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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 7/8/26, with respect to 112(b) rejections of claims 7 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejections of claims 7 and 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10 and 12-14, filed 7/8/26, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8-10 of the applicant’s response, the applicant argues that Lovlekars suspend timer begins only after a response has been received and does not teach “starting, to receive a response to the release request, a timer with a first timer value associated with the first type”.
Regarding the arguments above, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The claim language lays out steps in a method. The second step being “starting…a timer”. Lovlekars does this in by starting a duration timer in Figure 6 and even further in Figure 10 [0106-0107][0131]. The claim language then states “to receive a response to the release request”. The claim does not state where the response comes from. It does not state or require that the response be the first response, second, response or Nth response. The language only states that a timer is started. In result of Lovlekar’s duration timer being started responses from Stack 2 and NW 1 are received. As a matter of fact multiple responses are sent from NW1. Figure 6 shows 632 and 634 being responses to the Suspension request to “resume”. These are valid responses to the request. Further, in a different embodiment, [0131] shows that the NW1 is the device that starts (maintains the same timer) a timer in response to received suspend request. The claim language is intentionally broad. Therefore, as the claim language reads, Lovlekar does teach the argued limitations.
Similar arguments were presented with respect to independent claims 8 and 15, and those arguments are not persuasive for reasons similar to those outlined above with respect to claim 1.
Similar arguments were presented with respect to dependent claims, and those arguments are not persuasive for reasons similar to those outlined above with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lovlekar et al (Pub No: 2021/0014934).
As to claim 1, Lovlekar teaches a method (Lovlekar, Fig 6, 8, a method) comprising:
transmitting, by a wireless device to a first network, a release request of a connection to the first network in response to data, of a first type, associated with a second network becoming available (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #614, 618 [0103-0104], a UE (Stack 1) sends to a first NW1 a RRC suspend request in response to high priority data on UE Stack 2 for NW2, [0115], the suspend can be a RRC release); and
starting, to receive a response to the release request, a timer with a first timer value associated with the first type (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #622 [0106-0107], the suspend timer is started in response to the suspend request. The timer associated with a duration (first timer value) associated with UE Stack1 and NW 1 the high priority data becoming available).
As to claim 3, Lovlekar teaches further comprising: releasing, receiving a radio resource control (RRC) release message, the connection of the first network (Lovlekar, [0115], releasing the connection and paging for SIM1 based on RRC Connection release); and communicating, based on releasing the connection of the first network, with the second network (Lovlekar, [0116], communicating with NW2 in a connected state).
As to claim 5, Lovlekar teaches wherein the first type of the data comprises at least one of: a service type associated with the data; a procedure type associated with the data; a priority of the data; an access category of the data (Lovlekar, [0103-106][0115][01116], the type of data is a high priority data that is processed via a particular SIM (access category / service type)).
As to claim 6, Lovlekar teaches wherein the release request indicates at least one of: the first timer value (Lovlekar, [0106-0107], the message includes the timer duration)
As to claim 7, Lovlekar teaches further comprising in response to data, of a second type, associated with the second network becoming available, transitioning, by the wireless device to an RRC idle state or an RRC inactive state without transmitting, to the first network, the release request to release the connection of the first network (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #614, 618-22 [0103-0104], if a “not higher”(type 2) priority activity is received for Stack 2 then the UE does not suspend Stack 1 and can go IDLE. Also RRC release is [0115] only doing so if the network does not support the suspend feature).
As to claim 8, Lovlekar teaches a wireless device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions (Lovlekar, Fig 4, a UE with processor and memory with instructions) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to:
transmit, to a first network, a release request of a connection to the first network in response to data, of a first type, associated with a second network becoming available (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #614, 618 [0103-0104], a UE (Stack 1) sends to a first NW1 a RRC suspend request in response to high priority data on UE Stack 2 for NW2, [0115], the suspend can be a RRC release); and
start, to receive a response to the release request, a timer with a first timer value associated with the first type (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #622 [0106-0107], the suspend timer is started in response to the suspend request. The timer associated with a duration (first timer value) associated with UE Stack1 and NW 1 the high priority data becoming available).
As to claim 10, Lovlekar teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to release, based on an expiration of the timer or reception of a radio resource control (RRC) release message, the connection of the first network (Lovlekar, [0115], releasing the connection and paging for SIM1 based on RRC Connection release); and communicate, based on the release of the connection of the first network, with the second network (Lovlekar, [0116], communicating with NW2 in a connected state)..
As to claim 12, Lovlekar teaches wherein the first type of the data comprises at least one of: a service type associated with the data; a procedure type associated with the data; a priority of the data; an access category of the data (Lovlekar, [0103-106][0115][01116], the type of data is a high priority data that is processed via a particular SIM (access category / service type)).
As to claim 13, Lovlekar teaches wherein the release request indicates at least one of: the first timer value (Lovlekar, [0106-0107], the message includes the timer duration)
As to claim 14, Lovlekar teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device, in response to data, of a second type, associated with the second network becoming available, to transition to an RRC idle state or an RRC inactive state without transmitting, to the first network, the release request to release the connection of the first network (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #614, 618-22 [0103-0104], if a “not higher”(type 2) priority activity is received for Stack 2 then the UE does not suspend Stack 1 and can go IDLE. Also RRC release is [0115] only doing so if the network does not support the suspend feature)..
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.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovlekar as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lenovo (WO 2021/043417)
As to claim 2, Lovlekar teaches wherein starting the timer is after selecting the first timer value among a plurality of timer values(Lovlekar, [0106], the timer is started after selecting the timer duration from a range of timer values).
Lovlekar does not explicitly teach that each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data.
However, Lenovo teaches each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data. (Lenovo, [0074]-[0075], two different levels (values) of suspension a shorter and a longer estimated time duration based on type 1) long suspend (NAS protocol exchange) or 2) short suspend AS context is kept [0077] high reliability QoS flows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of timer values associated with different types” as taught by Lenovo in the system of Lovlekar, so that it would not trigger radio link failure (Lenovo, [0076]).
As to claim 4, Lovlekar teaches further comprising receiving, from the first network, a message indicating timer value (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #622 [0106-0107], receive a message with the timer duration based on various values).
Lovlekar does not explicitly teach that each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data.
However, Lenovo teaches each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data. (Lenovo, [0074]-[0075], two different levels (values) of suspension a shorter and a longer estimated time duration based on type 1) long suspend (NAS protocol exchange) or 2) short suspend AS context is kept [0077] high reliability QoS flows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of timer values associated with different types” as taught by Lenovo in the system of Lovlekar, so that it would not trigger radio link failure (Lenovo, [0076]).
As to claim 9, Lovlekar teaches wherein starting the timer is after selecting the first timer value among a plurality of timer values(Lovlekar, [0106], the timer is started after selecting the timer duration from a range of timer values).
Lovlekar does not explicitly teach that each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data.
However, Lenovo teaches each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data. (Lenovo, [0074]-[0075], two different levels (values) of suspension a shorter and a longer estimated time duration based on type 1) long suspend (NAS protocol exchange) or 2) short suspend AS context is kept [0077] high reliability QoS flows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of timer values associated with different types” as taught by Lenovo in the system of Lovlekar, so that it would not trigger radio link failure (Lenovo, [0076]).
As to claim 11, Lovlekar teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to receive, from the first network, a message indicating timer value (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #622 [0106-0107], receive a message with the timer duration based on various values).
Lovlekar does not explicitly teach that each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data.
However, Lenovo teaches each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data. (Lenovo, [0074]-[0075], two different levels (values) of suspension a shorter and a longer estimated time duration based on type 1) long suspend (NAS protocol exchange) or 2) short suspend AS context is kept [0077] high reliability QoS flows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of timer values associated with different types” as taught by Lenovo in the system of Lovlekar, so that it would not trigger radio link failure (Lenovo, [0076]).
As to claim 15, Lovlekar teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wireless device, cause the wireless device (Lovlekar, Fig 4, a UE with processor and memory with instructions) to:
transmit, to a first network, a release request of a connection to the first network in response to data, of a first type, associated with a second network becoming available (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #614, 618 [0103-0104], a UE (Stack 1) sends to a first NW1 a RRC suspend request in response to high priority data on UE Stack 2 for NW2, [0115], the suspend can be a RRC release); and
start, to receive a response to the release request, a timer with a first timer value associated with the first type wherein; and the first timer value is associated with the first type of the data (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #622 [0106-0107], the suspend timer is started in response to the suspend request. The timer associated with a duration (first timer value) associated with UE Stack1 and NW 1 the high priority data becoming available)
Lovlekar does not explicitly teach that first timer value is selected among a plurality of timer values and each of the plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data.
However, Lenovo teaches first timer value is selected among a plurality of timer values and each of the plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data (Lenovo, [0074]-[0075], two different levels (values) of suspension a shorter and a longer estimated time duration based on type 1) long suspend (NAS protocol exchange) or 2) short suspend AS context is kept [0077] high reliability QoS flows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of timer values associated with different types” as taught by Lenovo in the system of Lovlekar, so that it would not trigger radio link failure (Lenovo, [0076]).
As to claim 16, Lovlekar teaches wherein starting the timer is after selecting the first timer value among a plurality of timer values(Lovlekar, [0106], the timer is started after selecting the timer duration from a range of timer values).
Lovlekar does not explicitly teach that each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data.
However, Lenovo teaches each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data. (Lenovo, [0074]-[0075], two different levels (values) of suspension a shorter and a longer estimated time duration based on type 1) long suspend (NAS protocol exchange) or 2) short suspend AS context is kept [0077] high reliability QoS flows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of timer values associated with different types” as taught by Lenovo in the system of Lovlekar, so that it would not trigger radio link failure (Lenovo, [0076]).
As to claim 17, Lovlekar teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to release, based on an expiration of the timer or reception of a radio resource control (RRC) release message, the connection of the first network (Lovlekar, [0115], releasing the connection and paging for SIM1 based on RRC Connection release); and communicate, based on the release of the connection of the first network, with the second network (Lovlekar, [0116], communicating with NW2 in a connected state).
As to claim 18, Lovlekar teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to receive, from the first network, a message indicating timer value associated with a respective type of data.
Lovlekar does not explicitly teach that each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data.
However, Lenovo teaches each of a plurality of timer values is associated with a respective type of data. (Lenovo, [0074]-[0075], two different levels (values) of suspension a shorter and a longer estimated time duration based on type 1) long suspend (NAS protocol exchange) or 2) short suspend AS context is kept [0077] high reliability QoS flows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of timer values associated with different types” as taught by Lenovo in the system of Lovlekar, so that it would not trigger radio link failure (Lenovo, [0076]).
As to claim 19, Lovlekar teaches wherein the first type of the data comprises at least one of: a service type associated with the data; a procedure type associated with the data; a priority of the data; an access category of the data (Lovlekar, [0103-106][0115][01116], the type of data is a high priority data that is processed via a particular SIM (access category / service type)).
As to claim 20, Lovlekar teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device, in response to data, of a second type, associated with the second network becoming available, to transition to an RRC idle state or an RRC inactive state without transmitting, to the first network, the release request to release the connection of the first network (Lovlekar, Fig 6 #614, 618-22 [0103-0104], if a “not higher”(type 2) priority activity is received for Stack 2 then the UE does not suspend Stack 1 and can go IDLE. Also RRC release is [0115] only doing so if the network does not support the suspend feature).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM -5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights