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 .
This action is in response to the filing of 2/5/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,9,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites two limitations as below:
“in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and criteria for transmitting a busy indication is met, transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request, and
in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and the criteria for transmitting the busy indication is met, avoid transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request.”
The claim recites two contingent/conditional statements that are exactly the same, but based on the conditions two different steps are performed. This renders the claim scope indefinite and unclear.
However, the disclosure describes that:
when criteria for sending a busy indication is met then sending the busy indication, when criteria for sending a busy indication is not met then avoid sending any response. [see figure 4; specification paragraphs 45,56,61,72,140]
Therefore, for examination purpose in this office communication claim 1 is interpreted as:
“in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and criteria for transmitting a busy indication is met, transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request, and
in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and the criteria for transmitting the busy indication is not met, avoid transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request.”
Independent claim 9 recites similar language as claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for same reasons as described above.
To overcome the 35 USC 112 (b) rejection above, the applicant should amend the claims consistent with embodiments described, [otherwise provide detailed explanation to justify present claim language.]
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the MUSIM UE" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification describes in para 8: “The embodiment herein is to provide a method performed by a multiple subscriber information module user equipment (MUSIM UE) in a wireless communication system. The method includes receiving, from a second network, a paging request on a second SIM in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, while receiving service on a first SIM from a first network and in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and criteria for transmitting a busy indication is met, transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request, and in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and the criteria for transmitting the busy indication is met, avoid transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request.” [also see para 24,32,125,133]
This is not consistent with the embodiment described in figure 4 and paragraphs 45,56,61,72,140. See for instance para 45: “Accordingly the embodiment herein is to provide a method for handling busy indication for MUSIM UE associated with a plurality of network devices in a wireless network. The method includes receiving, by the MUSIM UE, a paging request from a second SIM while the MUSIM UE is receiving a service on a first SIM. Further, the method includes determining, by the MUSIM UE, whether a criteria for sending the busy indication is met. Further, the method includes performing, by the MUSIM UE, one of: sending the busy indication to a network device associated with the second SIM as a response to the paging request in response to determining that the criteria for sending the busy indication is met, and avoiding sending of any response to the paging request received from a network device associated with the second SIM in response to determining that the criteria for sending the busy indication is not met.”
Therefore, appropriate correction to the specification is required.
Claim construction/interpretation: Claim 1 [method claim] recites the following limitations;
“in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and criteria for transmitting a busy indication is met, transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request, and
in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and the criteria for transmitting the busy indication is not met, avoid transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request”
This is/are contingent/conditional limitation(s). The contingent/conditional limitations are not positively recited in the claim(s) and are thus only executed [or performed or implemented], when the condition is true/met.
[See, (MPEP 2111.04) II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.]
In present claim 1, for instance only one of the two steps is performed:
Either, transmitting the busy indication, is performed when/in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and criteria for transmitting a busy indication is met;
Or, avoid transmitting the busy indication, is performed when/in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and the criteria for transmitting the busy indication is not met.
The prior art is only required to teach one element; for the rejection of claim 1, the step of ‘avoid transmitting the busy indication’ when the condition is not met is considered.
Dependent claims 3-4 are related to the conditional element, that is not considered for rejecting claim 1. Thus, steps in claim 3-4 are not required to be performed, and rejected/taught by the prior art as in 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.
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) 1-6, 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ozturk et al. (US 2024/0251382).
Regarding claim 1:
Ozturk discloses a method performed by a multiple subscriber information module user equipment (MUSIM UE) in a wireless communication system (abstract; figures), the method comprising:
receiving, from a second network, a paging request on a second SIM in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, while receiving service on a first SIM from a first network (para 4-8; para 106, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {…In this example, when the scheduled entity 902 is in RRC Inactive mode}; figures 8-9; para 107 {network 908 may transmit a paging message 914 to the AS 904 of an MSIM-configured scheduled entity 902, where the paging message may be directed to a non-active SIM (e.g., 906) of the scheduled entity 902 while an active SIM (e.g., 904) is in use…}); and
in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and criteria for transmitting a busy indication is met, transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request, and
in case that the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request, and the criteria for transmitting the busy indication is not met, avoid transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request (para 104 {UE 802) detects a paging message, the scheduled entity may be configured such that a non-active SIM (e.g., 806) may not respond to the paging message due to internal UE configurations. One internal configuration may include, but is not limited to, a scheduled entity not having the capability to have simultaneous active connections on multiple SIMs, and the connection on the active SIM is of a higher priority…}; figs; para 107; figs 12-13; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 6:
Ozturk discloses a method performed by a base station in a wireless communication system (abstract; figures), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a multiple subscriber information module user equipment (MUSIM UE), a paging request on a second SIM in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state via a second network, while the MUSIM UE is receiving a service on a first SIM from a first network (para 106 {…RRC Inactive}; para 107 {gNB 910 of network 908 may transmit a paging message 914 to the AS 904 of an MSIM-configured scheduled entity 902, where the paging message may be directed to a non-active SIM (e.g., 906) of the scheduled entity 902 while an active SIM (e.g., 904) is in use}; fig 8; fig 9 [step 914 paging message]; );
receiving, from the MUSIM UE, a busy indication in response to the paging request (para 108 {a busy indication message, and transmits the busy indication message} [UE transmits indication and network receives]; fig 9); and
stop transmitting the paging request in response to receiving the busy indication (para 110 {…transmits a message 922 to the scheduled entity 902 to place the non-active SIM of scheduled entity 902 into an RRC Inactive mode. The gNB then informs the AMF 912 that the scheduled entity was released to RRC Inactive, and further informs the AMF 912 in 924 to halt/pause Service Accept messaging to the non-active SIM of the scheduled entity 902}; figures 8-9; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 9:
Ozturk discloses a multiple subscriber information module user equipment (MUSIM UE) in a wireless communication system (abstract; figures), the MUSIM UE comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit or receive a signal (figure 10 [transceiver 1010]); and
a controller coupled with the transceiver (fig 10 [processor 1004]) and configured to:
receive, from a second network, a paging request on a second SIM in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, while receiving service on a first SIM from a first network (para 106 {…In this example, when the scheduled entity 902 is in RRC Inactive mode}; para 107 {network 908 may transmit a paging message 914 to the AS 904 of an MSIM-configured scheduled entity 902, where the paging message may be directed to a non-active SIM (e.g., 906) of the scheduled entity 902 while an active SIM (e.g., 904) is in use…}); and
in case that the controller rejects the paging request, and criteria for transmitting a busy indication is met, transmit the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request (para 107 {If the priority of the paging message is less than the priority of the existing connection of the active SIM … related page information (e.g., priority, traffic type) to NAS 906…}[related info based on priority is meeting the criteria]; para 108 {generates a busy indication message, and transmits the busy indication message}; figs 12-13para 111), and
in case that the controller rejects the paging request, and the criteria for transmitting the busy indication is not met, avoid transmitting the busy indication to the second network in response to the paging request (para 104 {UE 802) detects a paging message, the scheduled entity may be configured such that a non-active SIM (e.g., 806) may not respond to the paging message due to internal UE configurations. One internal configuration may include, but is not limited to, a scheduled entity not having the capability to have simultaneous active connections on multiple SIMs, and the connection on the active SIM is of a higher priority…}; figs; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claims 2, and 10:
Ozturk discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the MUSIM UE rejects the paging request based on at least one of [Note: optional language] a processing delay, a processing burden, an interruption gap, a hardware limitation, a capability of the MUSIM UE, a channel condition, a priority of the service being served on the first SIM, and an emergency service (para 104,107 [priority info]; and throughout).
Regarding claim 3:
Ozturk discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the transmitting of the busy indication comprises: transmitting, to the second network, a RRC resume request message or a RRC resume request 1 message with the resume cause set as the busy indication (see claim construction/interpretation above).
Regarding claim 4:
Ozturk discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the transmitting of the busy indication comprises: transmitting, to the second network, a service request message including a indication for rejecting the paging request (see claim construction/interpretation above).
Regarding claim 5 and 13:
Ozturk discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the MUSIM UE transmits a RRC resume request message (para 94 [RRC resume request]; para 99, 108-111)[Note: optional language “or” require only one option to be taught by the prior art] or a RRC resume request 1 message, or a service request message based on the at least one of a capability of the MUSIM UE to support a NAS based approach or an AS based approach, a need for paging filtering information to send the busy indication, a slice configuration allowing the NAS based approach or the AS based approach, a level of activity on the first SIM is comparatively higher than a determined level of activity, a priority of the service on the first SIM, a latency requirement, an accepted interruption gap, an implementation support, and a predetermined configuration.
Regarding claim 8:
Ozturk discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the receiving of the busy indication comprises: receiving, from the MUSIM UE, a RRC resume request message (para 94 [RRC resume request]; para 99, 108-111)[Note: optional language “or” require only one option to be taught by the prior art] or a RRC resume request 1 message with the resume cause set as the busy indication, or receiving, from the MUSIM UE, a service request message including a indication for rejecting the paging request.
Regarding claim 11:
Ozturk discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the controller is configured to: transmit, to the second network, a RRC resume request message or a RRC resume request 1 message with the resume cause set as the busy indication (para 94 [RRC resume request]; para 99, 108-111; and throughout) [Note: optional language “or” require only one option to be taught by the prior art].
Regarding claim 12:
Ozturk discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the controller is configured to: transmit, to the second network, a service request message including a indication for rejecting the paging request (para 106 {busy indication, based on a Service Request (SR)}; para 108 {cause value to indicate a busy status}; para 110,117; and throughout).
Regarding claim 14:
Ozturk discloses all of the subject matter as describe ed above in claim 6, and further discloses a base station in a wireless communication system (figures), comprising: a transceiver configured to transmit or receive a signal (fig 11 [block 1110]); and a controller coupled with the transceiver (fig 11 [block 1104]) and configured to perform functions as above in claim 6 (para 126-127; and see throughout the disclosure).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ozturk et al. (US 2024/0251382) in view of Hong et al. (US 2024/0224229).
Regarding claims 7, 15:
Ozturk discloses all of the subject matter as described above and performing at least one of [Note: optional language, require only one option to be taught by the prior art]: a) retaining the RRC INACTIVE state of the MUSIM UE and resuming the paging request, b) transmitting a RRC release message to the MUSIM UE (para 96 {RRC connection release message back to the UE}; para 97,99; and throughout), c) implicitly transiting a RRC state of the MUSIM UE to a RRC IDLE state from the RRC INACTIVE state, or d) transmitting an access network (AN) release signaling to the core network (CN); except for specifically teaching that discarding or buffering packets for a predetermined time duration.
However, Hong in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication where discarding or buffering packets for a predetermined time duration (para 74 {stop paging the terminal device and discard cached downlink data}; figs; para 117,140,151,160,209; and throughout)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Hong in Ozturk in order to provide busy indication and reject response identifier with discarding cached downlink data based on the busy indication identifier or the paging reject response identifier to save corresponding resources [5,74,75] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kiss et al. (US 2022/0264506) discloses a system and method for MUSIM capability signaling.
Ryu et al. (US 2020/0305118) discloses a system and method for communication setup/response.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631