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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to applicant’s amendment/arguments submitted on September 15, 2025. Claims 1-20 are still currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s argument that Lunardi does not appear to teach performing first and second QoE measurements by the UE, based on the first configuration parameters at [165] (second to last paragraph of page 8 of “REMARKS”), the examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated by the examiner in the previous communication and acknowledged by applicant, the examiner cited paragraphs 165, 179, 195-196. Lunardi clearly shows this limitation when Lunardi discloses a method performed by a first RAN node for handling QoE measurement…that may be used when one or more QoE measurements are configured for at least one UE (paragraph 165). In other words, Lunardi indicates that “one or more QoE measurements”, which is read as “first and second QoE measurements”. In addition, at least paragraph 195 of Lunardi discloses that these QoE measurements are performed by the UE since the UE is sending the QoE report/measurements. Moreoever, Lunardi teaches that the first RAN sends to the UE a QoE measurement configuration that includes a setting to modify QoE measurement configuration and OoE reporting attributes (paragraph 195). In other words, the UE is sending the OoE report/measurements based on the claimed “QoE configuration parameters”.
With regard to applicant’s argument that while the stated rejection indicates that Lunardi transmits the first QoE reports based on the first QoE measurements and on a first format, Lunardi’s [204] teaches ONLY detecting a RAN overload and sending a UE therein a release with redirect to transfer the UE to a different carrier in the same or a different RAT (third paragraph on page 9 of “REMARKS”), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner did not rely on paragraph 204 to show this limitation. As can be seen from the previous communication, the examiner relied on paragraph 195, where in this passage, Lunardi teaches transmitting QoE reports to first RAN node according to QoE measurement configurations and QoE reporting attributes (i.e. first format). In other words, Lunardi clearly shows transmitting the first QoE reports based on the first QoE measurements and on a first format.
With regard to applicant’s argument that Lunardi’s [195], [196], and [219] do not teach transmitting to a second node one or more second QoE reports based on second QoE measurements and based on the second format (second to last paragraph of page 9 “REMARKS”), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Lunardi discloses in paragraph 196 that the UE sends QoE reports to the second RAN node. In addition, these QoE reports are transmitted using a “second format” since Lunardi discloses that the report amount of QoE reporting per second is changed or maximum QoE report size is changed. In other words, Lunardi is changing from a first format to a second format.
As a result, the claims are written such that they still read on Lunardi.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-8, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lunardi (U.S Patent Number US 20230319616 A1, hereby referred to as Lunardi).
Regarding, claim 1, Lunardi discloses a method of quality of experience (QoE) measurement and reporting in a multi-radio access technology (RAT) handover, comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) (at least one UE, see fig. 18A, [0194]) from a first base station (BS) of a first RAT (first RAN node, see [0194]), first QoE configuration parameters (first RAN sends to at least one UE, a QoE measurement configuration, see [0195]);
performing, by the UE, first QoE measurements and second QoE measurements, based on the first QoE configuration parameters (one or more QoE measurements are configured for at least one UE, UE(s) send QoE reports, number of reports per second, see [0165], [0179], [0195]- [0196]);
transmitting, to the first BS, one or more first QoE reports based on the first QoE measurements and based on a first format (transmitting QoE reports to first RAN node according to QoE measurement configurations and/or QoE reporting attributes, see [0195]);
receiving a handover command, from the first BS, indicating handover from the first BS to a second BS of a second RAT (release with redirect sent to transfer the UE, see [0204], [0225]); and
transmitting, to the second BS (second RAN node, see [0196]), one or more second QoE reports based on the second QoE measurements and based on a second format (overload condition requires changing report amount of QoE reporting per second, maximum QoE report size, see [0219], [0195]).
Consider claim 2, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lunardi discloses a method wherein;
the first format is based on one or more quality of experience (QoE) metrics (the first RAN node sends, to at least one UE, a QoE measurement configuration that may comprise an explicit setting to modify QoE measurement configurations and/or QoE reporting attributes, these attributes including the amount of QoE reporting per second, maximum QoE report size, indicating new reporting destination, etc. See [0195]); and
the second format is based on one or more second QoE metrics (overload condition requires another RAN node to receive QoE reports, which may involve changes to the report amount of QoE reporting per second, and maximum QoE report size, see [0219], [0195], [0196]).
Consider claim 3, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lunardi teaches a method wherein;
the handover command comprises second quality of experience (QoE) configuration parameters (a list of pending QoE measurement configurations for a set of UEs can be sent from first RAN node to the second RAN node, see [0204], [0205], [0225]); and
the second format is based on the second QoE configuration parameters (overload condition requires another RAN node to receive QoE reports, which may involve modifications to QoE measurement configurations and/or QoE reporting attributes, see [0219], [0195], [0196]).
Consider claim 4, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 3. In addition, Lunardi teaches a method wherein;
the handover command indicates handover from a first cell of the first BS to a second cell of the second BS (release with redirect sent to transfer the UE, first RAN node may initiate a secondary cell group change procedure for at least one UE with the configured QoE measurement to hand over the UE to a second RAN node, see [0204], [0215], [0219], [0225]); and
the handover command comprises configuration parameters, of the second cell, including the second QoE configuration parameters (a list of pending QoE measurement configurations for a set of UEs can be sent from first RAN node to the second RAN node, see [0204], [0205], [0215], [0225]);
Consider claim 5, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lunardi teaches a method wherein the handover command indicates handover from a first cell of the first base station to the second cell of the second base station (release with redirect sent to transfer the UE, first RAN node may initiate a secondary cell group change procedure for at least one UE with the configured QoE measurement to hand over the UE to a second RAN node, see [0204], [0215], [0219], [0225]);
Consider claim 6, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lunardi teaches a method wherein the first format is based on the first QoE configuration parameters (the first RAN node sends, to at least one UE, a QoE measurement configuration that may comprise an explicit setting or an index to a setting to be used in case of RAN overload. This setting may include a setting to modify QoE measurement configurations and/or QoE reporting attributes, see [0195]).
Consider claim 7, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lunardi teaches a method wherein the first RAT is new radio (NR) or long-term evolution (LTE) (both the first RAN node and the second RAN node can consist of logical functions defined for the same RATs, such as LTE or NR, see [0186], [0198], [0199]).
Consider claim 8, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lunardi teaches a method wherein the second RAT is new radio (NR) or long-term evolution (LTE)) (both the first RAN node and the second RAN node can consist of logical functions defined for the same RATs, such as LTE or NR, see [0186], [0198], [0199]).
Consider claim 15, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Lunardi teaches a method wherein a QoE measurement report is created for transmission via one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages (Fig. 11 illustrates how the UE can send QoE measurement results via the UTRAN to a Collecting Entity using the “Measurement report” RRC message, see [0053], [0134]).
Consider claim 16, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 15. In addition, Lunardi teaches a method wherein the QoE measurement report is associated with a QoE-related signaling radio bearer (SRB) (the UE sends the E-UTRAN node the QoE measurement results via a signaling radio bearer, SRB4, see [0053], [0061], [0065]).
Consider claim 17, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 16. In addition, Lunardi teaches a method wherein the QoE-related SRB is SRB4 (the UE sends the E-UTRAN node the QoE measurement results via a signaling radio bearer, SRB4, see [0053], [0061], [0065]).
Consider claim 19, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 15. In addition, Lunardi teaches a method wherein the one or more RRC messages comprise a measurement report application layer information element (MeasReportAppLayer) comprising the QoE measurement report (Fig. 11 illustrates how the UE can send QoE measurement results via the UTRAN to a Collecting Entity using the “Measurement report” RRC message and including the “Application layer measurement reporting” or “MeasReportAppLayer” IE, see [0053], [0072], [0134]).
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, 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 9, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunardi (U.S Patent Number US 20230319616 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view over Eklof (U.S Patent Number US 20230116324 A1, hereby referred to as Eklof).
Consider claim 9, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 1. However, Lunardi fails to teach a method wherein a handover request message is transmitted from the first BS to the second BS, or from the second BS to the first BS.
Eklof teaches a method wherein a handover request message is transmitted from the first BS to the second BS (see Fig. 14, 1430, [0143]) or from the second BS to the first BS (see Fig. 14, 1450, [0145]) (see [0143], [0145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Lunardi with the teachings of Eklof to have a base station send an acknowledgement message in response to another base station’s request for handover. This allows for the “target” base station to prepare radio resources and to have its measurement and reporting configured by the “source” base station prior to the handover (see Eklof, [0086], [0090]).
Consider claim 10, Lunardi in view of Eklof discloses all the limitations of claim 9. In addition, Eklof teaches a method wherein the receiving of the handover command (see Fig. 13, operation 5a, [0124]) occurs in response to the first base station (BS) (see Fig.13, 1310) receiving the handover acknowledge message from the second BS (see Fig.13, 1320, operation 4b, [0123]) (target cell, RNN2, responds to RNN1 with a handover request acknowledgement message. RNN1 sends an RRCConnectionReconfiguration message with a handover command to the UE, see [0123], [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Lunardi with the teachings of Eklof to have a UE receive the handover command from a first base station after said base station has received an acknowledgement message from a second base station. This allows the “source” base station to pass an RRC reconfiguration message from the “target” base station to the UE during handover (see Eklof, [0091], [0092]).
Consider claim 20, Lunardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. However, Lunardi fails to teach a method wherein the QoE measurement report comprises an identifier associated with the QoE configuration.
Eklof teaches a method (e.g., Fig. 6) wherein the QoE measurement report comprises an identifier associated with the QoE configuration (see Fig.6, operation 12, [0079]) (QoE reference identifier is transmitted to the UE alongside the QoE measurement configuration file. Once the UE completes the QoE measurement collection according to the received configuration, it reports results to the eNB along with the associated QoE reference ID, see [0076] lines 3-6, [0079] lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Lunardi with the teachings of Eklof to include a QoE reference ID associated with the QoE configuration file. This reference ID is included alongside the QoE configuration file and resulting QoE report file as the measurement results are eventually transmitted to a target base station and/or a measurement collection entity (see Eklof, Fig. 7 operations 12 and 13, [0079] lines 6-9).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunardi (U.S Patent Number US 20230319616 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kumar (U.S. Patent Number US 20220038934 A1, hereby referred to as Kumar).
Consider claim 11, Lunardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Lunardi fails to teach a method comprising receiving cell measurement configuration parameters of a plurality of cells comprising the second cell.
Kumar teaches a method comprising receiving cell measurement configuration parameters of a plurality of cells comprising the second cell (each base station may provide communication coverage via one or more cells. Serving base station 510 may transmit a reconfiguration message to UE 505 that identifies the target base station (e.g., indicate a cell identifier of the target base station) to perform the handover procedure. UE may receive the report configuration NR IE, which includes many fields that relate to cells attributes and cell measurements, including; MaxReportCells, reportAddNeighMeas, reportQuantityCell, useWhiteCellList, cellForWhichToReportSFTD, and so on. See Fig. 5, paragraphs [0076] lines 1-4, [0142] Table “ReportSFTD-NR field descriptions”, [0143], [0190] lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lunardi with the teachings of Kumar to send a UE configuration file that relate to the plurality of cells that comprise the second cell as this is necessary to complete a handover between base stations. Changes in location and/or worsening quality in signal strength require the “initial” base station to provide the UE configuration information that pertains to a “new” base station and associated cell(s) in preparation for handover (see Kumar, [0076] lines 1-4, [0125], lines 1-3, [0126]).
Consider claim 12, Lunardi in view of Kumar discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Kumar also teaches a method wherein the cell measurement configuration parameters comprise reference signal configuration parameters and measurement reporting configuration parameters (UE 205 may identify RRM variables, such as RSRP (reference signal received power), RSSI (reference signal strength indicator), CSI, CQI , interference level(s), etc., using various transmissions from base station 210. Reporting configuration NR IE includes fields that relate to reference signal configuration parameters as well as measurement reporting configuration parameters, including; il-Threshold, MaxReportCLI, reportAmount, and so on. UE 205 may receive the report configuration NR IE and configure the measurement report 225 accordingly. See Fig.2, [0104] lines 8-11, [0142] Table “CLI-EventTriggerConfig field descriptions”, [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lunardi with the teachings of Kumar to include reference signal parameters and measurement reporting configuration parameters along with cell configuration parameters as this allows user equipment to send reports to any connected base stations with measurements of their communication links, and to further determine if there is a need for handover if the connection(s) are determined to be subpar (see Kumar, [0004] lines 17-33, [0126]).
Consider claim 13, Lunardi in view of Kumar discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Kumar also teaches a method comprising: performing, based on the cell configuration parameters, radio resource management (RRM) measurements for the plurality of cells comprising the second cell (upon determination that one or more of the QoE variables in the set of QoE variables fails to satisfy the corresponding QoE constraint, this may trigger the Q1 response, which may include performing various RRM measurements for the communication link between UE 205 and base station 210 and between UE 204 and base station 215 and/or base station 220. See [0076] lines 1-4, [0140] lines 4-8) and;
transmitting RRM measurement reports, based on the RRM measurements, to the first base station (see Fig. 3, 310) (at 335, UE 305 may measure a set of RRM variables at the access stratum 320. At 355, the access stratum may transmit the measurement report to serving base station 310 indicating information associated with the set of QoE variables and the RRM variables in a multi-layer format, see Fig. 3, [0149] lines 1-2, [0157] lines 6-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lunardi with the teachings of Kumar to perform RRM measurements based on previously received configuration parameters and to send the results to the first base station to determine if there has been a drop in performance quality and whether handover to a new base station is required (see Kumar, [0125] lines 1-3, [0126]).
Consider claim 14, Lunardi in view of Kumar discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Kumar also teaches a method wherein a handover request message is transmitted by the first base station (see Fig. 2, 210) to the second base station (see, Fig. 2, 215 or 220) based on the radio resource management (RRM) measurement reports (the serving base station (e.g., base station 210) may select the target base station(s) to perform the handover procedure for UE 205 based on the resource status response(s) received from the target base station(s), e.g., based on the QoE variables/RRM variables of UE 205, see Fig. 2, [0145] lines 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lunardi with the teachings of Kumar to include cell measurement configurations within the handover command/procedure alongside QoE configurations, as they both relate to radio resource management. The resulting RRM reports allow user equipment and/or base stations to update or adjust the active communication link if the current link is performing at an unacceptable level (see Kumar, [0005] lines 1-5 and 13-18).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunardi (U.S Patent Number US 20230319616 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Tang (US Patent Number US 20240107360 A1, hereby referred to as Tang).
Consider claim 18, Lunardi discloses all the limitations of claim 17. Lunardi teaches a QoE related SRB, but fails to teach a method wherein the QoE-related SRB has a priority that is lower than a second SRB associated with an uplink common control channel logical channel.
Tang teaches a method wherein an SRB has lower priority than a second SRB associated with an uplink common control channel logical channel (the priority of the logical channels of SRB4 have a lower priority than that of the logic control channels of SRB 0 to 3, SRB0 using UL CCCH logical channels. See Fig.7, [0071] lines 11-14, [0072] lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lunardi with the teachings of Tang to utilize an SRB that handles upper layer RRC signaling (such as applicant layer and/or QoE measurement reporting) and that generally has lower priority than a second SRB associated with an uplink common control channel logical channel, as this allows for efficient communication among different transmission priorities of different message types (see Tang, [0007]).
Conclusion
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 Anthony Addy whose telephone number is (571) 272-7795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
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.
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights