DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 18 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the present application. This office action is made Final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (hereinafter Qiu) (US 11,153,825 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 16, Qiu discloses a method in an electronic device (e.g., user equipment 202) { (see Figs. 2-3) }, the method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors of the electronic device (e.g., 202), whether network congestion (e.g., traffic/channel quality) exceeds a predefined threshold { (see col. 22, lines 19-26; col. 17, lines 18-22; col. 19, lines 37-50; Figs. 2-3, 4 ‘S401’, 5, & 10), where the system has a user equipment (202) that monitors and determines communication channels and conditions (see col. 9, lines 23-43; Figs. 1-5) }; and
in response to the network congestion (e.g., traffic) exceeding the predefined threshold disabling (e.g., Fig. 7 ‘S410’), by the one or more processors a connected mode discontinuous reception (C-DRX) mode of operation in the electronic device (e.g., 202) { (see col. 22, lines 24-30; Figs. 2-5, 7 ‘ref. S410’, & 10), where the system determines that traffic information meets a condition for disabling CDRX (see col. 20, lines 56-63), and the system provides disabling CDRX according communication traffic information that has traffic conditions (e.g., quality) that are greater than a threshold (see col. 7, lines 17-18,33-35) }.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Qiu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the disabling continues as long as the network congestion exceeds the predefined threshold and re-enabling the C-DRX mode of operation when the network congestion falls below the predefined threshold or when the electronic device enters a new network location { (see col. 22, lines 35-40; Fig. 10), where the system has a UE (202) for monitoring traffic conditions level to restore CDRX }.
Regarding claim 3, Qiu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the disabling occurs only when one or more data latency sensitive applications are operating on the one or more processors and the network congestion exceeds the predefined threshold { (see col. 22, lines 24-30; Figs. 2-5, 7 ‘ref. S410’, & 10) }.
Regarding claim 4, Qiu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by a user interface, user input identifying one or more applications for which the C-DRX mode of operation should be disabled to enhance performance on a per-application basis; and disabling the C-DRX mode of operation while the one or more applications are operable on the one or more processors { (see col. 22, lines 24-30; Figs. 2-5, 7 ‘ref. S410’, & 10) }.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Qiu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the disabling occurs only when the one or more data latency sensitive applications are operating on the electronic device, an energy storage level of an energy storage device of the electronic device exceeds a minimum energy storage threshold, and the network congestion exceeds the predefined threshold { (see col. 22, lines 24-30; col. 3, lines 17-23; Figs. 2-5, 7 ‘ref. S410’, & 10) }.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Qiu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the disabling occurs only when the one or more data latency sensitive applications are operating on the electronic device, an energy storage device is connected to an external charger charging the energy storage device, and the network congestion exceeds the predefined threshold { (see col. 22, lines 24-30; col. 3, lines 17-23; Figs. 2-5, 7 ‘ref. S410’, & 10) }.
Regarding claims 7, Qiu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining comprises identifying whether a congestion flag has been set in a memory of the electronic device { (see col. 22, lines 19-26; col. 17, lines 18-22; col. 19, lines 37-50; Figs. 2-3, 4 ‘S401’, 5, & 10), where the system has a user equipment (202) that monitors and determines communication channels and conditions (see col. 9, lines 23-43; Figs. 1-5) }.
Regarding claims 8, 13, and 20, Qiu discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the congestion flag is set when any of the following occur: any one metric selected from a first class of metrics occurs; any two metrics selected from a second class of metrics having a lower categorization than the first class of metrics occurs; or any three metrics selected from a third class of metrics having a lower categorization than the second class of metrics occurs { (see col. 22, lines 19-26; col. 17, lines 18-22; col. 19, lines 37-50; Figs. 2-3, 4 ‘S401’, 5, & 10), where the system has a user equipment (202) that monitors and determines communication channels and conditions (see col. 9, lines 23-43; Figs. 1-5) }.
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Qiu discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the congestion flag is set when a network congestion probability exceeds a predefined network congestion probability threshold { (see col. 22, lines 19-26; col. 17, lines 18-22; col. 19, lines 37-50; Figs. 2-3, 4 ‘S401’, 5, & 10), where the system has a user equipment (202) that monitors and determines communication channels and conditions (see col. 9, lines 23-43; Figs. 1-5) }.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Qiu discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising determining the network congestion probability by one of: determining a first maximum metric from a first class of metrics; determining an average of a sum of the first maximum metric from the first class of metrics and a second maximum metric from a second class of metrics having a lower categorization than the first class of metrics; or determining an average of another sum of the first maximum metric from the first class of metrics and the second maximum metric from the second class of metrics having the lower categorization than the first class of metrics and a third maximum metric from a third class of metrics having the lower categorization than the second class of metrics { (see col. 22, lines 19-26; col. 17, lines 18-22; col. 19, lines 37-50; Figs. 2-3, 4 ‘S401’, 5, & 10), where the system has a user equipment (202) that monitors and determines communication channels and conditions (see col. 9, lines 23-43; Figs. 1-5) }.
Regarding claim 11, Qiu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the one or more processors designating one or more applications as user-overridable performance applications that, when operating on the one or more processors, require the C-DRX mode of operation to be disabled { (see col. 22, lines 24-30; Figs. 2-5, 7 ‘ref. S410’, & 10), where the system provides disabling, and), where the system has a user equipment (202) that monitors and determines communication channels and conditions (see col. 22, lines 19-26; col. 17, lines 18-22; col. 19, lines 37-50; col. 9, lines 23-43; Figs. 1-3, 4 ‘S401’, 5, & 10) }.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amended language, new limitations, and/or new claims.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as the applied reference(s) provide more than adequate support and to further clarify (see the above claims for relevant citations).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Balasubramanian et al. (US 9,756,088 B2) discloses IMS over soft AP admission control and resource management.
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 WILLIE J DANIEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-7907. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 - 6.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420. 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.
/WILLIE J DANIEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
WJD,Jr
14 January 2026