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 08/29/2024 has a total of 19 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 16 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,4,7,9,13 and 15 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 or amend these claims into their base claims, respectively.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5, recite the limitation “…a network transmission request cuitry outputting…” which makes the claim indefinite to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Examiner suggest amending the limitation to recite “…a network transmission request circuitry outputting…”
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REJ et al. Publication No. (US 2025/0106885 A1) in view of Anslot et al. Publication No. (US 2020/0021973 A1).
Regarding claim 1, REJ teaches a network failure recovery method for a long term evolution (LTE) network (recovery method for recovery method for a long term evolution (LTE) network [0060-64] FIG.3), the network failure recovery method comprising:
downloading an international mobile subscriber identity to an electronic subscriber identity module of an electronic device based on a download request for the international mobile subscriber identity (A SIM 305a and/or 305b may include an integrated circuit that securely stores an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) and a security key, which are used to identify and authenticate a corresponding subscription associated with the SIM 305a and/or 305b, the SIMs may store a list of services that the UE 120 has permission to access using a subscription associated with the SIM 305a and/or 305b, such as a data service or a voice service [0054-55] FIG.3), the download request being triggered in response to detecting that a first type of network failure has occurred during a first network communication (mitigation of mobile-terminated call failure on a DDS and/or registration failure on a DDS due to long-term data communications on a dedicated data SIM (DDS) facilitate enhanced prioritization to support data services on both SIMS [0067] the UE may identify the at least one re-prioritization condition that is satisfied based at least in part on determining that a page repetition pattern associated with the second service fails to satisfy a pattern condition [0080-82] FIG.4), the first network communication being performed using a first international mobile subscriber identity of the electronic subscriber identity module, and the downloaded international mobile subscriber identity being a second international mobile subscriber identity (the UE may identify a first service associated with the first SIM. The first service may have a first priority, and a second service, associated with a second SIM, may have a second priority that is lower than the first priority. The UE may identify at least one re-prioritization condition that is satisfied and may, based at least in part on identifying the satisfied re-prioritization condition, adjust the second priority so that the adjusted second priority is higher than the first priority [0066-67] FIG.3); and
recovering from the network failure by enabling a second network communication of the second international mobile subscriber identity (the UE 402 may identify the first service associated with the first SIM of the UE 402, the first service having a first priority. The UE 402 may identify the second service associated with the second SIM of the UE 402, the second service having a second priority and the second priority may be higher than the first priority. The UE 402 may perform a local connection release associated with the first service based at least in part on identifying the second service and transition the UE 402 to an idle mode based at least in part on performing a registration procedure associated with the network. The UE 402 may perform a communication corresponding to the second service after transitioning to the idle mode [0081-82 FIG.4)
REJ does not explicitly teach a download request being triggered in response to detecting a failure.
Anslot teaches a download request being triggered in response to detecting a failure (Anslot: a machine type communication device to trigger the download of a subscription profile from a first network operator, the eUICC (also called embedded SIM (eSIM)) being provisioned with an identifier and a pre-loaded data set memorizing a range of International Mobile Subscription Identifiers (IMSI) associated to a second network operator [0007-12] sending an attachment request comprising the randomly selected IMSI for it to be received by a discovery server associated to the second network operator, the discovery server being adapted to generate a request for getting the eSIM identifier [0013-18] FIG.4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified REJ by the teaching of Anslot to trigger download requests in repose to network failure in order to download the subscription profile with its associated credentials (Anslot: [0055] [0073-76 FIG.2).
Claim 2 (allowable indicated subject matter). However, its rejected since it’s based on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 3, REJ teaches the network failure recovery method according to claim 1, wherein the first type of network failure comprises a network failure that results in an unavailability of a packet switching service (the first SIM 305a can perform communication tasks associated with a long term data service (e.g., a packet-switched (PS) data service, a circuit-switched (CS) data service, and/or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) [0061] FIG.3).
Regarding Claim 4, (allowable indicated subject matter). However, its rejected since it’s based on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 5, REJ teaches the network failure recovery method according to claim 4, further comprising: performing a Bearer Independent Protocol (BIP) activation corresponding to the first international mobile subscriber identity in response to a network transmission request cuitry outputting a notification of failure in opening a channel based on a failure in the BIP activation, the detecting that the first type of network failure has occurred being based on the notification (the UEs 120 may communicate using peer-to-peer (P2P) communications, device-to-device (D2D) communications, a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) protocol (e.g., which may include a vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) protocol, a vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) protocol, or a vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) protocol), e.g., independent protocol activation [0034] FIG.1).
Regarding claims 6-10 and 18, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-5 and 17, respectively. wherein the difference used is the limitations were presented from a “device” side with a processing circuitry (REJ: FIG.2) 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 17, REJ teaches the network failure recovery method according to claim 1, further comprising: performing the second network communication with the LTE network, the second network communication including transmitting a first communication signal to the LTE network, or receiving a second communications signal from the LTE network (The wireless network 100 may include one or more base stations 110 (shown as a BS 110a, a BS 110b, a BS 110c, and a BS 110d), a user equipment (UE) 120 or multiple UEs 120 (shown as a UE 120a, a UE 120b, a UE 120c, a UE 120d, and a UE 120e), and/or other network entities. A base station 110 is an entity that communicates with UEs 120. A base station 110 (sometimes referred to as a BS) may include, for example, an NR base station, an LTE base station, a Node B, an eNB (e.g., in 4G), a gNB (e.g., in 5G), an access point, and/or a transmission reception point (TRP). Each base station 110 may provide communication coverage for a particular geographic area [0025] FIG.1).
Regarding claims 11-16 and 19, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-5 and 17, respectively. wherein the difference used is the limitations were presented from a “computer-readable storage medium” side with a processor (REJ: [0007] FIG.2) 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.
Claim 20 (cancelled).
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
Prosecution Insights