DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-3, 18-34, received 15 July 2026. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-3, 18-34 is as follows:
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 18-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “period during which both collection of the one or more QoE measurements and transmission of QoE measurement reports corresponding to the one or more QoE measurements are suspended” however, the examiner is unable to find support for said feature. After careful review of the applicant’s specification, the examiner finds support for a period during which the collection of the one or more measurements are suspended. But there is not teaching, suggest or explicit recitation of the timer indicating a period during which transmission of QoE measurement reports corresponding to the one or more QoE measurements are suspended.
In the interest of advancing prosecution, the examiner understands the claimed feature “period during which both collection of the one or more QoE measurements and transmission of QoE measurement reports corresponding to the one or more QoE measurements are suspended” to indicate “period during which both collection of the one or more QoE measurements are suspended” as supported by the applicant’s specification [pg pub [0160, 0112, 0409, 0417-0419]).
Independent claims 18 and 26 are rejected for the same reasons presented above regarding independent claim 1.
Regarding the dependent claims, the claims depend on independent claims 1, 18 and 26 such that the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 18 and 26 and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 18-25, 26-27, 31-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US 20220038934 A1, hereafter referred to as Kumar) in view of Liu et al (US 20220417780 A1, hereafter referred to as Liu) in view of Hong (US 20220086671 A1, hereafter referred to as Hong).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar teaches a method performed by a wireless device, the method comprising:
determining one or more Quality of Experience (QoE) measurements to perform (Kumar [0125-0126] teaches identifying QoE variables indicated in the measurement request), wherein the one or more QoE measurements relate to one or more mobility events associated with a connected state of the wireless device (Kumar [0127] teaches the QoE measurements are associated with a handover), and wherein determining the one or more QoE measurements to perform is based at least in part on a type of the one or more mobility events and/or based at least in part on a state or stage of preparation or execution of the one or more mobility events (Kumar [Fig 4-445-460 and 0168-0170] teaches performing measurements upon a determination a triggering event for a handover procedure has occurred); and
performing the one or more QoE measurements (Kumar [0125-0126 and 0188] teaches performing QoE and RRM measurements).
However, Kumar does not explicitly teach receiving an instruction to suspend the one or more QoE measurements, the instruction indicates a duration time associated with the suspending the one or more QoE measurements, wherein the duration timer defines a time period during which both collection of the one or more QoE measurements and transmission of QoE measurement reports corresponding to the one or more QoE measurements are suspended.
Liu, in an analogous art, teaches receiving an instruction to suspend the one or more QoE measurements (Liu [0182, 0028] teaches receiving an suspension indication from the network node that includes an indication to stop measuring the set of experience quality information), the instruction indicates a duration time associated with the suspending the one or more QoE measurements (Liu [0156 and 0030] teaches the instruction includes a timer value, wherein the timer, with a duration indicated in the instruction, is initiated upon reception).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kumar in view of Liu in order to configure the receipt of an instruction to suspend the one or more QoE measurements, as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to provide power saving and overheating relief to a UE (Liu [0157, 0070]) and allow an overloaded network to reduce load (Liu [0070, 0079]).
However, Kumar-Liu does not explicitly teach the instruction indicates a duration time associated with the suspending the one or more QoE measurements, wherein the duration timer defines a time period during which both collection of the one or more QoE measurements and transmission of QoE measurement reports corresponding to the one or more QoE measurements are suspended.
Hong, in an analogous art, teaches receiving a configuration for suspending the one or more quality measurements (Hong [0162-0163] teaches receiving a configuration for stopping measurement or reporting, wherein the measurement and reporting are quality measurements and reporting [0122]), the configuration indicates a duration timer associated with suspending the one or more quality measurements (Hong [0162] discloses the configuration includes skip duration information for the UE to stop the cell measurement or reporting for a certain period or timer value [0163]), wherein the duration timer defines a time period during which both collection of the one or more measurements and transmission of measurement reports corresponding to the one or more measurements are suspended (Hong [0166] teaches upon a determination the timer, included in the configuration information, is running not performing the cell measurement or the reporting operation, wherein when the timer is in operation the UE may not perform cell measurement or the cell measurement report).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kumar-Liu in view of Hong in order to configure the instruction to suspend one or more QoE measurements including parameters or configuration, as taught by Kumar-Liu, include as a further parameter a duration time associated with the suspending the one or more measurements, wherein the duration timer defines a time period during which both collection of the one or more measurements and transmission of measurement reports corresponding to the one or more measurements are suspended, as taught by Hong.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to reduce the measurement and reporting overhead of the UE while providing an efficient measurement procedure (Hong [0150]), thereby allowing a UE to effectively manage processes and power (Hong [0171]).
Regarding claim 2, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the method further comprising: prior to performing the one or more QoE measurements, obtaining configuration information from the network (Kumar [0125]), the configuration information indicating at least one QoE measurement to be performed by the wireless device (Kumar [0125]).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the method wherein at least one of the one or more mobility events is one of: handover, DAPS handover, Conditional Handover, SCell addition, SCell change, PSCell change, conditional PSCell change (CPC), and master node / secondary node role switch (Kumar [0126] teaches a handover).
Regarding claims 18-20, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 1-3, wherein claims 18-20 recite functions of a wireless device executing the method of claims 1-3. Therefore, claims 18-20, are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above regarding claims 1-3.
Regarding claim 21, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 18, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the wireless device, the processing circuitry further configured to: suspend the one or more QoE measurements during at least a part of the one or more mobility events (Liu [0079] teaches suspend QoE measurements during the RAT or inter-system handover).
Regarding claim 22, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 21, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the wireless device, the processing circuitry further configured to:
resume the one or more QoE measurements based at least in part on the state or stage of the one or more mobility events (Hong [0214] teaches indicating conditions for the UE to enter a section requiring cell measurement or reporting, wherein the condition include measurement thresholds associated handover [0215] for controlling or triggering cell measurement or reporting [0219], whereby the cell measurement or report begins when the threshold is satisfied).
Regarding claim 23, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 18, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the wireless device wherein at least one of the one or more mobility events is a handover during which the wireless device connects to a source cell via a source link and to a target cell via a target link (Kumar [0159] teaches the optimization or adjusting of a communication link between the UE and serving base station as a handover to establish a new communication link with a target base station), and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether to perform the one or more QoE measurements on the source link, the target link, or both (Kumar [0159] teaches transmitting a measurement report to a serving base station. Kumar [0319-0320] teaches performing measurements on RRM variables associated with a serving base station and neighboring base stations).
Regarding claim 24, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 18, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the wireless device processing circuitry further configured to: send one or more QoE measurement reports to a network, the one or more QoE measurement reports based on the one or more QoE measurements (Kumar [0126]).
Regarding claim 25, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 24, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the wireless device the processing circuitry further configured to: receive optimization information from the network, the optimization information based on the one or more QoE measurement reports sent to the network (Kumar [0158-0159] teaches adjustments to provide link optimizations transmitted to the UE by the serving base station); and
apply the optimization information (Kumar [0159] teaches performing the handover procedure as indicated from the base station).
Regarding claim 26, Kumar teaches a network node (Kumar [0293] discloses a base station), the network node comprising:
power supply circuitry configured to supply power to the network node (Kumar [Fig 16] teaches a base station); and
processing circuitry (Kumar [Fig 16-1640]) configured to:
determine configuration information indicating one or more Quality of Experience (QoE) measurements to be performed by a wireless device (Kumar [0125, 0141 and 0154] teaches a base station transmitting a configuration signal indicating which QoE and RRM variables the UE is to measure and report), wherein the one or more QoE measurements relate to one or more mobility events associated with a connected state of the wireless device (Kumar [0166] teaches the base station configuring the UE to measure and report for mobility purposes), and wherein the configuration information indicates which QoE measurements the wireless device is to perform depending at least in part on a type of the one or more mobility events and/or depending at least in part on a state or stage of preparation or execution of the one or more mobility events (Kumar [0168-0170] teaches the UE performing measurements [Fig 4-455], as indicated in a received configuration [0154, 0141]), based on a triggering event determination for a handover procedure); and
send the configuration information to the wireless device (Kumar [0125, 0141, 0154]).
However, Kumar does not explicitly teach send an instruction to the wireless device to suspend the one or more QoE measurements, the instruction indicates a duration time associated with the suspending the one or more QoE measurements, wherein the duration timer defines a time period during which both collection of the one or more QoE measurements and transmission of QoE measurement reports corresponding to the one or more QoE measurements are suspended.
Liu, in an analogous art, teaches send an instruction to the wireless device to suspend the one or more QoE measurements (Liu [0155] teaches receiving an suspension indication from the network node that includes an indication to stop measuring the set of experience quality information), the instruction indicates a duration time associated with the suspending the one or more QoE measurements (Liu [0030, 0156] teaches a timer duration indicating in the suspension indication).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kumar in view of Liu in order to configure the wireless device, as taught by Kumar, to receive an instruction to suspend the one or more QoE measurements, as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to provide power saving and overheating relief to a UE (Liu [0157, 0070]) and allow an overloaded network to reduce load (Liu [0070, 0079]).
However, Kumar-Liu does not explicitly teach the instruction indicates a duration time associated with the suspending the one or more QoE measurements, wherein the duration timer defines a time period during which both collection of the one or more QoE measurements and transmission of QoE measurement reports corresponding to the one or more QoE measurements are suspended.
Hong, in an analogous art, teaches send an configuration to the wireless device (Hong [0174-0176] teaches a base station sending a configuration for stopping measurement or reporting, wherein the measurement and reporting are quality measurements and reporting [0122]), the configuration indicates a duration timer associated with suspending the one or more quality measurements (Hong [0162] discloses the configuration includes skip duration information for the UE to stop the cell measurement or reporting for a certain period or timer value [0163]), wherein the duration timer defines a time period during which both collection of the one or more measurements and transmission of measurement reports corresponding to the one or more measurements are suspended (Hong [0166] teaches upon a determination the timer, included in the configuration information, is running not performing the cell measurement or the reporting operation, wherein when the timer is in operation the UE may not perform cell measurement or the cell measurement report).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kumar-Liu in view of Hong in order to configure the instruction to suspend one or more QoE measurements, as taught by Kumar-Liu, include as a further parameter a duration time associated with the suspending the one or more measurements, wherein the duration timer defines a time period during which both collection of the one or more measurements and transmission of measurement reports corresponding to the one or more measurements are suspended, as taught by Hong.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to reduce the measurement and reporting overhead of the UE while providing an efficient measurement procedure (Hong [0150]), thereby allowing a UE to effectively manage processes and power [0171]).
Regarding claim 27, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 2.
Therefore, claims 27 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 31, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 23.
Therefore, claims 31 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 23.
Regarding claim 32, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 26, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the network node, the processing circuitry further configured to: send the wireless device information indicating a reporting format for the wireless device to use when sending one or more QoE measurement reports to the network (Kumar [0141] teaches a configuration signal indicating a format for the measurement report).
Regarding claim 33, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 26, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the network node, the processing circuitry further configured to: receive one or more QoE measurement reports from the wireless device (Kumar [0119]), the one or more QoE measurement reports based on the one or more QoE measurements performed by the wireless device (Kumar [0125]).
Regarding claim 34, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 33, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the network node, the processing circuitry further configured to: use the one or more QoE measurement reports received from the wireless device for one or more of self-optimizing network (SON) purposes, network performance diagnostics, identification of problematic network configurations, network configuration optimizations, and increased awareness of the users' experienced service quality (Kumar [0122, 0145] teaches using the reports for communication link optimization and mobility, low performance quality).
Claims 28-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US 20220038934 A1, hereafter referred to as Kumar) in view of Liu et al (US 20220417780 A1, hereafter referred to as Liu) in view of Hong (US 20220086671 A1, hereafter referred to as Hong) as applied above regarding claim 26, further in view of Chen et al (US 20220312283 A1, hereafter referred to as Chen).
Regarding claim 28, Kumar-Liu-Hong teaches the limitations of claim 26, as rejected above.
However, Kumar-Liu-Hong does not explicitly teach the network node, the processing circuitry further configured to: send the wireless device the instruction to suspend the one or more measurements during at least a part of the one or more mobility events.
Chen, in an analogous art, teaches the network node, the processing circuitry further configured to:
send the wireless device the instruction to suspend the one or more measurements during at least a part of the one or more mobility events (Chen [0009] teaches receiving a handover command from a network including an offset, whereby the UE suspends measurement and reporting during the offset [0018]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kumar-Liu-Hong in view of Chen in order to configure the instruction to suspend the one or more measurements, by the wireless device, as taught by Kumar-Liu-Hong, to be associated with at least part of one or more mobility events, as taught by Chen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to provide an enhanced procedure to reduce signaling overhead, collisions and power saving (Chen [0007 and 0091]).
Regarding claim 29, Kumar-Liu-Hong-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 28, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong-Chen teaches the network node, the processing circuitry further configured to:
send the wireless device a duration timer associated with the instruction to suspend (Liu [0155]. Likewise, Chen [0009] teaches a handover command) the one or more QoE measurements (Hong [0161-0163] discloses a skip duration or timer associated with the configuration to suspend the quality measurements or reporting).
Regarding claim 30, Kumar-Liu-Hong-Chen teaches the limitations of claim 28, as rejected above.
Additionally, Kumar-Liu-Hong-Chen teaches the network node, the processing circuitry further configured to:
send the wireless device the instruction to resume the one or more measurements during at least a part of the one or more mobility events Hong [0214] teaches indicating conditions for the UE to enter a section requiring cell measurement or reporting, wherein the condition include measurement thresholds associated handover [0215] for controlling or triggering cell measurement or reporting [0219], whereby the cell measurement or report begins when the threshold is satisfied).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the “period during which both collection of the one or more QoE measurements and transmission of QoE measurement reports corresponding to the one or more QoE measurements are suspended” limitation are considered moot due to the 112 rejection pertaining to the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 20130229931 A1);
Comsa et al (US 20170149514 A1);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights