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
Acknowledgment is made for the applicant’s response and amendment filed on 06/08/2026.
Remarks
The claims are presented as follows:
Claims 1-49, 51-52, 59-60 are canceled.
Claims 50, 53-58, 61-67 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Title: The objection of title of the application is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment made to the claims. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 50, 53-58, 61-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. Publication No. (US 2023/0048297 A1) in view of OZTURK et al. Publication No. (US 2022/0109976 A1).
Claims 1.-49. (canceled).
Regarding claim 50, LEE teaches a method
A method performed by of terminal device, a terminal device including a first Universal Subscriber Identity Module (USIM) associated with a first network and a second USIM associated with a second network (A UE connected to a first network associated with a first USIM of the plurality of USIMs, and in communication with a second network being associated with a second USIM of the plurality of USIMs. [0017-19] FIG.6), the method comprising:
receiving, from the first network, a first configuration for the terminal device to provide information (the UE receives a first time gap configuration from the first network in a case that a type of the time gap requested by the UE is aperiodic, the first time gap configuration indicating a starting System Frame Number (SFN) and a starting subframe of a first configured time gap; and in a case that the UE receives the first time gap configuration, cause the UE to switch to a second network, while keeping a connection to the first network, during the first configured time gap according to the first time gap configuration, the second network being associated with a second USIM of the plurality of USIMs [0017-18]); and
transmitting, to the first network, a message including the information associated with the temporary capability restriction of the terminal device in connected state with the first network in a case where the terminal device starts connection to the second network (the UE may transmit a request message to the first network. The request message may include assistance information to request a time gap, the assistance information may indicate a preferred starting SFN of the time gap and a preferred starting subframe of the time gap, and an indication of whether the type of the (requested) time gap is aperiodic (or periodic) [0192-193] FIG.6, also, see the UE capability type message sent, which may be included in the switching request message to indicate the UE's limited reception capability [0085-87] FIG.6).
LEE does not explicitly teach the terminal device to provide information associated with temporary capability restriction based on the configuration information received.
OZTURK teaches the terminal device to provide information associated with temporary capability restriction based on the configuration information received (OZTURK: UE 104 may be configured to operate based on a modified subset of UE capabilities when multiple USIMs are active at the UE 104 [0053-54] UEs may be configured to support two or more USIMs, where each USIM may belong to a different network operator, a UE that supports dual USIMs may be active (e.g., connected) on both USIMs. In such instances, the capabilities on each link may need to be reduced in comparison to a single active USIM. The UE may request a reduced capability or temporary capability restriction when the dual USIMs (or multiple USIMs) are active at the UE [0073-75] FIG.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified LEE by the teaching of OZTURK to receive a temporary capability restriction in order to enhance the efficiency of dynamic UE capability signaling for multiple USIMs (OZTURK: [0076-78] FIG.4).
Claims 51-52 (canceled).
Regarding claim 53, the modified LEE teaches the method of claim 50, wherein the information associated with the temporary capability restriction (OZTURK: The UE may request a reduced capability or temporary capability restriction when the dual USIMs (or multiple USIMs) are active at the UE [0073-75] FIG.4) of the terminal device comprises at least one of the following: a request for deactivating a secondary cell group of the terminal device, a request for releasing a secondary cell group of the terminal device, a set of secondary cells to be deactivated, a set of secondary cells to be released, or the number of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) layer (LEE: the UE may send a release request message to release an existing/ongoing aperiodic gap pattern/gap configuration (e.g., for updated SI message or performing registration/TAU/RNAU procedure(s)) to NWA while/before aperiodic gap times up/expires/runs out [0129-132]).
Regarding claim 54, the modified LEE teaches the method of claim 50, further comprising: transmitting, to the first network, the message including the information associated with the temporary capability restriction (OZTURK: temporary capability restriction when the dual USIMs (or multiple USIMs) are active at the UE [0073-75] FIG.4) using UEAssistanceInformation message (LEE: The switching request message may include assistance information related to a certain requested gap pattern/gap configuration (e.g., UEAssistanceInformation) message [0079-81]).
Regarding claim 55, the modified LEE teaches the method of claim 50, further comprising: starting a timer on the transmission of the message including the information associated with the temporary capability restriction (OZTURK: temporary capability restriction when the dual USIMs (or multiple USIMs) are active at the UE [0073-75] FIG.4) in view of (LEE: The switching request message may contain gap assistance information and/or DRX-related information. The gap assistance information may include suggested/required starting timing information (e.g., offset value or starting SFN and/or starting subframe) of a gap, a suggested/required gap length, a suggested/required gap repetition period. For example, an RNAU procedure may be performed/triggered when a periodic RNAU timer (e.g., T380 timer) expires [0090-92]).
Regarding claim 56, the modified LEE teaches the method of claim 55, wherein the terminal device transmits the message including the information associated with the temporary capability restriction and starts the timer in a case where the timer is not running (LEE: a UE may not resend a release request message to the network to ask for releasing periodic gap pattern(s)/gap configuration(s) until a timer (e.g., delay budget) expires if the UE does not receive the release gap configuration message from NWA, the timer may (re)start when a UE sends a release request message, a timer may stop when the UE receives a command from a network (e.g., a release gap configuration message from NWA). While the timer is running, the UE may be prohibited from (re)sending a release request message. When/after the timer expires, the UE may be allowed to (re)send a release request message [0132-137]).
Regarding claim 57, LEE teaches the method of claim 55, further comprising: applying the temporary capability restriction (OZTURK: temporary capability restriction when the dual USIMs (or multiple USIMs) are active at the UE [0073-75] FIG.4) of the terminal device in a case where the timer is expired (LEE: a UE (e.g., a MUSIM UE with 2RX/1TX) may send a switching request message to the NWA to ask for periodic gap(s) with a capability loan (e.g., to receive paging related to NWB or performing measurements related to NWB). For example, an RNAU procedure may be performed/triggered when a periodic RNAU timer (e.g., T380 timer) expires [0090-92]).
Regarding claims 58, 64-65, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 50-65, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “terminal device” side with a memory and a processor (LEE: FIG.7) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 59-60 (canceled).
Regarding claim 66, related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claim 49, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from a “method of a network device” side with a memory and a processor (LEE: FIG.7) and the wordings of the claim were interchanged within the claim itself or were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claim and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to this claim. Therefore, this claim was rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 67, related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claim 49, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “network device” side with a memory and a processor (LEE: FIG.7) and the wordings of the claim were interchanged within the claim itself or were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claim and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to this claim. Therefore, this claim was rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights