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 .
This Office action is in response to remarks filed 1/13/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6 & 8-10 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 5, 6 & 10 have been amended.
Objections to claims 6 & 10 have been withdrawn based on amendments to these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 1/13/2026, with respect to objections of claims 6 & 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 6 & 10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 5, applicant submits that amendments to this claim correct for grammatical and typographical errors to overcome the objection to this claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amendment to this claim to remove the word “manner” corrects one typographical error in this claim. However, the claim still recites “… and transmit the third signal and the fourth second signal through the RFFE transmission path concurrently as the second merged signal in a non-time sharing, in response to…”, which is improper English. Thus, examiner maintains objection to this claim, and appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, applicant submits that this claim is patentable because a prima facia case of obviousness is not established based on the combination of Hu and Youngtack. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that, per 35 U.S.C. 103, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained 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 (see §MPEP 2141). Further, in order for a prior art reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention (In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art (See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212).
Applicant argues that that Youngtack is not analogous art because Youngtack is neither in the same field of endeavor, nor is Youngtack reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Examiner respectfully disagrees, submitting that Youngtack is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Applicant argues that the problem faced by the inventor is that of overcoming the limitation in DSDA of requiring two transmission paths for the SIM signals. Examiner notes that Hu provides one solution to the problem by merging two SIM signals from two SIMs in a time sharing manner so that the two SIM signals can be transmitted through one RFFE (see fig 6, col 12, lines 1-16 of Hu). What Hu fails to disclose is a solution, as required by claim 1, wherein the first signal and the second signal are overlapped in a time domain and transmitted as a merged signal in a non-time sharing manner. So the problem that needs to be solved is overlapping two signals in a time domain and transmitting the two signals as a merged signal in a non-time sharing manner. Examiner notes that Youngtack is very pertinent to solving this problem by disclosing how to overlap a first and second signal in a time domain in a non-time sharing manner and transmit the first and second signal as a superposed compound merged signal (see fig 1B & [0120] of Youngtack). Thus, Youngtack is pertinent to solving the specific problem not disclosed by Hu, making Youngtack analogous art, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for combining Hu and Youngtack. Arguments made by applicant regarding Youngtack not being analogous art because Youngtack is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention are moot since a reference only needs to be reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) to be analogous art (See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212) and it has been shown that Youngtack is pertinent to solving the specific problem not disclosed by Hu.
Applicant argues that combining Hu and Youngtack is nonobvious and that the motivation to do so as provided by the examiner is improper hindsight. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that the inventions in Hu are also related to merging two SIM signals in order to be able to send both signals through a single RFFE transmit chain. Thus, while Hu provides one method (i.e. time sharing) for merging two SIM signals in order to be able to send both signals through a single RFFE transmit chain, it would have been obvious that Youngtack provides a another method (superposing) for merging two SIM signals in order to be able to send both signals through a single RFFE transmit chain. To further provide motivation, examiner notes that a motivation for merging two signals by superposing the two signals, instead of time sharing the two signals, would have been to improve spectral efficiency.
Applicant argues that the modification from time-sharing to overlapping in Hu is a fundamental change in the principle of operation in Hu, and thus not obvious. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Hu only provides a time-sharing method for merging signals and does not provide any method beyond time-sharing that has been allegedly disclosed by Hu as an alternative to time-sharing. Examiner notes that by stating that “the time-sharing schedule in Hu is just one method for performing the fundamental operation of the invention in Hu” does not imply that Hu provides multiple methods for performing the fundamental operation of the invention of Hu, but rather implies that multiple methods for performing the fundamental operation of the invention of Hu exist. Youngtack provides the teaching to show that two signals can also be merged by superposing the two signals. Applicant argues that Youngtack does not disclose superimposing two SIM signals. Examiner notes that Youngtack is only used to teach of superposing two signals, which is then combined and used with Hu to superpose the two SIM signals disclosed by Hu. Thus, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Youngtack that teach of superposing two signals to form a merged signal, and combining the teachings of Youngtack with Hu to provide another method for performing the fundamental operation of the invention of Hu of merging two SIM signals to transmit through a single RFFE. As discussed in the previous paragraph, the motivation for doing so would have been to provide another method for merging two SIM signals to transmit through a single RFFE, and further the motivation for using superposing rather than time-sharing to merge the two SIM signals would have been to improve spectral efficiency.
Applicant argues that Hu does not disclose “transmitting the first SIM and the second SIM concurrently as a merged signal in a time sharing manner through a single Tx RF path” because the current application specification clearly distinguishes between the terms “concurrently” and “time-sharing”. Given that Youngtack teaches of concurrently merging signals through superposing (see Fig 1B & [0120], it is moot whether Hu teaches of concurrently merging signals. Thus, without conceding and in order to move prosecution forward, examiner modifies the 35 USC 103 rejection to recite that Hu discloses “transmit the first signal and the second signal through a radio frequency front end (RFFE) transmission path as a merged signal” and that Youngtack teaches “wherein the transmitting of the first signal and the second signal as a merged signal is concurrently in a time non-sharing manner”.
Based on the above discussion, examiner maintains rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claims 3 & 5, applicant argues that these claims are patentable based on their dependency on claim 1 and for the same arguments as discussed above. Examiner respectfully disagrees and for the same reasons as discussed above maintains rejection of claims 3 & 5 under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claim 6, applicant argues that this claim is patentable by reciting similar features as claim 1 and for the same arguments as discussed above. Examiner respectfully disagrees and for the same reasons as discussed above maintains rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claims 8 & 10, applicant argues that these claims are patentable based on their dependency on claim 6 and for the same arguments as discussed above. Examiner respectfully disagrees and for the same reasons as discussed above maintains rejection of claims 8 & 10 under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claims 4 & 9, applicant argues that these claims are patentable based on their dependency on claims 1 or 6 and for the same arguments as discussed above and because Bhardwaj does not cure any of the deficiencies of Hu and Youngtack. Examiner respectfully disagrees and for the same reasons as discussed above maintains rejection of claims 4 & 9 under 35 USC 103.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 recites “… and transmit the third signal and the fourth second signal through the RFFE transmission path concurrently as the second merged signal in a non-time sharing, in response to…”, which is improper English. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of this review examiner is interpreting this limitation as “… and transmit the third signal and the fourth second signal through the RFFE transmission path concurrently as the second merged signal in a non-time sharing manner, in response to…”.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 8934460)(herein after “Hu”) in view of Youngtack et al. (US 2006/0199576)(herein after “Youngtack”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu discloses an electronic device, comprising: a first subscriber identity module (SIM) (Fig 6 discloses an access terminal representing an electronic device comprising a first SIM 608a);
a second SIM (Fig 6 discloses a second SIM 608b);
and a processor (Fig 6 discloses a Processing Circuit 618); wherein the processor is configured to:
in response to a determination that a first signal from the first SIM and a second signal from the second SIM are intra-band signals and the first SIM and the second SIM share one RFFE transmission path (col 2, lines 50-60 disclose determining when a first signal associated with a first SIM and a second signal associated with a second SIM can be scheduled on a single radio frequency (RF) transmit chain, single radio frequency implying that signals are intra-band and can share one RFFE.):
generate a merged signal comprising the first signal and the second signal (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 1-16 disclose the merging of a first SIM and second SIM.); and
transmit the first signal and the second signal through a radio frequency front end (RFFE) transmission path as the merged signal (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 1-16 disclose transmitting the first SIM and second SIM as a merged signal in a time sharing manner through a single Tx RF path).
Hu fails to disclose wherein the first signal and the second signal overlap in a time domain; and wherein the transmitting of the first signal and the second signal as a merged signal is concurrently in a non-time sharing manner.
However, Youngtack teaches wherein the first signal and the second signal overlap in a time domain (Fig 1B & [0120] discloses a system with a processing unit that performs signal superposition of an input signal and a retrieved signal producing a merged signal that overlaps, or superposes, the first signal and a second signal in a time domain.); and
wherein the transmitting of the first signal and the second signal as a merged signal is concurrently in a non-time sharing manner (Fig 1B & [0120] discloses concurrently sending the compound, superposed input signal and retrieved signal (i.e. in a non-time sharing manner).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the time sharing manner for merging and transmitting a first and second signal through an RFFE in an electronic device, as disclosed by Hu, with the non-time sharing, superposition manner of merging and concurrently transmitting a first and second signal, as taught by Youngtack. The motivation to do so would be to have an electronic device that has dual SIM capability be able to superpose two SIM signals in a non-time sharing manner in order to be able to send both SIM signals through a single RF transmit chain and to improve spectral efficiency.
Regarding Claim 3, Hu in view of Youngtack discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1.
Hu discloses wherein the first signal and the second signal are transmitted on the same carrier (col 2, lines 50-60 disclose transmitting a first signal and a second signal on a single radio frequency, representing the same carrier).
Regarding Claim 5, Hu in view of Youngtack discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1.
Hu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine whether signals transmitted from base stations to the first SIM and the second SIM can be concurrently received (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 33-37 disclose an access terminal that determines it can concurrently receive a first SIM signals 608a and a second SIM signal 608b from access points 604 & 606, representing base stations); and
overlap a first signal from the first SIM and a second signal from the second SIM to generate a first merged signal comprising the first signal and the second signal and transmit the first signal and the second signal through the RFFE transmission path concur as the first merged signal, (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 1-16 disclose the merging of a first SIM and second SIM and transmitting the first SIM and second SIM concurrently as a first merged signal in a time sharing manner through a single Tx RF path), in response to a determination that the first SIM and the second SIM are capable of receiving signals transmitted from base stations concurrently (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 33-37 disclose an access terminal that determines it can concurrently receive a first SIM signal 608a and a second SIM signal 608b from access points 604 & 606, representing base stations).
Hu fails to disclose overlapping a third signal from the first SIM and a fourth signal from the second SIM to generate a second merged signal comprising the third signal and the fourth signal and transmit the third signal and the fourth signal concurrently as the second merged signal. However, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to merely repeat the process of overlapping a first and second signal to create a first merged signal by overlapping a third and fourth signal to create a second merged signal, and repeat the process of transmitting the first signal and the second signal concurrently as the second merged signal by transmitting a third signal and a fourth signal concurrently as the second merged signal, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a device that can continuously merge blocks of signals from two different SIMs over time and transmit the blocks of signals from two different SIMs concurrently as a merged signal (e.g. merge and transmit concurrently a first signal from a first SIM with a second signal from a second SIM over a first time period, then merge and transmit concurrently a third signal from the first SIM with a fourth signal from the second SIM over a second time period immediately following the first time period) in order to be able to continuously send blocks of signals concurrently from both SIMs through a single RF transmit chain to improve spectral efficiency.
Hu fails to disclose wherein the third signal and the fourth signal overlap in a time domain; and wherein the transmitting of the third signal and the fourth signal as a second merged signal is concurrently in a non-time sharing manner.
However, Youngtack teaches wherein the third signal and the fourth signal overlap in a time domain (Fig 1B & [0120] discloses a system with a processing unit that performs signal superposition of an input signal and a retrieved signal producing a merged signal that overlaps, or superposes, the first signal and a second signal in a time domain.); and
wherein the transmitting of the third signal and the fourth signal as a second merged signal is concurrently in a non-time sharing manner (Fig 1B & [0120] discloses concurrently sending the compound, superposed input signal and retrieved signal (i.e. in a non-time sharing manner).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the time sharing manner for merging and transmitting a third and fourth signal through an RFFE in an electronic device, as disclosed by Hu, with the non-time sharing, superposition manner of merging and concurrently transmitting a third and fourth signal, as taught by Youngtack. The motivation to do so would be to have an electronic device that has dual SIM capability be able to superpose two SIM signals in a non-time sharing manner in order to be able to transmit both SIM signals concurrently through a single RF transmit chain in order to improve spectral efficiency.
Regarding Claim 6, Hu discloses a method of wireless communication, comprising:
determining, via a processor, whether a first signal from a first subscriber identity module (SIM) and a second signal from a second SIM are intra-band signals (col 2, lines 50-60 disclose a method for determining when a first signal associated with a first SIM and a second signal associated with a second SIM can be scheduled on a single radio frequency (RF) transmit chain (single radio implies signals are intra-band). Fig 6 discloses a Processing Circuit 618 for performing said method.);
determining, via the processor, whether the first SIM and the second SIM share one radio frequency front end (RFFE) transmission path (Fig 3, Fig 6 & col 9, lines 5-23 disclose a device that can support a number of SIMs, and 2 or more transceivers that can be part of Rx and Tx chains that can share circuits such as amplifiers, demodulators and decoders (which allows for transmitting 2 SIM signals through one RFFE transmission path).);
in response to a determination that the first signal and the second signal are intra-band signals and the first SIM and the second SIM share one RFFE transmission path (col 2, lines 50-60 disclose determining when a first signal associated with a first SIM and a second signal associated with a second SIM can be scheduled on a single radio frequency (RF) transmit chain, single radio frequency implying that signals are intra-band and can share one RFFE.), the processor:
generates a merged signal comprising the first signal and the second signal (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 1-16 disclose the merging of a first SIM and second SIM.); and
transmits the first signal and the second signal through a radio frequency front end (RFFE) transmission path as the merged signal (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 1-16 disclose transmitting the first SIM and second SIM as a merged signal in a time sharing manner through a single Tx RF path).
Hu fails to disclose wherein the first signal and the second signal overlap in a time domain; and wherein the transmitting of the first signal and the second signal as a merged signal is concurrently in a non-time sharing manner.
However, Youngtack teaches wherein the first signal and the second signal overlap in a time domain (Fig 1B & [0120] discloses a system with a processing unit that performs signal superposition of an input signal and a retrieved signal producing a merged signal that overlaps, or superposes, the first signal and a second signal in a time domain.); and
wherein the transmitting of the first signal and the second signal as a merged signal is concurrently in a non-time sharing manner (Fig 1B & [0120] discloses concurrently sending the compound, superposed input signal and retrieved signal (i.e. in a non-time sharing manner).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the time sharing manner for merging and transmitting a first and second signal through an RFFE, as disclosed by Hu, with the non-time sharing, superposition manner of merging and concurrently transmitting a first and second signal, as taught by Youngtack. The motivation to do so would be to have a method for an electronic device that has dual SIM capability be able to superpose two SIM signals in a non-time sharing manner in order to be able to transmit both SIM signals concurrently through a single RF transmit chain in order to improve spectral efficiency.
Regarding Claim 8, Hu in view of Youngtack discloses the method of wireless communication as claimed in claim 6.
Hu discloses wherein the first signal and the second signal are transmitted on the same carrier (col 2, lines 50-60 disclose a method for scheduling a first signal and a second signal on a single radio frequency, representing the same carrier).
Regarding Claim 10, Hu in view of Youngtack discloses the method of wireless communication as claimed in claim 6.
Hu discloses further comprising: determining, via the processor, whether signals transmitted from base stations to the first SIM and the second SIM can be concurrently received (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 33-52 disclose a method for determining whether a first SIM signal 608a and a second SIM signal 608b transmitted from access points 604 & 606, representing base stations, can be concurrently received. Fig 6 discloses a Processing Circuit 618 for performing said method); and
in response to a determination that the first SIM and the second SIM are capable of receiving signals transmitted from base stations concurrently (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 33-37 disclose a method for determining whether a first SIM signal 608a and a second SIM signal 608b, can be concurrently received.), the processor:
overlaps a first signal from the first SIM and a second signal from the second SIM to generate a first merged signal comprising the first signal and the second signal and transmits the first signal and the second signal through the RFFE transmission path as the first merged signal (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 1-16 disclose the merging of a first SIM and second SIM and transmitting the first SIM and second SIM as a first merged signal in a time sharing manner through a single Tx RF path).
Hu fails to disclose overlaps a third signal from the first SIM and a fourth signal from the second SIM to generate a second merged signal comprising the third signal and the fourth signal and transmits the third signal and the fourth signal concurrently as the second merged signal. However, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to merely repeat the process to overlap a first and second signal to create a first merged signal to overlap a third and fourth signal to create a second merged signal, and repeat the process to transmit the first signal and the second signal concurrently as the second merged signal to transmit a third signal and a fourth signal concurrently as the second merged signal, since it has been held (see MPEP Section 2144.04, subsection VI.B) that “mere duplication of parts that does not produce new or unexpected results involves only routine skill in the art and thus has no patentable significance” - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The motivation to do so would be to have a method for a device that can continuously merge blocks of signals from two different SIMs over time and transmit the blocks of signals from two different SIMs concurrently as a merged signal (e.g. merge and transmit concurrently a first signal from a first SIM with a second signal from a second SIM over a first time period, then merge and transmit concurrently a third signal from the first SIM with a fourth signal from the second SIM over a second time period immediately following the first time period) in order to be able to continuously send blocks of signals concurrently from both SIMs through a single RF transmit chain to improve spectral efficiency.
Hu fails to disclose wherein the third signal and the fourth signal overlap in a time domain; and wherein the transmitting of the third signal and the fourth signal as a second merged signal is concurrently in a non-time sharing manner.
However, Youngtack teaches wherein the third signal and the fourth signal overlap in a time domain (Fig 1B & [0120] discloses a system with a processing unit that performs signal superposition of an input signal and a retrieved signal producing a merged signal that overlaps, or superposes, the first signal and a second signal in a time domain.); and
wherein the transmitting of the third signal and the fourth signal as a second merged signal is concurrently in a non-time sharing manner (Fig 1B & [0120] discloses sending the compound, superposed input signal and retrieved signal (i.e. in a non-time sharing manner).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the time sharing manner for merging and transmitting a third and fourth signal through an RFFE, as disclosed by Hu, with the non-time sharing, superposition manner of merging and concurrently transmitting a third and fourth signal, as taught by Youngtack. The motivation to do so would be to have a method for an electronic device that has dual SIM capability be able to superpose two SIM signals in a non-time sharing manner in order to be able to transmit both SIM signals concurrently through a single RF transmit chain.
Claims 4 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 8934460)(herein after “Hu”) in view of Youngtack et al. (US 2006/0199576)(herein after “Youngtack”), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bhardwaj et al. (US 2018/0184309)(herein after “Bhardwaj”).
Regarding Claim 4, Hu in view of Youngtack discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 1.
Hu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the first signal and the second signal through the RFFE in a time-sharing manner (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 1-16 disclose an access terminal with a processing circuit configured to transmit a first SIM signal and a second SIM signal through a single Tx chain in a time-sharing manner.),
Hu fails to disclose in response to a determination that the first signal and the second signal are inter-band signals.
However, Bhardwaj further teaches in response to a determination that the first signal and the second signal are inter-band signals ([0094] discloses a device that identifies the receive and transmit chains for an inter-band LTE carrier aggregation configuration supporting multiple SIMs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a device that determines that a first signal and a second signal are inter-band signals, as further taught by Bhardwaj, and in response the device configures transmission of the first signal and the second signal through an RFFE in a time-sharing manner, as disclosed by Hu in view of Youngtack. The motivation to do so would be to reduce the complexity and cost of a device concurrently supporting a first SIM signal and a second SIM signal through inter-band LTE carrier aggregation.
Regarding Claim 9, Hu in view of Youngtack discloses the method of wireless communication as claimed in claim 6.
Hu discloses further comprising: transmitting the first signal and the second signal through the RFFE in a time-sharing manner (Fig 6 & col 12, lines 1-16 disclose a method to transmit a first SIM signal and a second SIM signal through a single Tx chain in a time-sharing manner).
Hu fails to disclose determining, via the processor, that the first signal and the second signal are inter-band signals.
However, Bhardwaj further teaches determining, via the processor, that the first signal and the second signal are inter-band signals ([0094] discloses a method that identifies the receive and transmit chains for an inter-band LTE carrier aggregation configuration supporting multiple SIMs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a method that determines that a first signal and a second signal are inter-band signals, as further taught by Bhardwaj, which is used to configure transmission of the first signal and the second signal through an RFFE in a time-sharing manner, as disclosed by Hu in view of Youngtack. The motivation to do so would be to have a method to reduce the complexity and cost in devices concurrently supporting a first SIM signal and a second SIM signal through inter-band LTE carrier aggregation.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419