Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/682,307

METHOD, DEVICE AND COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIUM OF COMMUNICATION

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Feb 08, 2024
Examiner
MUSA, ABDELNABI O
Art Unit
2472
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
881 granted / 1052 resolved
+25.7% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1080
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1052 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 This action is responsive to the application filed on 02/08/2024 has a total of 18 claims pending in the application; there are 4 independent claims and 14 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner. Title The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner suggests the title “A Multi-USIM method, device and computer storage medium of communication in a wireless network”. 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 50-67 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. Claims 50 recites in the preamble “A method of terminal device, comprising:” it’s unclear whether the claim is a “method” claim or a “terminal device” claim. Examiner suggests amending the preamble to recite “A method of terminal device, the method comprising:” instead. Claims 66 recites in the preamble “A method of network device, comprising:” it’s unclear whether the claim is a “method” claim or a “terminal device” claim. Examiner suggests amending the preamble to recite “A method of network device, the method comprising:” instead. 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. Claims 50-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by LEE et al. Publication No. (US 2023/0048297 A1). Claims 1.-49. (canceled). Regarding claim 50, LEE teaches a method of terminal device, comprising: communicating with a first network associated with a first Universal Subscriber Identity Module (USIM), and a second network associated with a second USIM (the UE is 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), and transmitting, to the first network device, a message including a first configuration of temporary capability restriction of the terminal device in connected state with the first network device (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), and wherein the terminal device is Multi-USIM(MUSIM) device, and wherein the terminal device includes the first USIM and second USIM (the User Equipment (UE) adapted to be equipped with a plurality of Universal Subscriber Identity Modules (USIMs) for performing a Multi-Universal Subscriber Identity Module (MUSIM) operations [0053] FIG.1). Regarding claim 51, LEE teaches the method of claim 50, further comprising: transmitting the message in a case where the terminal device starts connection to the second network device (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]). Regarding claim 52, LEE teaches the method of claim 50, further comprising: receiving, from the first network device, a second configuration including an information to transmit, to the first network device, the first configuration (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 [0017-18]). Regarding claim 53, LEE teaches the method of claim 50, wherein the first configuration 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 (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, LEE teaches the method of claim 50, further comprising: receiving, from the first network device, the first configuration using UEAssistanceInformation message (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, LEE teaches the method of claim 50, further comprising: starting a timer on the transmission of the message including the first configuration (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, LEE teaches the method of claim 55, wherein the terminal device transmits the message including the first configuration and starts the timer in a case where the timer is not running (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 a temporary capability restriction of the terminal device in a case where the timer is expired (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 58-65, 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. 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 08, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604252
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MULTICAST AND BROADCAST SERVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598523
DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593315
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR GENERATING APPDU IN WIRELESS LAN SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592752
VARIABLE PRECODING RESOURCE BLOCK GROUP PARTITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593253
INDICATING UE-TRIGGERED MOBILITY USING LOW-LAYER INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1052 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month