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
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)(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 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by VELEV et al. (WO 2021/043417, Lenovo from IDS dated 03/28/2025).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, VELEV teaches identifying that the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state (Fig. 4A 421, 0b Connected for USIM-1);
identifying whether UE capability associated with the first SIM changes (Fig. 4A, 429whether to use short connection suspension for USIM-1) due to action in the second SIM (Fig. 4A, 1a MT Paging for USIM-2); and transmitting, to a base station via a RRC message, information on the UE capability associated with the first SIM as a response to the identifying that the UE capability associated with the first SIM changes due to the action in the second SIM (Fig. 4A, 430, 3a-1, RRC Suspend Request (or RRC Modification Request)), wherein the information on the UE capability includes information on carrier aggregation (CA) or dual connectivity (DC) capability (page 34 line 30, an existing RRC message can be used and the UE includes a specific indication (e.g. a new informational element, IE), such as 'no transmission' or 'temporary unavailable' or 'connection release due to activity for other USIM', or some similar indication. In the UE, it is a new trigger to send the request for RRC connection release/suspend, i.e. the trigger is due to a need to establish a connection for another USIM).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, VELEV teaches wherein the RRC message comprises UE assistance information (UAI) for reporting the information on the UE capability associated with the first SIM (Fig. 4A, 430, 3a-1, RRC Suspend Request (or RRC Modification Request), page 34 line 30, an existing RRC message can be used and the UE includes a specific indication (e.g. a new informational element, IE), such as 'no transmission' or 'temporary unavailable' or 'connection release due to activity for other USIM', or some similar indication. In the UE, it is a new trigger to send the request for RRC connection release/suspend, i.e. the trigger is due to a need to establish a connection for another USIM).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, VELEV teaches transmitting, to the base station, a UE capability update request message; and receiving, from the base station via a RRC signaling, a UE capability enquiry message for enquiring the information on the UE capability (Fig. 4A and Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 7, VELEV teaches: transitioning the second SIM from the one state to the another state when the first SIM is in the active state comprises at least one of: transitioning of the second SIM from an inactive state to an active state; and transitioning of the second SIM from an active state to an inactive state (Fig. 5A 501, 1. Active connection to USIM-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VELEV et al. (WO 2021/043417) in view of Kung et al. (US 20230180148).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, VELEV does not expressly teach wherein the information on the UE capability comprises information at least one of:
number of Rx links,
number of Tx links,
number of Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) layers,
supported bands,
supported band combinations, and
Power control parameters.
Kung teaches [0383] UE Capability Coordination/Update, During NR R15 stage, the temporary capability restriction was discussed. Nevertheless, only the UE assistance information (UAI) mechanism was introduced for reduction of number of CCs, Bandwidth and MIMO layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Kung in order to evolve into networks with the rapid rise in demand for communication of large amounts of data to and from mobile communication devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 8- 11 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 EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. 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.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights