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 .
Claims 1,3-8,19, 38-44 are amended. Claims 45-49 are newly added. Claims 2,9-18,20-37 were previously cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3-8,19,38-49 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.
The 112 rejections are withdrawn.
The 101 rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1,3-8,38-49 are 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.
Independent claims 1,19,38 recites, “converting metrics reporting data to a second metrics collection and reporting configuration framework that is compatible with a media format and is different to the first metrics collection and reporting configuration framework”. It is unclear what applicant meant by converting metrics reporting data to a second metrics collection and reporting configuration framework that is compatible with a media format. Does applicant mean a second metrics collection and reporting configuration framework that is compatible with a media format is the format of the receiving device? For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets mentioned limitation as converting metrics reporting data to a format of the second device which is the device receiving the metric data.
The dependent claims 3-8,39-49 are depended on the rejected base claims 1,19, 38, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1,3-8, 19, 38-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouazizi et al (us 2012/0151009) (hereinafter Bou009) in view of Bouazizi et al (us 2023/0292226) (hereinafter Bou226) and further in view of Goves, JR. (us 2014/0079057) (hereinafter Groves).
As regarding claim 1, Bou009 discloses reporting configuration framework defining the metrics to be collected and reported for a media session over the media streaming network (see Bou009, 0027,0030-0032, media presentation description specify definition of syntax and semantics for QoE metric to be report to the server).
Bou009 is silent in regard to the concept of providing a metrics collection and reporting configuration framework to an application function using a media streaming provisioning interface.
Bou226 teaches the concept of providing a first metrics collection and reporting configuration framework to an application function using a media streaming provisioning interface (see Bou226 0040,0043, 0090 service/application provider provision parameters to the client by indicating/providing type and parameter to AF via interface, also see figure 4A).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bou226 to Bou009 because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Bou009 with Bou226’s teaching for the purpose of efficiently collecting QoE from the client relate to the media session.
Bou009-Bou226 is silent in regard to the concept of converting metrics reporting data to a second metrics collection and reporting configuration framework that is compatible with a media format and is different to the first metrics collection and reporting configuration framework.
Groves teaches the concept of converting metrics reporting data to a second metrics collection and reporting configuration framework that is compatible with a media format and is different to the first metrics collection and reporting configuration framework (see Groves 0005,0018, receiver destination policy comprises receiver ID, telemetry stream type…where telemetry data (i.e. metric reporting data) formatted according to telemetry stream type of the receiver (i.e. second metrics collection and reporting configuration framework that is compatible with a media format; also see 0022, 0028 which discloses similar feature. It’s obvious that format of the telemetry data after formatted is different than the original telemetry data (i.e. first metrics collection and reporting configuration framework), otherwise there’s no need to format the telemetry data in the first place).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Groves to Bou009-Bou226 because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Bou009-Bou226 with Groves’ teaching for the purpose of efficiently transmitting telemetry data to the recipient (see Groves 0001).
As regarding claim 3, Bou009-Bou226-Groves discloses the metrics collection and reporting configuration framework is a metrics reporting data format identifier that identifies the metric data format to be used in metrics collection and reporting (see Bou009, 0031, send trigger to client to report which include address of server, metrics to be reported and format be reported).
As regarding claim 4, Bou009-Bou226-Groves discloses the metrics reporting data format identifier is smaller in size than the metrics data format that it identifies (see Bou009, figure.10, XML version identifier (i.e. format identifier)).
As regarding claim 5, Bou009-Bou226-Groves discloses the metrics reporting data format identifier is either a number or a free-format text string or a structured data object (see Bou009, 0004-0005, metric value).
As regarding claim 6, Bou009-Bou226-Groves discloses the metrics collection and reporting configuration framework includes a location indicating to where the metrics reports are to be provided (see Bou009, 0030-0033, address of server, also see Groves 0005, destination IP address, destination port).
As regarding claim 7, Bou009-Bou226-Groves discloses the location is outside the network domain of the mobile network operator that operates the media streaming network (see Bou009, figure.1, metric collecting ser 104 is separate from the web server 106, also see Bou226, figure.4, AF and AS are separate from one another and also separate from the UE).
As regarding claim 8, Bou009-Bou226-Groves discloses sending, from the application function to a user terminal, a metrics reporting object that includes a metrics system format used to collect and report the metrics (see Bou009, 0025,0031, xml format, Bou226, 0090, AF communicates parameters, metrics etc, direct to media session handler to collect and report the QoE metric).
As regarding claims 19, 38-49, limitations of claims 19,38-49 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 1,3-8, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459