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 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.
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.
1. Claims 1, 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (2024/0188176) in view of LI et al (2023/0262811) or Gurumoorthy et al (2022/0361132).
Regarding claims 1 and 15. Jung teaches a method and an apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (figure 1J, 0017, 0357-0358 wherein UE comprises processor, memory and program), cause the apparatus at least to perform:
sending, to a first wireless communication network, information on a capability limitation associated with a support of multiple universal subscriber identity modules, MUSIM, operation, wherein the apparatus is in a connected state in the first wireless communication network (figure 1F, 0170-0172 – a UE is supporting multiple universal subscriber identity modules (multi-USIM UE) performs an operation associated with one USIM while the UE maintains its RRC connected mode with a BS with another USIM, 0173 – USIM 1 UE may be in an RRC connected mode, 0175 – in operation 1f-15, the USIM 1 of the UE may transmit a UE capability information message to the NW1 … indicating that the USIM1 UE supports multiple USIMs … UECapabilityInformation (support of STS – a short-time switching) procedure by indicating the information in the UE capability information message, 0176-0180 – in operation 1f-20 the NW1 transmits STS-GAPPreferenceConfig (i.e. new prohibit trimer) to the USIM1 of the UE).
Regarding amendment dated 2/23/2026. Applicant amends and argues prior art does not teach the capability limitation relating to a restriction of at least one capability of the apparatus while operating in a MUSIM mode.
LI teaches the UE determines capability restriction for coordinating th multiple networks, and the UE sends the capability restriction to the multiple network (0085-0086). LI teaches UE with multi-SIMs in a connected state (0063) wherein UE determines the capability limitation for dual-active state and sends to the network (figure 6, 0090). In another implementation, referring to figure 7, the UE determines the capability limitation and sends it to the network wherein the UE includes SIM1 and SIM2 (figure 7, 0091). In another implementation, the UE determines the capability limitation and sends it to the network (figure 8, 0096-0102). UE provides assistance information to the network regarding feature set restriction (figure 22, 0169) and/or regarding updated feature set restriction (figure 22, 0177, 0116).
Gurumoorthy teaches MUSIM UE (0008) and provides the network with information regarding capability wherein one or more UE capability indications include frequency band conflict (e.g., capability relating to a restriction) information related to the first and second SIMS, where the frequency band conflict information is usable by the first network to avoid a frequency band conflict between communications using the first and second SIMs (0011, 0097). As illustrated in figure 8, the UE may perform capability reporting whereby the UE reports conflicting bands (based on UE configuration) to the network via a UE capability information message. Band conflict information may be grouped into idle-idle, connected-connected and connected-idle groups (e.g., MUSIM mode) so that the network is aware of the UE’s limitations in different connection scenarios (figure 8, 0113, 0136).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jung to include capability information relating to restriction of at least one capability of the UE while operating in a MUSIM mode as taught by LI OR Gurumoorthy which improves the performance of the wireless communication (LI at 0004) or avoid band conflicts when operating in a MUSIM mode (Gurumoorthy at 0113).
Regarding claim 22. Jung teaches sending the information on the capability limitation in an assistance information message (0009, 0175 – transmitting, to the BS, a UE capability information message including UE capability information indicating whether the UE supports the MUSIM, 0012, 0016, 0020, 0023 – transmitting the UE assistance information message to the BS to request, by the UE, the BS for configuration for operation for the MUSIM).
LI teaches the UE determines capability restriction for coordinating th multiple networks, and the UE sends the capability restriction to the multiple network (0085-0086). LI teaches UE with multi-SIMs in a connected state (0063) wherein UE determines the capability limitation for dual-active state and sends to the network (figure 6, 0090). In another implementation, referring to figure 7, the UE determines the capability limitation and sends it to the network wherein the UE includes SIM1 and SIM2 (figure 7, 0091). In another implementation, the UE determines the capability limitation and sends it to the network (figure 8, 0096-0102). UE provides assistance information to the network regarding feature set restriction (figure 22, 0169) and/or regarding updated feature set restriction (figure 22, 0177, 0116).
Gurumoorthy teaches MUSIM UE (0008) and provides the network with information regarding capability wherein one or more UE capability indications include frequency band conflict (e.g., capability relating to a restriction) information related to the first and second SIMS, where the frequency band conflict information is usable by the first network to avoid a frequency band conflict between communications using the first and second SIMs (0011, 0097). As illustrated in figure 8, the UE may perform capability reporting whereby the UE reports conflicting bands (based on UE configuration) to the network via a UE capability information message. Band conflict information may be grouped into idle-idle, connected-connected and connected-idle groups (e.g., MUSIM mode) so that the network is aware of the UE’s limitations in different connection scenarios (figure 8, 0113, 0136).
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.
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.
2. Claims 2, 4, 13-14, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view LI or Gurumoorthy further in view of Palle et al (2021/0120524).
Regarding claim 2. Jung teaches receiving at least part of the second configuration as a response to said information (figure 1F, 0176-0180 – in operation 1f-20 (Network response message) the NW1 transmits STS-GAPPreferenceConfig (i.e. new prohibit trimer) to the USIM1 of the UE).
LI teaches the UE and/or network performs reconfiguration (figure 8, 0102
Regarding claim 4. Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy do not teach detecting, by the first subscription entity when using the second configuration, a need for a gap for cell reselection measurements; checking, by the first subscription entity, in response to the need for a gap, whether first criteria indicated in the second configuration are met; and performing, by the first subscription entity, non-serving cell measurements if the first criteria is met.
Palle teaches multi-SIM UE (abstract, 0005) and may need to create a gap in TX/RX on an ongoing connection in order to perform reception associated with other SIMs (0020). Provide new/modified idle/inactive configuration for current and potentially even other SIMs (0036). Since at least one of the other SIMs is in connected mode, the UE needs to create a gap (interruption of TX/RX on the connected mode SIM) to perform the above actions, and the duration of the gap could be variable depending on how many of the activities the UE need to perform … gaps are configured by the network. These gaps (e.g. location, duration) may be different when UE depending on the number of SIMs has in used (0053). The UE may also provide the duration of the gap it needs … sent using the UE assistance information (0063, 0228).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy to have the UE request for gap which may also be sent in UE assistance information as taught by Palle which enable the network to convey the new/modified idle/inactive configuration to the UE that avoids collisions (Palle at 0217-0218).
Regarding claim 13. Jung teaches wherein a radio resource control release message to the first subscription entity comprises at least part of the second configuration (abstract, 0008, 0013, 0017 – receiving from the BS, configuration information for a multi-universal subscriber identity module (MUSIM) operation, receiving from the BS, RRC release message including information indicating an RRC inactive mode; storing received configuration information for the MUSIM operation, in response to the received RRC release message).
Regarding claim 14. Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy do not explicitly teach wherein there is a capability limitation when a frequency the first subscription entity is camped on or is to measure, or a frequency range, or a specific set of frequencies, including the frequency the first subscription entity is camped on or is to measure, is usable by one of the first subscription entity and said one of the one or more further subscription entities.
However, Gurumoorthy teaches MUSIM UE (0008) and provides the network with information regarding capability wherein one or more UE capability indications include frequency band conflict (e.g., capability relating to a restriction) information related to the first and second SIMS, where the frequency band conflict information is usable by the first network to avoid a frequency band conflict between communications using the first and second SIMs (0011, 0097). As illustrated in figure 8, the UE may perform capability reporting whereby the UE reports conflicting bands (based on UE configuration) to the network via a UE capability information message. Band conflict information may be grouped into idle-idle, connected-connected and connected-idle groups (e.g., MUSIM mode) so that the network is aware of the UE’s limitations in different connection scenarios (figure 8, 0113, 0136).
Palle teaches multi-SIM UE (abstract, 0005) and may need to create a gap in TX/RX on an ongoing connection in order to perform reception associated with other SIMs (0020). Provide new/modified idle/inactive configuration for current and potentially even other SIMs (0036) in order to avoid collision with other SIMs (0024, 0032-0034, 0215). Since at least one of the other SIMs is in connected mode, the UE needs to create a gap (interruption of TX/RX on the connected mode SIM) to perform the above actions, and the duration of the gap could be variable depending on how many of the activities the UE need to perform … gaps are configured by the network. These gaps (e.g. location, duration) may be different when UE depending on the number of SIMs has in used (0053). The UE may also provide the duration of the gap it needs … sent using the UE assistance information (0063, 0228).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy to have the UE request for gap which may also be sent in UE assistance information as taught by Palle which enable the network to convey the new/modified idle/inactive configuration to the UE that avoids collisions (Palle at 0217-0218).
Regarding claim 23. Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy not explicitly teach wherein the information on the capability limitation indicates a need for a second configuration of a first subscription entity.
Palle teaches multi-SIM UE (abstract, 0005). The sending UE assistance information to the network to inform the network about its desirable idle/inactive new configuration and/or about its problems/collisions when using multi-SIM. The network may then use the existing (or new) RRC message to convey the new/modified idle/inactive configuration that tries to avoid the potential collisions (0035, 0063, 0217). The network provides new/modified idle/inactive configuration for current and potentially even other SIMS (0036, 0218, 0228).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy to have the UE request for gap for performing the inactive/idle activities of other SIMs while the UE is in connected mode as taught by Palle which enable the network to convey the new/modified idle/inactive configuration to the UE that avoids collisions (Palle at 0217-0218).
Regarding claim 24. Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy do not explicitly teach using, by the first subscription entity, a first configuration when none of one or more further subscription entities has the capability limitation; and using, by the first subscription entity, the second configuration when one of one or more further subscription entities has the capability limitation.
Palle teaches multi-SIM UE (abstract, 0005). The sending UE assistance information to the network to inform the network about its desirable idle/inactive new configuration and/or about its problems/collisions when using multi-SIM. The network may then use the existing (or new) RRC message to convey the new/modified idle/inactive configuration that tries to avoid the potential collisions (0035, 0063, 0217). The network provides new/modified idle/inactive configuration for current and potentially even other SIMS (0036, 0218, 0228).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy to have the UE request for gap for performing the inactive/idle activities of other SIMs while the UE is in connected mode as taught by Palle which enable the network to convey the new/modified idle/inactive configuration to the UE that avoids collisions (Palle at 0217-0218).
3. Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy and Palle further in view of Viswanadham et al (2013/0295920).
Regarding claim 3. Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy and Palle do not teach wherein the first configuration comprises priorities and/or thresholds for neighbor cell detection, cell reselection measurements and/or cell reselection evaluation and the second configuration comprises one or more relaxed priorities and/or thresholds for the cell detection, cell reselection measurements and/or cell reselection evaluation.
Viswanadham teaches multi-SIM UE (0025-0026). Viswanadham teaches deferring (e.g., relax priorities = second configuration) performance during tune away in conjunction with thresholds for neighbor cells (e.g,. first configuration) (0062, 0075) thereby optimizing cell reselection and/or handover (0030-0032).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jung in view LI or Gurumoorthy and Palle to use thresholds in conjunction with deferring as taught by Viswanadham in order to optimize cell reselection and/or handovers for a multi-SIM UE.
Regarding claim 7. Jung in view of LI or Gurumoorthy and Palle do not teach checking, in response to no suitable cell being found for the first sub-scription entity during a cell selection in the non-connected state, whether any of the one or more further subscription entities is in a service;
if any of the one or more further subscription entities is in the service, moving the first subscription entity to an out of a service state;
otherwise moving the first subscription entity to an any cell selection state.
Viswanadham teaches multi-SIM UE (0025-0026) and tunes away from a first subscription (e.g., moving the first subscription to an out of service state) and performs cell search on other SIMs and when out-of-service is detected in the tune away mode return RF communication resources to operating according to the first subscription (e.g., otherwise move the first subscription to any cell selection state) (0032).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jung in view LI or Gurumoorthy and Palle to use tune away mode as taught by Viswanadham in order to optimize cell reselection and/or handovers for a multi-SIM UE.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 5-6 and 8-9 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
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---(2023/0080113) Hong teaches UE transmits multi-USIM capability information to base station, transmitting assistance information to the base station (see claim 19) wherein the multi-SIM UE capability includes at least one of a connected state release capability, a paging restriction capability, a paging rejection capability, and a paging cause capability (see claim 24).
6. 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 mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARRY W TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/BARRY W TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights