Kim et al. (US 20110077031, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1, Gopal does not disclose wherein the UE performs the monitoring with a driver control circuit implemented at a RF device level.
Kim, however, discloses wherein the UE performs the monitoring with a driver control circuit implemented at a RF device level (Par. 34: Lines 4; UE has a control unit that manages its RF modules. When one RF module is being used to receive a paging message, the control unit can identify which SIM that paging message belongs to and handle it accordingly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gopal with Kim, because Gopal already teaches UE monitoring and resource management in a multi-SIM environment, and Kim shows a conventional way of implementing such monitoring at the RF device level through a driver control circuit. This would improve coordination of shared RF components and reduce latency compared to higher level software control.
Regarding claim 24 as applied to claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 addresses the limitations presented in claim 24. Therefore, the limitations of claim 24 are addressed.
Claims 12,13,25,26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal et al. (US 20210112399, hereinafter Gopal) in view of Kim et al. (US 20110077031, hereinafter Kim) in further view of Shahidi et al. (US 20210360530, hereinafter Shahidi).
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 11, Gopal does not disclose wherein the at least one RF component is disabled when the driver control circuit determines, based on the monitoring, that each of multiple radio access technologies (RATs) has provided a disable indication for the at least one RF component.
Kim, however, discloses a driver control circuit that monitors at least one RF component level (Par. 34: Lines 4; UE has a control unit that manages its RF modules. When one RF module is being used to receive a paging message, the control unit can identify which SIM that paging message belongs to and handle it accordingly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gopal with Kim, because Gopal already teaches multi-SIM monitoring and coordination, and Kim shows a driver control circuit that implements the monitoring at the RF device level. Combining these teachings would have been a predictable design choice to implement monitoring at the hardware layer for more direct control of RF resources and to reduce software overhead.
Kim does not disclose at least one RF component being disabled when the driver control circuit determines, based on the monitoring, that each of the multiple radio access technologies (RATs) has provided a disable indication for the at least one RF component.
Shahidi, however, discloses at least one RF component being disabled when a common entity determines (Par. 85: Line 5; Communications manager (i.e. common entity)), based on the monitoring, that each of multiple radio access technologies (RATs) has provided a disable indication for the at least one RF component (Par. 85: Lines 8-12; The RF transceiver chain (i.e. RF component) can only be disabled only when each RAT votes to disable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the driver control circuit that monitors at least one RF component level of Kim, with the ability to disable a RF component by a common entity when each of the RATs vote to disable the at least one RF component of Shahidi. This would ensure consistent and conflict-free shutdown of shared RF components across multiple RATs.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 11, Gopal does not disclose wherein the at least one RF component is enabled when the driver control circuit determines, based on monitoring, that at least one of multiple radio access technologies (RATs) has provided an enable indication for the at least one RF component.
Kim, however, discloses a driver control circuit that monitors at least one RF component level (Par. 34: Lines 4; UE has a control unit that manages its RF modules. When one RF module is being used to receive a paging message, the control unit can identify which SIM that paging message belongs to and handle it accordingly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gopal with Kim, because Gopal already teaches multi-SIM monitoring and coordination, and Kim shows a driver control circuit that implements the monitoring at the RF device level. Combining these teachings would have been a predictable design choice to implement monitoring at the hardware layer for more direct control of RF resources and to reduce software overhead.
Kim does not disclose at least one RF component being enabled when the driver control circuit determines, based on the monitoring, that at least one of the multiple radio access technologies (RATs) has provided an enable indication for the at least one RF component.
Shahidi, however, discloses at least one RF component being enabled when a common entity determines (Par. 85: Line 5; Communications manager (i.e. common entity)), based on the monitoring, that at least one of multiple radio access technologies (RATs) has provided an enable indication for the at least one RF component (Par. 85: Lines 8-12; The RF transceiver chain (i.e. RF component) will not be powered off unless all RATs vote to disable. This means that if at least one RAT votes to keep the chain active, the component remains enabled. Thus, the RF component is enabled when at least one RAT votes to enable, as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the driver control circuit that monitors at least one RF component level of Kim, with the ability to enable a RF component by a common entity when at least one of the RATs vote to enable the at least one RF component of Shahidi. This would ensure that RF components remain available for RATs that still require them, thereby maintaining service continuity and avoiding unnecessary shutdowns.
Regarding claim 25 as applied to claim 24, the rejection of claim 12 addresses the limitations presented in claim 25. Therefore, the limitations of claim 25 are addressed.
Regarding claim 26 as applied to claim 24, the rejection of claim 13 addresses the limitations presented in claim 26. Therefore, the limitations of claim 26 are addressed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights