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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 12 February 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 02 November 2023 in which claims 1, 16-17, 20, 25-26, 29-30 have been amended. Claims 1-30 are pending in the application.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “code for causing a user equipment” and “code for causing the UE to trigger” in claim 29.
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.
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.
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 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.
Paragraph 43 of the specification outlines the “means for” and “code for” structure that is being used by interpretation for claims 29 and 30 including “such means may include one or more components of UE 120 described in connection with Fig. 2, such as controller/processor 280, transmit processor 264, TX MIMO processor 266, MOD 254, antenna 252, DEMOD 254,MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, and/or the like.”
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)(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) 1-8, 11-14, 16-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sanchez et al (hereinafter “Sanchez”, 2022/0030549).
As per Claim 1, Sanchez discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
detecting a radio access technology (RAT) of a first cell on which a first subscription of the UE is configured to camp is same as the RAT of a secondary cell group (SCG) on which a second subscription of the UE is configured to camp (at least paragraph 168-182, 292, 296; RAT Concurrency for Multi-SIM UE with dual connectivity over two neighbor cells; using mobility including camp statistics of UE to indicate eg. low mobility), wherein the UE is a multi-subscriber identity module (MSIM) UE in dual connectivity mode (at least paragraph 184; MUSIM UE device with multiple SIMs, with dual SIM dual active or multi USIM multi active mode with both SIMs being in RRC Connected (dual connectivity) mode on all USIMs); and
triggering, in response to the detecting, the first subscription or the second subscription to perform an idle mode operation of the second subscription or the first subscription, respectively (at least paragraph 207, 211-224, 233-234, 296; UE sending to its USIM1 desired PO allocation, USIM1 gets response for UE to have USIM2 associated with PO alignment; if low mobility camping in same cell preferring full alignment of PO).
As per Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the dual connectivity mode is an evolved universal terrestrial radio access (E-UTRA)-new radio (NR) dual connectivity (ENDC) mode and the RAT is a NR RAT (at least paragraph 60-65; EN-DC E-UTRA-NR dual connectivity; par. 174; RAT Concurrency: Network A is NR).
As per Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the triggering occurs in further response to determining that at least one NR cell in the SCG is capable of operating in a standalone (SA) mode (at least paragraph 147; gNB is a node providing NR user plane and control plane protocol terminations towards the UE, and connected via the NG interface to a 5GC (such as, for example, the network element(s) 190). The ng-eNB is a node providing E-UTRA user plane and control plane protocol terminations towards the UE, and connected via the NG interface to the 5GC).
As per Claim 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the determining is based on a cell configuration indicating that the at least one NR cell in the SCG is capable of operating in the SA mode (at least paragraph 147; gNB supports one or multiple cells).
As per Claim 5. The method of claim 4, further comprising retrieving the cell configuration from a cell database stored in a memory of the UE that is configured to store cell configurations of cells capable of operating in the SA mode (at least paragraph 182-183; UE USIMs having cell information).
As per Claim 6. The method of claim 4, further comprising receiving, from the at least one NR cell, a system information block type 1 (SIB 1) message including the cell configuration (at least paragraph 222-223; USIM1 receiving configuration (eg. paging PO) for UE; wherein SIB1 is used for paging information).
As per Claim 7. The method of claim 4, wherein the cell configuration includes a public land mobile network (PLMN) information, a tracking area code (TAC), or a cell barring information, associated with the at least one NR cell (at least paragraph 223, 276-278; PLMN).
As per Claim 8. The method of claim 2, wherein the triggering occurs in further response to receiving, from a NR cell in the SCG, a message including a paging control channel (PCCH) configuration (at least paragraph 223, 276-278; PO).
As per Claim 11. The method of claim 2, wherein a cell energy of a NR cell in the SCG or a cell energy of a long-term evolution (LTE) cell in a master cell group (MCG) on which the second subscription is configured to camp is greater than a respective cell energy threshold (at least par. 270, 200-204; Fig. 4; Power in full alignment 402 over t3 < 406 t5 < 404 t4; aligning power in low mobility if power/energy is less eg. 1.7x vs. 2.0 og both SIMs running).
As per Claim 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the dual connectivity mode is a new radio (NR)- evolved-universal terrestrial radio access (E-UTRA) dual connectivity (NEDC) mode and the RAT is a long-term evolution (LTE) RAT (at least paragraph 60-65; EN-DC E-UTRA-NR dual connectivity; par. 174; RAT Concurrency: Network A is LTE).
As per Claim 13. The method of claim 12, wherein a cell energy of a LTE cell in the SCG or a cell energy of a NR cell in a master cell group (MCG) on which the second subscription is configured to camp is greater than a respective cell energy threshold(at least par. 270, 200-204; Fig. 4; Power in full alignment 402 over t3 < 406 t5 < 404 t4; aligning power in low mobility if power/energy is less eg. 1.7x vs. 2.0 og both SIMs running).
As per Claim 14. The method of claim 12, wherein the triggering occurs in further response to receiving, from a LTE cell in the SCG, a message including a paging control channel (PCCH) configuration.
As per Claim 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the idle mode operation includes a measurement for cell selection or reselection (at least paragraph 199).
As per Claim 17. The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting a change in a configuration of the dual connectivity mode of the second subscription of the UE; and disabling the first subscription or the second subscription from performing the idle mode operation of the second subscription or the first subscription, respectively, in response to the change in the configuration (at least paragraph 264-270, 182; eg. handover to new serving cell, repeating process of configuration and new PO).
As per Claim 18. The method of claim 17, wherein the change in the configuration includes a handover of the second subscription from the SCG to a different cell, or an addition or a removal of a cell in the SCG (at least paragraph 264-270, 182; eg. handover to new serving cell).
As per Claim 19. The method of claim 1, wherein a PLMN associated with the first cell or the SCG is configured to allow the second subscription or the first subscription to camp on the first cell or the SCG, respectively (at least paragraph 223, 276-278; response from PLMN that there is availability).
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) 9-10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Yi et al (hereinafter “Yi”, 2022/0078728).
As per Claim 9, 15. Sanchez fails to explicitly disclose wherein the message is a system information block type 1 (SIB 1) message and the PCCH configuration is for a paging occasion (PO) of the second subscription. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Yi. Yi discloses, in an analogous art, SIB1 may contain information needed by the UE to access the cell, UE may use one or more parameters of the MIB to monitor PDCCH, which may be used to schedule PDSCH, and the PDSCH may include the SIB1 (at least paragraph 238, 148, 304-305). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Yi’s SIB1 with Sanchez as Sanchez discloses configuring the PO (at least paragraph 223, 276-278), and it being well known as demonstrated by Yi that such PO configuration be made with paging messages over a paging control channel (PCCH) and the industry standard that SIB1 is the primary system information block (SIB) in NR that contains information necessary for a user equipment (UE) to find and decode paging occasions.
As per Claim 10. Sanchez fails to explicitly disclose wherein the PO is a bandwidth part (BWP) of a radio channel between the second subscription of the UE and the NR cell in the SCG. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Yi. Yi discloses, in an analogous art, the first PDCCH monitoring occasion of paging occasion may indicate a first monitoring occasion of each PO of the paging frame of a BWP (at least paragraph 123-126, 304-305). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Yi’s PO being a BWP with Sanchez as Yi discloses the well-known use of BWPs for UE bandwidth to communicate in a NR cell to a base station, and such communication including for PO being within an allocated BWP between the UE and gNB.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sanchez does not disclose the amended features of claim 1. However, Sanchez clearly teaches the amended limitation wherein the UE is a multi-subscriber identity module (MSIM) UE in dual connectivity mode in at least paragraph 184, as Sanchez discloses a MUSIM UE device with multiple SIMs, with dual SIM dual active mode, or multi USIM multi active mode, with both SIMs being in RRC Connected (dual connectivity) mode on all USIMs.
Applicant argues that Sanchez does not disclose a single subscription performing operations corresponding to the other subscription. However, Sanchez discloses the Multi-USIM device (par. 184) being in DualRx/SingleTx mode (capability type 2) (at least paragraph 185), such that when both subscriptions are of a same RAT network concurrency (ie both NR, see par. 165, 174), the UE can be using only one SIM, ie Sim1, for both Rx and Tx, and is able to be in Rx only mode for the other SIM, ie. Sim2, that is idle but powered up using SIM1 power. Sanchez teaches, as with the intent of the instant application, saving power from separately powering up Sim2, as Sanchez discloses saving power by Rx paging information for Sim2 while Sim1 is the primary Rx/Tx (at least paragraph 198-202). As discussed during the Interview, the embodiment and disclosure regarding Sanchez’s full alignment mode is applicable to the instant claims and mapping in the rejection above.
Applicant has not responded to the 103 Rejection in view of Yi. Applicant is reminded that under the policy of compact prosecution, all rejections and applied prior art must be responded to, see 37 CFR 1.111(b):
(b) In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/GREGORY TODD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights