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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-13, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (U.S. 2024/0129989), hereinafter Wang.
With respect to Claim 1, Wang teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a first subscriber identity module (SIM) associated with a first radio access network (RAN); a second SIM associated with a second RAN (¶ 0003, “In some scenarios, a multi-USIM terminal device may establish a connection in a network A of USIM A and stay in an idle or inactive state in a network B of USIM.”); and
at least one memory (¶ 0009, “the terminal device comprises a processor and a memory coupled to the processor.”); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory, the first SIM, and the second SIM, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to (¶ 0009, “the terminal device comprises a processor and a memory coupled to the processor.”):
receive a first indication associated with capability reduction from the first RAN (¶ 0067, “, the first network device 110 may transmit 302 a RRCReconfiguration message which requires only partial of TX and/or Rx capabilities to the terminal device 130 to relief a part of transmission and reception capacities.”) and
determine whether to switch at least one capability to the second RAN based on the first indication (¶ 0068, “with the reduced capability, the terminal device 130 may switch 304 to the second communication network 102 (in other words, perform the service at the second network device 120) while maintaining the connection with the first communication network 101.”)
With respect to Claim 2, Wang teaches the UE of claim 1, Wang teaches wherein the first indication indicates at least one of:
whether the UE is allowed to request capability reduction;
a timer value for performing capability reduction without a response;
whether the UE is allowed to perform capability reduction without a request;
a capability shared between the first RAN and the second RAN; or
a capability fully occupied by the second RAN (¶ 0066, “As shown in FIG. 3, the terminal device 130 may transmit 301 to the first network device 110 a message for requesting the switching or for indicating a service arriving at the second USIM 132. In some embodiments, the message may comprise a type of the service at the second USIM 132.”)
With respect to Claim 3, Wang teaches the UE of claim 1, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit a request for capability reduction in the event of at least one of the following:
the UE comprises two or more receiving chains, two or more transmitting chains, or two or more radio frequency chains (¶ 0002, “Two USIM may conform to same or different communication standards such as long term evolution (LTE), new radio (NR) or the like, and the capability of the terminal device may be 1 transmit port (Tx)/1 receive port (Rx), 1Tx/2Rx, 2Tx/1Rx or the like. Rx (Dual Rx) allows the multi-USIM terminal device to simultaneously receive traffic from two networks. 1Tx (Single Tx) allows the multi-USIM terminal device to transmit traffic to one network at one time. 2Tx (Dual Tx) allows the multi-USIM terminal device to simultaneously transmit traffic to two networks. The terms Single Rx/Tx and Dual Rx/Tx do not refer to a device type. A single terminal device may, as an example, uses Dual Tx in some cases but Single Tx in other cases.”)
a gap satisfying the second RAN is not configurable;
a gap configured by the first RAN is insufficient to satisfy the second RAN;
a requirement of quality of service (QoS) of the second RAN is not satisfied; or
a capability required by the second RAN is occupied by the first RAN.
With respect to Claim 5, Wang teaches the UE of claim 3, wherein the request for capability reduction is transmitted via a UE assistant information message (¶ 0069, “For example, the terminal device 130 may transmit a UEAssistancelnformation message to indicate the end of the switching or the end of the service or the return.”)
With respect to Claim 11-13, the claims are the base station that communicates with and is the corresponding device of the user equipment of claims 1, 2 and 5, and are rejected accordingly.
With respect to Claim 16, the claim is the processor corresponding to the user equipment of claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
With respect to Claim 20, the claim is the processor corresponding to the user equipment of claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
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 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.
Claim(s) 4, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. 2024/0129989), hereinafter Wang, in view of Abraham et al. (U.S. 2023/0254684), hereinafter Abraham.
With respect to Claim 4, Wang teaches the UE of claim 1, Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein a capability reduction is per receiving capability, per transmitting capability, or per radio frequency capability.
Abraham teaches wherein a capability reduction is per receiving capability, per transmitting capability, or per radio frequency capability (¶ 0059, “In an embodiment, the properties of the capabilities may comprise radio frequency (RF) capabilities (transmission band combinations and capabilities that are per band combination).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Wang in view of the system of Abraham in order to allow the device to better manage the capabilities of the device.
With respect to Claim 14, the claim is the base station that communicates with and is the corresponding device of the user equipment of claim 4 and are rejected accordingly.
With respect to Claim 19, the claim is the processor corresponding to the user equipment of claim 4 and is rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. 2024/0129989), hereinafter Wang, in view of Kung et al. (US 2023/0180148), hereinafter Kung
With respect to Claim 7, Wang teaches the UE of claim 3, Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive a response to the request for the capability reduction, wherein the response indicates at least one of:
releasing a secondary cell group (SCG) or releasing one or more secondary cells (SCell) via a radio resource control reconfiguration message;
whether the UE is allowed to perform the requested capability reduction;
one or more receiving capabilities, one or more transmitting capabilities, or one or more radio frequency capabilities chains of the UE that are allowed to or prohibited from switching to the second RAN; or
whether one or more receiving capabilities, one or more transmitting capabilities, or one or more radio frequency capabilities of the UE allowed to switch to the second RAN are shared between the first RAN and the second RAN.
Kung teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive a response to the request for the capability reduction, wherein the response indicates at least one of:
releasing a secondary cell group (SCG) or releasing one or more secondary cells (SCell) via a radio resource control reconfiguration message;
whether the UE is allowed to perform the requested capability reduction;
one or more receiving capabilities, one or more transmitting capabilities, or one or more radio frequency capabilities chains of the UE that are allowed to or prohibited from switching to the second RAN; or
whether one or more receiving capabilities, one or more transmitting capabilities, or one or more radio frequency capabilities of the UE allowed to switch to the second RAN are shared between the first RAN and the second RAN (¶ 0472, “In some examples, a reconfiguration 1520 may be performed based on the reconfiguration message. The reconfiguration may comprise changing (e.g., switching) a TX/RX chain (e.g., changing a TX chain and/or an RX chain) indicated by the reconfiguration message and/or deactivating one or more resources indicated by the reconfiguration message.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Kung in view of Wang in order to allow the device to better coordinate radios and capabilities of the device.
With respect to Claim 15, the claim is the base station that communicates with and is the corresponding device of the user equipment of claim 7 and is rejected accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 8-10, 17 and 18 are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 571-270-3936. 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.
/ANGELA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights