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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 26-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Batchu et al (US 2015/0296520). Hereinafter referred to as Batchu.
Regarding claims 1, 26, 31 and 34. Batchu discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (see at least figure 1 and paragraph [0024]), comprising identifying a first service associated with a first subscriber identification module (SIM) of the UE, the first service having a first priority (see at least paragraphs [0024]-[0025]); identifying at least one re-prioritization condition that is satisfied (see at least paragraph [0034]), wherein the at least one re-prioritization condition is associated with at least one of the first service or a second service associated with a second SIM of the UE (see at least paragraphs [0033]-[0034]), the second service having a second priority and the second priority is lower than the first priority; adjusting, based at least in part on the at least one re-prioritization condition being satisfied, the second priority, wherein the adjusted second priority is higher than the first priority (see at least paragraph [0033]); and performing, during a time interval, a communication corresponding to the second service based at least in part on the adjusted second priority (see at least paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 2. Batchu discloses a method wherein the second SIM comprises a dedicated data SIM (DDS) and the first SIM comprises a non-DDS (see at least paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claims 3, 27, 32 and 35. Batchu discloses a method wherein the first service comprises at least one of a packet-switched data traffic service, a circuit-switched data traffic service, or a multimedia messaging service (see at least paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claims 7, 28, 33 and 36. Batchu discloses a method wherein performing the communication comprises transmitting a mobile-terminated page response based at least in part on receiving a mobile-terminated page (see at least paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 8. Batchu discloses a method further comprising establishing, based at least in part on transmitting the mobile-terminated page response, a network connection associated with the second service; identifying, based at least in part on the network connection, a communication type associated with the second service; and applying, during an additional time interval and based at least in part on the communication type, at least one of the second priority or the adjusted second priority (see at least figure 3B).
Regarding claim 10. Batchu discloses a method wherein the communication type comprises a data communication, and wherein applying the at least one of the second priority or the adjusted second priority comprises applying the second priority (see at least figure 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchu in view of Chen et al (US 2018/0368099). Hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 4, Batchu discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of identifying the at least one re-prioritization condition that is satisfied comprises determining that an inactive period corresponding to a periodic scheduling scheme associated with the first service satisfies a threshold. However, Chen, from the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying the at least one re-prioritization condition that is satisfied comprises determining that an inactive period corresponding to a periodic scheduling scheme associated with the first service satisfies a threshold (see at least paragraphs [0042] and [0087]-[0088]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Chen, as indicated, into the communication method of Batchu for the purpose of improving services with Multi-SIM.
Regarding claim 5. Batchu in view of Chen discloses a method wherein the periodic scheduling scheme comprises at least one of: a semi-persistent scheduling configuration, a configured grant, or a discontinuous reception configuration (see at least paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claims 6, Batchu discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of identifying the at least one re-prioritization condition that is satisfied comprises determining that a timer associated with a re-prioritization delay period has expired before a completion of a communication associated with the first service. However, Chen, from the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying the at least one re-prioritization condition that is satisfied comprises determining that a timer associated with a re-prioritization delay period has expired before a completion of a communication associated with the first service (see at least paragraphs [0011], [0015] and [0084]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Chen, as indicated, into the communication method of Batchu for the purpose of improving services with Multi-SIM.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batchu in view of Kumar et al (US 2022/0286950). Hereinafter referred to as Kumar.
Regarding claim 15, Batchu discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of performing a network access registration procedure. However, Kumar, from the same field of endeavor, teaches performing a network access registration procedure (see at least paragraphs [0035] and [0062]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Kumar, as indicated, into the communication method of Batchu for the purpose of managing UE service information.
Regarding claim 16, Batchu in view of Kumar discloses a method further comprising re-applying the second priority based at least in part on an expiration of a registration timer (see at least paragraph [0078]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14, 17-21 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights