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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent REPUBLIC OF INDIA patent application No. IN 202141046885 filed on 10/14/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 07/08/2024 and 11/25/2025, have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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)(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.
(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 52-57, 59-65 and 67 are rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VELEV et al. (WO 2021043417 A1, hereinafter VELEV).
Consider Claim 52, VELEV discloses an apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and (paragraph 0132, the processor 605, in one embodiment, may include any known controller capable of executing computer-readable instructions and/or capable of performing logical operations).
at least one memory including computer program code; (Paragraph 0145, the memory 610, in one embodiment, is a computer readable storage medium. In some embodiments, the memory 610 includes volatile computer storage media. the memory 610 also stores program code and related data, such as an operating system (“OS”) or other controller algorithms operating on the user equipment apparatus 600 and one or more software applications).
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
when a radio link failure procedure has started, determine, by the apparatus which has multiple universal subscriber identity modules (MUSIMs), a need to switch from a first network associated with one of the multiple subscriber identity modules (MUSIMs) to establish a connection to a second network associated with another one of the multiple subscriber identity modules (MUSIMs); (Paragraph 0078, With other words, the short suspended state can be described as similar to a radio link failure (REF) condition, but instead of implicit detection of REF by RAN node and multi-SIM UE 205, it is requested by explicit RRC signaling from the multi-SIM UE 205. Paragraph 0082, At step 2, the multi-SIM UE 205 detects a trigger event to suspend an active connection with the USIM-2209 (see block 310)).
decide to switch to the second network without waiting for a response from the first network to start the connection with the second network; and (paragraph 0082, Additionally, the multi-SIM UE 205 determines whether to apply a short connection suspension (i.e., enter the short suspended connection state) or to apply a long connection suspension (i.e., enter the long suspended connection state) (see block 315)).
stop a timer configured for waiting for the response from the first network and start the connection with the second network. (Paragraph 0143, he processor 605 may initiate the suspension timer in response to receiving the RRC layer suspension response and transition from the short connection suspension to the long connection suspension for the second SIM 650 in response to expiry of the suspension timer).
Consider Claim 53, VELEV discloses the apparatus of Claim 52, wherein, upon returning to the first network, the apparatus is further caused to:
transmit a connection request to the first network to start a connection from an idle state. (Paragraph 0172, applying the short connection suspension for the second SIM includes transmitting an RRC layer suspension request, while applying the long connection suspension for the second SIM includes transmitting an NAS layer suspension request. In certain embodiments, applying the long connection suspension for the second SIM further includes transitioning to an NAS idle state in response to reception of a suspension response message from the second network).
Consider Claim 54, VELEV discloses the apparatus of Claim 53, wherein the connection request comprises a radio resource control connection request. (Paragraph 0158, the processor 705 suppresses a RAN paging procedure for the remote unit in response to receiving the RRC layer suspension request. In such embodiments, the processor 705 stops suppressing the RAN paging procedure for the remote unit in response to receiving the RRC layer connection resume request).
Consider Claim 55, VELEV discloses the apparatus of Claim 52, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
transmit, to the first network, a user equipment information response comprising a connection failure report with a reason indicating that connection dropped for multiple universal subscriber identity module (MUSIM) operation. (Paragraph 0078, with other words, the short suspended state can be described as similar to a radio link failure (REF) condition, but instead of implicit detection of REF by RAN node and multi-SIM UE 205, it is requested by explicit RRC signaling from the multi-SIM UE 205. Paragraph 0082, At step 2, the multi-SIM UE 205 detects a trigger event to suspend an active connection with the USIM-2209 (see block 310)).
Consider Claim 56, VELEV discloses the apparatus of Claim 55, wherein the user equipment information response further comprises information associated with the radio link failure. (Paragraph 0076, Regarding characteristics of the short suspended connection state, the serving RAN node keeps the UE AS context (security context, bearer context, etc.) and the multi-SIM UE 205 keeps its AS context. The short connection suspension for the USIM-1 207, the multi-SIM UE 205 is in RRC Connected state and does not trigger radio link failure (“RLF”) to upper MUSIM layers).
Consider Claim 57, VELEV discloses the apparatus of Claim 55, wherein the user equipment information response further comprises information associated with the one of the MUSIM identity. (Paragraph 0066, the UE 200 and multi-USIM UE 205 can implement the universal subscriber identity module(s) (“USIM”, sometimes referred as subscriber identification module, “SIM”) as an integrated circuit or card which needs to be inserted in the UE, and/or as embedded-SIM (“eSIM”) or embedded universal integrated circuit card (“eUICC”) - a form of programmable SIM)).
Consider Claim 59, VELEV discloses the apparatus of Claim 52, wherein the user equipment information response is transmitted in response to receiving a user equipment information request message. (Paragraph 0010, a network function (e.g., eNB or gNB) for suspending a connection of one SIM during multi-SIM operation includes receiving an RRC layer suspension request from a UE. The method includes maintaining a UE AS context for the UE. The method includes disabling downlink transmissions to the UE in response to the RRC layer suspension request. The method includes enabling downlink transmissions to the UE in response to receiving an RRC layer connection resume request from the UE)
Consider Claim 60, VELEV discloses a method, comprising:
when a radio link failure procedure has started, determining, by a user equipment (UE) having multiple universal subscriber identity modules (MUSIMs), a need to switch from a first network associated with one of the multiple subscriber identity modules (MUSIMs) to establish a connection to a second network associated with another one of the multiple subscriber identity modules (MUSIMs); (Paragraph 0078, With other words, the short suspended state can be described as similar to a radio link failure (REF) condition, but instead of implicit detection of REF by RAN node and multi-SIM UE 205, it is requested by explicit RRC signaling from the multi-SIM UE 205. Paragraph 0082, At step 2, the multi-SIM UE 205 detects a trigger event to suspend an active connection with the USIM-2209 (see block 310)).
deciding, by the user equipment (UE), to switch to the second network without waiting for a response from the first network to start the connection with the second network; and (paragraph 0082, Additionally, the multi-SIM UE 205 determines whether to apply a short connection suspension (i.e., enter the short suspended connection state) or to apply a long connection suspension (i.e., enter the long suspended connection state) (see block 315)).
stopping a timer configured for waiting for the response from the first network and starting the connection with the second network. (Paragraph 0143, he processor 605 may initiate the suspension timer in response to receiving the RRC layer suspension response and transition from the short connection suspension to the long connection suspension for the second SIM 650 in response to expiry of the suspension timer).
Consider Claim 61, VELEV discloses the method of Claim 60, wherein, upon returning to the first network, the method comprises the user equipment transmitting a connection request to the first network to start a connection from an idle state. (Paragraph 0172, applying the short connection suspension for the second SIM includes transmitting an RRC layer suspension request, while applying the long connection suspension for the second SIM includes transmitting an NAS layer suspension request. In certain embodiments, applying the long connection suspension for the second SIM further includes transitioning to an NAS idle state in response to reception of a suspension response message from the second network).
Consider Claim 62, VELEV discloses the method of Claim 61, wherein the connection request comprises a radio resource control connection request. (Paragraph 0158, the processor 705 suppresses a RAN paging procedure for the remote unit in response to receiving the RRC layer suspension request. In such embodiments, the processor 705 stops suppressing the RAN paging procedure for the remote unit in response to receiving the RRC layer connection resume request).
Consider Claim 63, VELEV discloses the method of Claim 60, further comprising: transmitting, to the first network, a user equipment information response comprising a connection failure report with a reason indicating that connection dropped for multiple universal subscriber identity module (MUSIM) operation. (Paragraph 0078, with other words, the short suspended state can be described as similar to a radio link failure (REF) condition, but instead of implicit detection of REF by RAN node and multi-SIM UE 205, it is requested by explicit RRC signaling from the multi-SIM UE 205. Paragraph 0082, At step 2, the multi-SIM UE 205 detects a trigger event to suspend an active connection with the USIM-2209 (see block 310)).
Consider Claim 64, VELEV discloses the method of Claim 63, wherein the user equipment information response further comprises information associated with the radio link failure. (Paragraph 0076, Regarding characteristics of the short suspended connection state, the serving RAN node keeps the UE AS context (security context, bearer context, etc.) and the multi-SIM UE 205 keeps its AS context. The short connection suspension for the USIM-1 207, the multi-SIM UE 205 is in RRC Connected state and does not trigger radio link failure (“RLF”) to upper MUSIM layers).
Consider Claim 65, VELEV discloses the method of Claim 63, wherein the user equipment information response further comprises information associated with the one of the MUSIM identity. (Paragraph 0066, the UE 200 and multi-USIM UE 205 can implement the universal subscriber identity module(s) (“USIM”, sometimes referred as subscriber identification module, “SIM”) as an integrated circuit or card which needs to be inserted in the UE, and/or as embedded-SIM (“eSIM”) or embedded universal integrated circuit card (“eUICC”) - a form of programmable SIM)).
Consider Claim 67, VELEV discloses the method of Claim 60, wherein the user equipment information response is transmitted in response to receiving a user equipment information request message. (Paragraph 0010, a network function (e.g., eNB or gNB) for suspending a connection of one SIM during multi-SIM operation includes receiving an RRC layer suspension request from a UE. The method includes maintaining a UE AS context for the UE. The method includes disabling downlink transmissions to the UE in response to the RRC layer suspension request. The method includes enabling downlink transmissions to the UE in response to receiving an RRC layer connection resume request from the UE)
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 non-obviousness.
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 58 and 66 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by VELEV et al. (WO 2021043417 Al , hereinafter VELEV) in view of Ryu et al. (US 10716161 B2, hereinafter Ryu).
Consider Claim 58, VELEV discloses the claim invention shown above the apparatus of Claim 55 but fails to teach wherein the user equipment information response further comprises a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI).
However Ryu teaches (paragraph 95, the first method is that the UE transmits the cell RNTI (C-RNTI) of its own through the UL transmission signal corresponding to the UL grant, if the UE has a valid C-RNTI that is already allocated by the corresponding cell before the random access procedure. Paragraph 98, the eNB, in case of receiving the C-RNTI of corresponding UE through the message 3 from the UE, transmits the message 4 to the UE by using the received C-RNTI).
Consider Claim 66, VELEV discloses the claimed invention shown above the method of Claim 63 but fails to teach wherein the user equipment information response further comprises a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI).
However Ryu teaches (paragraph 95, the first method is that the UE transmits the cell RNTI (C-RNTI) of its own through the UL transmission signal corresponding to the UL grant, if the UE has a valid C-RNTI that is already allocated by the corresponding cell before the random access procedure. Paragraph 98, the eNB, in case of receiving the C-RNTI of corresponding UE through the message 3 from the UE, transmits the message 4 to the UE by using the received C-RNTI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claims 58 and 66 by combining/adding the teachings of VELEV the suspending a connection of one SIM during multi-SIM operation with the method for performing/supporting a connection resumption procedure and an apparatus for supporting the same of Ryu. The motivation to do so would be to develop an address the explosive increase in traffic that has resulted in shortage of resource and user demand for a high speed services, requiring advanced mobile communication systems. Thereby, extending even to data services, as well as voice services across wireless communication systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE CAMILLE DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/MICHELE C DOUGLAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/MATTHEW D. ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646