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 and RCE filed, 17 July 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 02 November 2023 in which claims 1, 11, 13, 20, 24, 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 § 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) 1-8, 11-14, 16-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez et al (hereinafter “Sanchez”, 2022/0030549) in view of Lovlekar et al (hereinafter “Lovlekar”, 2021/0014667).
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 second cell 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 (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).
Sanchez fails to explicitly disclose MSIM in dual connectivity mode, a SCG, and wherein the second subscription operating in the dual connectivity mode is configured to camp on a master cell group (MCG) having a RAT different from the RAT of 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 Lovlekar. Lovlekar discloses, in an analogous art, Dual Connectivity Handling for Dual SIM UE and MCG and SCG Handling for EN-DC SIM, the two dual connectivity nodes include a master node belonging to a first radio access technology and a secondary node belonging to a second radio access technology, which is the same as or different from the first radio access technology (at least Lovlekar paragraph 192-198, 222, 224-228, 241; Fig. 8-9). 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 Lovlekar’s dual SIM EN-DC with Sanchez as Lovlekar teaches such methodology may achieve certain benefits, such lowering transitions and timing as the NW and the UE can make optimal scheduling decisions as the NW knows the UE's preference regarding which RF chain will be tuned away from the EN-DC (or NR DC) connection to monitor IDLE mode paging of the other SIM (at least paragraph 150, 153, 155, 198).
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; Lovlekar paragraph 192-198, 222, 224-228, 241; DC).
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 the 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 of both SIMs running; Lovlekar paragraph 192-198, 222, 224-228, 241; Fig. 8-9).
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; Lovlekar paragraph 192-198, 222, 224-228, 241; Fig. 8-9).
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 the 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 (at least Lovlekar paragraph 144-148, 224-226).
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(s) 9-10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Lovlekar, further in view of Yi et al (hereinafter “Yi”, 2022/0078728).
As per Claim 9, 15. Sanchez / Lovlekar 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 /Lovlekar 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/ Lovlekar 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 / Lovlekar 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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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