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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 5/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1,10, and 19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a receiving unit and a sending unit in claims 10 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6,9-14,16, and 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,823 (referred to as P823 below). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-6,9-14,16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,823 (referred to as P823 below) in view of Senarath (US 20160352924).
Re claim 1:
Claim 1 merely broaden the scope of claim 1 of P823. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
P823 does not explicitly disclose a plurality of services of the service type in the network slice, the plurality of services includes a first service and a second service, wherein the first service is different from the second service, and the first service and the second service are each of a same service type.
Senarath discloses a plurality of services of the service type in the network slice; and the plurality of services includes a first application-layer service and a second application-layer service, wherein the first application-layer service is different from the second application-layer service, and the first application layer service and the second application layer service are each of a same service type (Para.[0232] A second service type includes services for single applications with similar QoE requirements/guarantees; for example, a single slice for a vertical service (alarm company, video delivery). A third service type includes services for multiple applications (which may have different QoE requirement guarantees) offered as a single aggregated service; e.g. multiple sub-slices for a virtual network slice with an aggregate traffic cap).
Re claim 3: Claim 3 is disclosed in the scope of claim 1 of P823.
Re claim 4: Claim 4 is disclosed in claim 5 of P823.
Re claim 5: Claim 5 is disclosed in claim 3 of P823.
Re claim 6: Claim 6 is disclosed in claim 4 of P823.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is disclosed in claim 6 of P823.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 9.
Claims 7,8,15, and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,823 (referred to as P823 below) in view of Senarath and Li (US 20220191766).
Re claim 7:
P823 discloses wherein the capability information indicates that the terminal supports application layer measurement collection on the network slice (Claim 1).
P823 does not explicitly disclose sending, by the first access network device, capability information of the terminal to the network device.
Li discloses sending, by the first access network device, capability information of the terminal to the network device (Fig. 5 ref. 504 Downlink NAS transport/UE radio capability match request, ref.505 UE capability Enquiry and ref 506 UE Capability Information and Para.[0405] If the UE 101 indicates the support for UE Application Layer Measurement, the eNB 103 shall if supported include the UE Application Layer Measurement Capability IE in the UE CAPABILITY INFO INDICATION message. The MME 105 shall, if supported, store and use the information when initiating UE Application Layer Measurement).
P823 and Li are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify P823 to include sending a request for capability information as taught by Li in order to improve identification of a UE category (Li Para.[0066]).
Re claim 8:
P823 does not explicitly disclose before the sending the capability information of the terminal to the network device, receiving, by the first access network device, a third message from the network device, wherein the third message is used to request to obtain the capability information of the terminal.
Li discloses before the sending the capability information of the terminal to the network device, receiving, by the first access network device, a third message from the network device, wherein the third message is used to request to obtain the capability information of the terminal (Fig. 5 ref. 504 Downlink NAS transport/UE radio capability match request, ref.505 UE capability Enquiry and ref 506 UE Capability Information and Para.[0405] If the UE 101 indicates the support for UE Application Layer Measurement, the eNB 103 shall if supported include the UE Application Layer Measurement Capability IE in the UE CAPABILITY INFO INDICATION message. The MME 105 shall, if supported, store and use the information when initiating UE Application Layer Measurement).
P823 and Li are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify P823 to include sending a request for capability information as taught by Li in order to improve identification of a UE category (Li Para.[0066]).
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,823 (referred to as P823 below) in view of Senarath and Liu (US 20220417780).
Re claim 19:
Claim 19 is disclosed in claim 1 of P823.
P823 does not explicitly disclose a receiving unit, configured to receive first application layer measurement configuration information from a network device.
Liu discloses a receiving unit, configured to receive first application layer measurement configuration information from a network device, wherein the first application layer measurement configuration information includes identification information and a service type, and the identification information indicates a network slice (Fig.2 ref. 202 QoE Measurement Activation Command and Para.[0090] Upon reception of QoE measurement configuration from core network or OAM, the RAN node can transmit the QoE measurement configuration to UE via a Uu interface. The QoE measurement configuration may include above QoS information, network slice information, RAT information, and/or node information, bearer type information and Para.[0082] A parameter can include QoS information. QoS information can include any of a QoS flow identifier (QFI), a PDU session ID, an E-RAB ID, QoS profile information (e.g., 5QI, ARP), a service type ID, etc and Para.[0083] A parameter can include network slice information (e.g., a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) identifier); and
P823 and Liu are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify P823 to include sending a request for capability information as taught by Liu in order to provide higher quality of service (Liu Para.[0003]).
Re claim 20:
Liu discloses the receiving unit is further configured to: receive a first message from the network device, wherein the first message includes the application layer measurement configuration information (Fig.2 ref. 202 QoE Measurement Activation Command and Para.[0090] Upon reception of QoE measurement configuration from core network or OAM, the RAN node can transmit the QoE measurement configuration to UE via a Uu interface).
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,7,10,11,13,14,16,19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20220417780) in view of Senarath (US 20160352924).
Re claim 1:
Liu discloses sending, by a first access network device, application layer measurement configuration information to a terminal, wherein the application layer measurement configuration information includes identification information, the identification information indicates a network slice (Fig.2 ref. 206 QoE Measurement Configuration and Para.[0066] the network can deliver the QoE measurement configuration to UE. This can include an application layer QoE measurement configuration container and requested service type. The UE's application layer can collect and log the experience information based on the configuration and send QoE measurement report to network and Para.[0090] Upon reception of QoE measurement configuration from core network or OAM, the RAN node can transmit the QoE measurement configuration to UE via a Uu interface. The QoE measurement configuration may include above QoS information, network slice information, RAT information, and/or node information, bearer type information and Para.[0083] A parameter can include network slice information (e.g., a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) identifier);
the application layer measurement configuration information further includes a service type; and the application layer measurement configuration information indicates to perform quality of experience measurement collection on (Para.[0066] the network can deliver the QoE measurement configuration to UE. This can include an application layer QoE measurement configuration container and requested service type. The UE's application layer can collect and log the experience information based on the configuration and send QoE measurement report to network); and
receiving, by the first access network device, an application layer measurement report from the terminal, wherein the application layer measurement report includes an application layer measurement result of the network slice (Fig.2 ref. 210 QoE Measurement Report and Para.[0066] the network can deliver the QoE measurement configuration to UE. This can include an application layer QoE measurement configuration container and requested service type. The UE's application layer can collect and log the experience information based on the configuration and send QoE measurement report to network), and
Liu does not explicitly disclose a plurality of services of the service type in the network slice, and the plurality of services includes a first application-layer service and a second application-layer service, wherein the first application-layer service is different from the second application-layer service, and the first application layer service and the second application layer service are each of a same service type.
Senarath discloses a plurality of services of the service type in the network slice (Para.[0232] A second service type includes services for single applications with similar QoE requirements/guarantees; for example, a single slice for a vertical service (alarm company, video delivery). A third service type includes services for multiple applications (which may have different QoE requirement guarantees) offered as a single aggregated service; e.g. multiple sub-slices for a virtual network slice with an aggregate traffic cap)., and
the plurality of services includes a first application-layer service and a second application-layer service, wherein the first application-layer service is different from the second application-layer service, and the first application layer service and the second application layer service are each of a same service type (Para.[0232] A second service type includes services for single applications with similar QoE requirements/guarantees; for example, a single slice for a vertical service (alarm company, video delivery). A third service type includes services for multiple applications (which may have different QoE requirement guarantees) offered as a single aggregated service; e.g. multiple sub-slices for a virtual network slice with an aggregate traffic cap).
Liu and Senarath are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include a plurality of services in a slice as taught by Senarath in order to improve the QoE for users of a network (Senarath Para.[0003]).
Re claim 2:
Liu discloses the identification information includes single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) (Para.[0083] A parameter can include network slice information (e.g., a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) identifier).
Re claim 4:
Liu discloses receiving, by the first access network device, a first message from a network device, wherein the first message includes the application layer measurement configuration information (Fig. 2 ref. 202 and Para.[0090] Upon reception of QoE measurement configuration from core network or OAM, the RAN node can transmit the QoE measurement configuration to UE via a Uu interface).
Re claim 5:
Liu discloses receiving, by the first access network device, capability information from the terminal, wherein the capability information indicates that the terminal supports application layer measurement collection on the network slice (Para.[0065] Additionally, the UE can inform network whether it supports QoE measurement collection. More specifically, the UE can indicate separate capabilities for streaming service and Multimedia Telephony Service for IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) (MTSI) service).
Re claim 7:
Liu discloses sending, by the first access network device, capability information of the terminal to the network device, wherein the capability information indicates that the terminal supports application layer measurement collection on the network slice (Para.[0065] Moreover, the network can deliver UE's QoE capability to core network such that the core network can rely on a UE capability together with RAN node's QoE capability and decide whether to trigger signaling based QoE measurement towards this UE).
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 19:
Liu discloses a receiving unit, configured to receive first application layer measurement configuration information from a network device, wherein the first application layer measurement configuration information includes identification information and a service type, and the identification information indicates a network slice (Fig.2 ref. 202 QoE Measurement Activation Command and Para.[0090] Upon reception of QoE measurement configuration from core network or OAM, the RAN node can transmit the QoE measurement configuration to UE via a Uu interface. The QoE measurement configuration may include above QoS information, network slice information, RAT information, and/or node information, bearer type information and Para.[0082] A parameter can include QoS information. QoS information can include any of a QoS flow identifier (QFI), a PDU session ID, an E-RAB ID, QoS profile information (e.g., 5QI, ARP), a service type ID, etc and Para.[0083] A parameter can include network slice information (e.g., a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) identifier);
the application layer measurement configuration information further includes a service type; and the application layer measurement configuration information indicates to perform quality of experience measurement collection on (Para.[0066] the network can deliver the QoE measurement configuration to UE. This can include an application layer QoE measurement configuration container and requested service type. The UE's application layer can collect and log the experience information based on the configuration and send QoE measurement report to network); and
a sending unit, configured to send second application layer measurement configuration information to a terminal, wherein the second application layer measurement configuration information indicates the terminal to perform quality of experience measurement collection on the service type, wherein (Fig.2 ref. 206 QoE Measurement Configuration and Para.[0066] the network can deliver the QoE measurement configuration to UE. This can include an application layer QoE measurement configuration container and requested service type. The UE's application layer can collect and log the experience information based on the configuration and send QoE measurement report to network):
the receiving unit is further configured to receive an application layer measurement report from the terminal, wherein the application layer measurement report comprises a result of performing application layer measurement by the terminal on the service type (Fig.2 ref. 210 QoE Measurement Report and Para.[0066] the network can deliver the QoE measurement configuration to UE. This can include an application layer QoE measurement configuration container and requested service type. The UE's application layer can collect and log the experience information based on the configuration and send QoE measurement report to network), and
Liu does not explicitly disclose a plurality of services of the service type in the network slice.
Senarath discloses a plurality of services of the service type in the network slice (Para.[0232] A second service type includes services for single applications with similar QoE requirements/guarantees; for example, a single slice for a vertical service (alarm company, video delivery). A third service type includes services for multiple applications (which may have different QoE requirement guarantees) offered as a single aggregated service; e.g. multiple sub-slices for a virtual network slice with an aggregate traffic cap)., and
the plurality of services includes a first application-layer service and a second application-layer service, wherein the first application-layer service is different from the second application-layer service, and the first application-layer service and the second application-layer service are each of a same service type (Para.[0232] A second service type includes services for single applications with similar QoE requirements/guarantees; for example, a single slice for a vertical service (alarm company, video delivery). A third service type includes services for multiple applications (which may have different QoE requirement guarantees) offered as a single aggregated service; e.g. multiple sub-slices for a virtual network slice with an aggregate traffic cap).
Liu and Senarath are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include a plurality of services in a slice as taught by Senarath in order to improve the QoE for users of a network (Senarath Para.[0003]).
Re claim 20:
Liu discloses the receiving unit is further configured to: receive a first message from the network device, wherein the first message includes the application layer measurement configuration information (Fig.2 ref. 202 QoE Measurement Activation Command and Para.[0090] Upon reception of QoE measurement configuration from core network or OAM, the RAN node can transmit the QoE measurement configuration to UE via a Uu interface).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20220417780) in view of Senarath (US 20160352924) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Park (US 20190357129).
Re claim 3:
As discussed above, Liu in view of Senarath meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Liu does not explicitly disclose wherein the S-NSSAI further includes slide differentiator (SD) information usable for identifying a unique network slice in response to the identification information pointing to a plurality of network slices.
Park discloses wherein the S-NSSAI further includes slide differentiator (SD) information usable for identifying a unique network slice in response to the identification information pointing to a plurality of network slices (Para.[0338] Single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) identifies a network slice. Each S-NSSAI is assistant information used for a network to select a specific network slice instance. The NSSAI is a set of S-NSSAI(s). The S-NSSAI includes the followings: [0339] Slice/service type (SST): the SST indicates the operation of a network slice expected form a viewpoint of a function and service. [0340] Slice differentiator (SD): the SD is optional information that supplements an SST(s) for selecting a network slice instance from a plurality of potential network slice instances all of which comply with an indicated SST).
Liu and Park are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include a S-NSSAI including a SD as taught by Park in order to properly and efficiently configure a network node to meets needs of a UE (Park.[0023]).
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Claim(s) 6,8,15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Senarath as applied to claims 5,7,14, and 16 above, and further in view of Li (US 20220191766).
Re claim 6:
As discussed above, Liu in view of Senarath meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Liu discloses (Para.[0065] Additionally, the UE can inform network whether it supports QoE measurement collection. More specifically, the UE can indicate separate capabilities for streaming service and Multimedia Telephony Service for IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) (MTSI) service).
Liu does not explicitly disclose before the receiving the capability information from the terminal, sending, by the first access network device, a second message to the terminal, wherein the second message is used to request to obtain the capability information of the terminal.
Li discloses before the receiving the capability information from the terminal, sending, by the first access network device, a second message to the terminal, wherein the second message is used to request to obtain the capability information of the terminal (Fig. 5 ref. 504 Downlink NAS transport/UE radio capability match request, ref.505 UE capability Enquiry and ref 506 UE Capability Information and Para.[0405] If the UE 101 indicates the support for UE Application Layer Measurement, the eNB 103 shall if supported include the UE Application Layer Measurement Capability IE in the UE CAPABILITY INFO INDICATION message. The MME 105 shall, if supported, store and use the information when initiating UE Application Layer Measurement).
Liu and Li are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include sending a request for capability information as taught by Li in order to improve identification of a UE category (Li Para.[0066]).
Re claim 8:
As discussed above, Liu in view of Senarath meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Liu discloses
Liu does not explicitly disclose before the sending the capability information of the terminal to the network device, receiving, by the first access network device, a third message from the network device, wherein the third message is used to request to obtain the capability information of the terminal.
Li discloses before the sending the capability information of the terminal to the network device, receiving, by the first access network device, a third message from the network device, wherein the third message is used to request to obtain the capability information of the terminal (Fig. 5 ref. 504 Downlink NAS transport/UE radio capability match request, ref.505 UE capability Enquiry and ref 506 UE Capability Information and Para.[0405] If the UE 101 indicates the support for UE Application Layer Measurement, the eNB 103 shall if supported include the UE Application Layer Measurement Capability IE in the UE CAPABILITY INFO INDICATION message. The MME 105 shall, if supported, store and use the information when initiating UE Application Layer Measurement).
Liu and Li are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include sending a request for capability information as taught by Li in order to improve identification of a UE category (Li Para.[0066]).
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu view of Senarath as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Teyeb (US 20220264383).
Re claim 9:
As discussed above, Liu in view of Senarath meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Liu discloses sending, (Para.[0136] In some embodiments, in case of CU-DU split and Para.[0066] The UE's application layer can collect and log the experience information based on the configuration and send QoE measurement report to network); and
receiving, by the CU in the first access network device, the application layer measurement report from the terminal, and sending the application layer measurement report of the terminal to the DU in the first access network device (Para.[0136] In some embodiments, in case of CU-DU split, when network receives QoE measurement report from UE, the CU can forward the QoE measurement results to DU).
As shown above, Liu discloses a network node sending a measurement configuration to a terminal. Liu further discloses the network node includes a CU and a DU. Liu does not explicitly disclose the CU sends the configuration to the terminal.
Teyeb discloses the CU sends the configuration to the terminal (Para.[0315] where the MT can receive, from the CU, a measurement configuration).
Liu and Teyeb are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include a CU sending a configuration to a terminal as taught by Teyeb in order to improve flexibility in monitoring quality of service (Teyeb Para.[0400]).
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,10, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights