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 with respect to claims 7/7/2026 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.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-21, 23-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0132294 (Shah et al.) in view of US 2016/0219421 (Shi et al.) in view of US 2006/0067498 (Plas et al.).
As to claims 1, 12, 23 and 27, Shah teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to:
receive, during an ongoing data session on a first subscriber identity module (SIM), an incoming voice call on a second SIM (see step 1407, fig 14 and paragraphs 77 and 78, incoming call on SIM2);
initiate, on the first SIM during the ongoing data session, a communication to the caller associated with the incoming voice call in concurrency with the ongoing data session (see steps 1403, 1409 and 1404, fig 14, and paragraphs 77 and 78, user device initiates incoming call on SIM1, by rejecting the incoming call in SIM2 and sending text to caller informing them to call back on SIM1. Data session remains ongoing throughout this).
What is lacking from Shah is determine, during the ongoing data session on the first SIM, a caller identifier associated with the incoming voice call on the second SIM; and initiate, on the first SIM during the ongoing data session, a communication to the caller identifier associated with the incoming voice call in concurrency with the ongoing data session.
In analogous art, Shi teaches a caller ID associated with an incoming call to a second SIM being determined while the UE is in an active session on a first SIM (note that the active SIM1 session of Shan includes a data session), so that the caller can be presented with said caller ID so that they may choose to accept said call (see Shi, figure 9, steps 802-822).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Shah, so as to provide the user with the ability to identify the caller before accepting the call.
What is further lacking from Shah is the communication being an outbound communication.
In analogous art, Plas teaches that after missing an incoming call from a caller (~the rejected call of Shah), the called party may initiate an outbound call to that caller (see Plas, figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Shah, so as to provide the called party with the ability to return a missed/rejected call (as opposed to just the caller party as taught by Shah).
As to claims 2, 13, 24 and 28, Shah in view of Shi’s cited teachings further teach wherein initiating the communication includes originating, on the first SIM, a voice call to the caller identifier associated with the incoming voice call on the second SIM (see Shah, paragraph 84 and Shi, figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Shah, so as to provide the user with the ability to identify the caller before accepting the call.
As to claims 3, 14, 25 and 29, Shah in view of Shi’s cited teachings further teach wherein initiating the communication includes sending, via the first SIM, a message that indicates an unavailable status to the caller identifier associated with the incoming voice call (see Shah, figure 15 and Shi, figure 9, incoming call to SIM2 may be rejected in a reject message that indicates the user is not available on their SIM2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Shah, so as to provide the user with the ability to identify the caller before accepting the call.
As to claims 4, 15 and 26, Shah further teaches wherein initiating the communication includes sending, via the first SIM, a message to the caller identifier associated with the incoming voice call to request a callback to a phone number associated with the first SIM (see Shah, figure 15, incoming call to SIM2 may be rejected in a reject message having the SIM1 calling number).
As to claims 6 and 17, Shi further teaches wherein the incoming voice call is received while the UE is operating in a dual-receive dual-SIM-dual-standby (DR-DSDS) mode (see Shi, paragraph 79, in combination with Shah and Shi’s cited teachings, this would result in the incoming call being received during the DR-DSDS mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Shah, so as to provide resource efficient means for receiving notifications for incoming calls in a dual-SIM device.
As to claims 7 and 18, Shi further teaches wherein determining the caller identifier associated with the incoming voice call includes:transitioning from the DR-DSDS mode to a dual-SIM-dual-active (DSDA) mode; determining the caller identifier associated with the incoming voice call while operating in the DSDA mode; and returning to the DR-DSDS mode based at least in part on determining the caller identifier (see Shi, paragraphs 73 and 79, combination with the other cited teachings of Shah and Shi, this would render the use of DR-DSDS when receiving the incoming call notification and transitioning to DR-DSDA when accepting the call).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Shah, so as to provide resource efficient means for receiving notifications and executing incoming calls in a dual-SIM device.
As to claims 8 and 19, Shi further teaches wherein the caller identifier is determined while the UE is operating in the DR-DSDS mode (DR-DSDS) mode (see Shi, paragraph 79, in combination with Shah and Shi’s cited teachings, this would result in the incoming call being received and caller ID being determined during the DR-DSDS mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Shah, so as to provide resource efficient means for receiving notifications for incoming calls in a dual-SIM device.
As to claims 9 and 20, Shi’s cited teachings further teaches generating a user prompt that indicates one or more options to respond or not respond to the incoming voice call received on the second SIM, wherein the communication is initiated to the caller identifier associated with the incoming voice call based at least in part on a user selection of an option included among the one or more options to respond to the incoming voice call (see figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Shah, so as to provide the user with the ability to identify the caller before accepting the call.
As to claims 10 and 21, Shah further teaches wherein the communication is initiated to the caller identifier associated with the incoming voice call based at least in part on one or more settings configured at the UE (see paragraphs 75, 78, 80 and 84, UE may enable or disable features used to process incoming calls on SIM2 while SIM1 is active).
As to claim 31, Shah further teaches further comprising: dropping the incoming voice call on the second SIM; and continuing the ongoing data session on the first SIM without interrupting the ongoing data session (see paragraphs 77-80, incoming call on SIM2 is rejected while data session on SIM1 is ongoing).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Shih in view of Plas, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2015/0094071 (Hang et al.).
As to claims 5 and 16, what is further lacking from Shah wherein the first SIM is associated with a dedicated data subscription and the second SIM is associated with a non-dedicated data subscription.
In analogous art, Hang teaches a dual SIM device in which a one SIM can be DDS and another non-DDS (see Hang, paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to apply this teaching to Shah, so as to provide the user with means to guarantee a dedicated data service without needing pay for said service on both SIMs.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Shih in view of Plas as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
As to claims 11 and 22, what is further lacking from Shah is wherein the communication is initiated to the caller identifier associated with the incoming voice call based at least in part on one or more metrics associated with one or more of the first SIM or the second SIM.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a network among at least 2 networks on the basis of metrics associated with that network (SIM1~1st network, SIM2~2nd network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to apply this teaching to Shah, so as to provide the best available quality of service to the user.
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 MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights