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 .
Summary
This action is a responsive to the amendment filed on 6/5/2025.
Claims 14-15, 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-13, 16-18, 20-24 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-13, 16-18, 20-24 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claims under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s Response:
To advance prosecution, without prejudice or disclaimer, Applicant is amending
independent claims 1, 8 and 16 to recite that "the maximum PLR value is based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object specifying the maximum PLR value in alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange between the first UE and the second UE," as suggested by the Examiner (emphases added). Applicant submits that no suitable combination of the relied-upon portions of the applicable references disclose or suggest the amended features of these claims, and accordingly requests that the rejections of these claims be withdrawn, along with the rejections of respective dependent claims. Support for the amended features can be found in the application at least in [0050-52] and Table 13 of the published application. No new subject matter has been added.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the term “alphabetical format” implies that the format is all alphabetic characters (no numbers)”. The Examiner has reviewed the specification and failed to find support the alphabetic characters only (no numbers) interpretation. Table 13 identifies that the format for the “MaxPLRSet” is “chr” (character). A character is defined as a symbol, a letter or number. Thus, includes numbers.
The combination of LEUNG (US 20200153972 A1) and S4-190016 (“Change Request for Coverage and Handoff Enhancements for Media (CHEM)”, NPL), hereinafter 3GPP Specification, and LEUNG (US 20200358552 A1), hereinafter LEUNG’552, and Gestraud et al. (US 20220021658 A1) teaches the language of the independent claims.
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, 8 and 16 are 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. The Applicant argues that the term “alphabetical format” implies that the format is all alphabetic characters (no numbers)”. The Examiner has reviewed the specification and failed to find support the alphabetic characters only (no numbers) interpretation. Table 13 identifies that the format for the “MaxPLRSet” is “chr” (character). A character is defined as a symbol, a letter or number. Thus, includes numbers. Therefore, no support for an alphabetic characters only (no numbers) interpretation can be found in the specification.
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 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 1-4, 6-12, 14-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEUNG (US 20200153972 A1) and further in view of S4-190016 (“Change Request for Coverage and Handoff Enhancements for Media (CHEM)”, NPL), hereinafter 3GPP Specification, and LEUNG (US 20200358552 A1), hereinafter LEUNG’552, and Gestraud et al. (US 20220021658 A1).
As to claim 1, LEUNG teaches a method comprising: receiving a maximum packet loss rate (PLR) value adaptively determined for an end-to-end communication between the first UE and a second UE (See ¶¶ [0288], [0289], [0261] Teaches that the first UE transmits, to the second UE, the maximum end-to-end PLR that the first UE can tolerate for received media given the negotiated codec configuration. The first UE receives, from the second UE, a maximum end-to-end PLR that the second UE can tolerate for received media given the negotiated codec configuration. When a session is initiated or modified, the PCF supporting the Coverage and Handoff Enhancements using Multimedia error robustness feature (CHEM) can derive the PLR_adapt and maxe2e-PLR attribute values based on attributes in both the SDP offer and/or SDP answer to determine the maximum tolerable end-to-end PLR budget distributed across the uplink and downlink in a media transport path.);
wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object specifying the maximum PLR value in alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange between the first UE and the second UE (See ¶¶ [0081], [0080], Teaches that the UEs 302-1, 302-2 may engage in a negotiation (e.g., via session description protocol (SDP)) to explicitly negotiate how to distribute the distribute the maximum tolerable end-to-end PLR. The UEs 302-1, 302-2 can be specified, pre-configured, or dynamically configured (e.g., via open mobile alliance device management (OMA-DM)) to divide the max end-to-end (e2e) PLR across the uplink and downlink according to an agreed-upon ratio.);
distributing the maximum PLR value between an uplink maximum PLR value and a downlink maximum PLR value (See ¶ [0290], Teaches that the first UE negotiates a distribution of the maximum end-to-end PLRs among respective uplinks and downlinks at the first UE and the second UE. In an aspect, operation 740 may be performed by communication device 608, processing system 632, memory component 638, and/or negotiation module 644, any or all of which may be considered means for performing this operation.);
and transmitting the uplink maximum PLR value and the downlink maximum PLR value to a base station serving the first UE (See ¶ [0291], Teaches that the first UE optionally transmits, to a serving base station, a message to request a maximum uplink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the first UE to the second UE and a maximum downlink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the second UE to the first UE according to the negotiated distribution. In an aspect, operation 750 may be performed by transmitter 610, processing system 632, memory component 638, and/or negotiation module 644, any or all of which may be considered means for performing this operation.).
However, it does not expressly teach the details from a first user equipment (UE) that supports coverage and handover enhancements using multimedia error robustness (CHEM); wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object; alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange.
3GPP Specification, from analogous art, teaches from a first user equipment (UE) that supports coverage and handover enhancements using multimedia error robustness (CHEM) (See Annex X Pgs. 3-8, Annex X specifies the CHEM feature which enables the 3GPP system to exploit error robustness to avoid, delay, or reduce the need to handoff a terminal due to degradation in the media quality.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of 3GPP Specification into LEUNG in order to comply with the technical standard as stated by the 3GPP (See 3GPP Specification).
However, it does not expressly teach the details of wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object specifying the maximum PLR value in character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange between the first UE and the second UE; alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange.
LEUNG’552, from analogous art, teaches wherein the maximum PLR value is adaptively determined based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object specified during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange between the first UE and the second UE (See ¶ [0029], Teaches that the configuration data 107 includes one or more open mobile alliance (OMA) device management (DM) standardized objects to specify one or more of the PLR average window duration 162, the codec configuration list 164, the high PLR threshold list 166, the low PLR threshold list 168, the high PLR adaptation request type list 172, or the low PLR adaptation request type list 174. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for LEUNG’s negotiation (e.g., via session description protocol (SDP)) to be an OMA-DM) media adaptation management object).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of LEUNG’552 into the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification in order to determine when to adjust codec modes based on comparing a determined packet loss rate to the packet loss rate thresholds in the configuration data and to select the next codec configuration mode to be used (See LEUNG’552 ¶ [0022]).
However, it does not expressly teach the details of alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange.
Gestraud et al., from analogous art, teaches alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange (See ¶ [0094], Teaches that An SDP invitation message is for example composed of different lines of “<character>=<value>”, where “<character>” denotes an alphabetic letter and where “<value>” is a structured text. A description of the session can be given by “o=(origin and session identifier: user name, identifier, version number, network address)” to define the initiator and/or recipient of the communication. A description of the time synchronization of the session can for example be given by “t=(time at which the session is activated)”. A description of the types of signals transmitted during the communication can for example be given by “m=(name of the medium and address of the transport)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gestraud et al. into the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 in order to e to establish communications on networks managed by different operators (See Gestraud et al. ¶ [0004]).
As to claim 2, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 above. LEUNG further teaches further comprising: causing the base station to determine one or more handover thresholds (See ¶ [0078], Teaches that FIGS. 4A-4C illustrate exemplary communication flows that can be used to provide a base station (e.g., base stations 322-1, 322-2) with suitable information to establish an appropriate handover threshold based on tolerable packet loss at a terminal (e.g., UEs 302-1, 302-2). Furthermore, because the PLC algorithm(s) and JBM implementation(s) can vary from one terminal to another, the appropriate handover threshold may be UE-specific because two UEs that are using the same multimedia codec may be able to tolerate different PLRs due to differences in the PLC algorithm(s) and/or JBM implementation(s) in use at the respective UEs.).
As to claim 3, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 above. LEUNG further teaches wherein the maximum PLR value indicates a robustness of a codec (See ¶¶ [0288], [0006], Teaches that the first UE transmits, to the second UE, the maximum end-to-end PLR that the first UE can tolerate for received media given the negotiated codec configuration. Based on the exchanged information, a message may be sent to a base station to indicate the maximum packet loss rate (PLR) for each terminal. Additional techniques may ensure that the terminals use the most robust codecs or codec modes that are available when nearing the edge of coverage to help avoid unnecessary and/or excessive handovers.).
As to claim 4, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 above. LEUNG further teaches wherein receiving the maximum PLR value comprises: obtaining a SDP parameter from the first UE, wherein the SDP parameter comprises the maximum PLR value (See ¶ [0081], Teaches that UE 302-1 may send an SDP message with the maximum end-to-end PLR that the UE 302-1 can receive for a codec mode and a current PLC/JMB implementation (e.g., six percent). The other UE 302-2 receives the parameter in the SDP message and decides to use of a portion of this end-to-end PLR for the uplink to base station 322-2 (e.g., four percent)).
As to claim 6, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 above. LEUNG further teaches wherein the maximum PLR value is adaptively determined with jitter buffer management (JBM) (See ¶ [0008], Teaches that According to various aspects, another method for increasing network coverage for a VoIP session between a first UE and a second UE may comprise monitoring, by a network entity serving the first UE, a codec configuration negotiation between the first UE and the second UE, wherein the codec configuration negotiation includes an exchange of maximum end-to-end PLRs that the first UE and the second UE can tolerate for received media based at least in part on the negotiated codec configuration, wherein the maximum end-to-end PLRs may be further based on respective PLC and JBM implementations in use at the first UE and the second UE, determining, by the network entity, an agreed-upon distribution of the maximum end-to-end PLRs among respective uplinks and downlinks at the first UE and the second UE, and transmitting, by the network entity to a base station serving the first UE, a message to request a maximum uplink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the first UE to the second UE and a maximum downlink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the second UE to the first UE according to the agreed-upon distribution.).
As to claim 7, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 above. LEUNG further teaches wherein the maximum PLR value is adaptively determined with packet loss concealment (PLC) (See ¶ [0008], Teaches that According to various aspects, another method for increasing network coverage for a VoIP session between a first UE and a second UE may comprise monitoring, by a network entity serving the first UE, a codec configuration negotiation between the first UE and the second UE, wherein the codec configuration negotiation includes an exchange of maximum end-to-end PLRs that the first UE and the second UE can tolerate for received media based at least in part on the negotiated codec configuration, wherein the maximum end-to-end PLRs may be further based on respective PLC and JBM implementations in use at the first UE and the second UE, determining, by the network entity, an agreed-upon distribution of the maximum end-to-end PLRs among respective uplinks and downlinks at the first UE and the second UE, and transmitting, by the network entity to a base station serving the first UE, a message to request a maximum uplink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the first UE to the second UE and a maximum downlink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the second UE to the first UE according to the agreed-upon distribution.).
As to claim 8, LEUNG teaches a network entity comprising a processor configured to cause the network entity to perform operations comprising: receiving a maximum packet loss rate (PLR) value adaptively determined for an end-to-end communication between the first UE and a second UE (See ¶¶ [0288], [0289], [0261] Teaches that the first UE transmits, to the second UE, the maximum end-to-end PLR that the first UE can tolerate for received media given the negotiated codec configuration. The first UE receives, from the second UE, a maximum end-to-end PLR that the second UE can tolerate for received media given the negotiated codec configuration. When a session is initiated or modified, the PCF supporting the Coverage and Handoff Enhancements using Multimedia error robustness feature (CHEM) can derive the PLR_adapt and maxe2e-PLR attribute values based on attributes in both the SDP offer and/or SDP answer to determine the maximum tolerable end-to-end PLR budget distributed across the uplink and downlink in a media transport path.);
wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object specifying the maximum PLR value in alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange between the first UE and the second UE (See ¶¶ [0081], [0080], Teaches that the UEs 302-1, 302-2 may engage in a negotiation (e.g., via session description protocol (SDP)) to explicitly negotiate how to distribute the distribute the maximum tolerable end-to-end PLR. The UEs 302-1, 302-2 can be specified, pre-configured, or dynamically configured (e.g., via open mobile alliance device management (OMA-DM)) to divide the max end-to-end (e2e) PLR across the uplink and downlink according to an agreed-upon ratio.);
distributing the maximum PLR value between an uplink maximum PLR value and a downlink maximum PLR value (See ¶ [0290], Teaches that the first UE negotiates a distribution of the maximum end-to-end PLRs among respective uplinks and downlinks at the first UE and the second UE. In an aspect, operation 740 may be performed by communication device 608, processing system 632, memory component 638, and/or negotiation module 644, any or all of which may be considered means for performing this operation.);
and transmitting the uplink maximum PLR value and the downlink maximum PLR value to a base station serving the first UE (See ¶ [0291], Teaches that the first UE optionally transmits, to a serving base station, a message to request a maximum uplink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the first UE to the second UE and a maximum downlink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the second UE to the first UE according to the negotiated distribution. In an aspect, operation 750 may be performed by transmitter 610, processing system 632, memory component 638, and/or negotiation module 644, any or all of which may be considered means for performing this operation.).
However, it does not expressly teach the details from a first user equipment (UE) that supports coverage and handover enhancements using multimedia error robustness (CHEM); wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object; alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange.
3GPP Specification, from analogous art, teaches from a first user equipment (UE) that supports coverage and handover enhancements using multimedia error robustness (CHEM) (See Annex X Pgs. 3-8, Annex X specifies the CHEM feature which enables the 3GPP system to exploit error robustness to avoid, delay, or reduce the need to handoff a terminal due to degradation in the media quality.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of 3GPP Specification into LEUNG in order to comply with the technical standard as stated by the 3GPP (See 3GPP Specification).
However, it does not expressly teach the details of wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object specifying the maximum PLR value in character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange between the first UE and the second UE; alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange.
LEUNG’552, from analogous art, teaches wherein the maximum PLR value is adaptively determined based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object specified during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange between the first UE and the second UE (See ¶ [0029], Teaches that the configuration data 107 includes one or more open mobile alliance (OMA) device management (DM) standardized objects to specify one or more of the PLR average window duration 162, the codec configuration list 164, the high PLR threshold list 166, the low PLR threshold list 168, the high PLR adaptation request type list 172, or the low PLR adaptation request type list 174. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for LEUNG’s negotiation (e.g., via session description protocol (SDP)) to be an OMA-DM) media adaptation management object).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of LEUNG’552 into the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification in order to determine when to adjust codec modes based on comparing a determined packet loss rate to the packet loss rate thresholds in the configuration data and to select the next codec configuration mode to be used (See LEUNG’552 ¶ [0022]).
However, it does not expressly teach the details of alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange.
Gestraud et al., from analogous art, teaches alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange (See ¶ [0094], Teaches that An SDP invitation message is for example composed of different lines of “<character>=<value>”, where “<character>” denotes an alphabetic letter and where “<value>” is a structured text. A description of the session can be given by “o=(origin and session identifier: user name, identifier, version number, network address)” to define the initiator and/or recipient of the communication. A description of the time synchronization of the session can for example be given by “t=(time at which the session is activated)”. A description of the types of signals transmitted during the communication can for example be given by “m=(name of the medium and address of the transport)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gestraud et al. into the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 in order to e to establish communications on networks managed by different operators (See Gestraud et al. ¶ [0004]).
As to claim 9, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the network entity according to claim 8 above. LEUNG further teaches wherein the network entity comprises a policy and charging rules function (PC RF) (See ¶ [0084], Teaches that the network entity(ies) may comprise a call session control function (CSCF) or policy and charging rules function (PCRF) 412-1 that sends a message 442 to base station 322-1 to signal the uplink and downlink PLR for UE 302-1 as well as a CSCF/PCRF 412-2 that sends a message 444 to base station 322-2 to signal the uplink and downlink PLR for UE 302-2. In various aspects, the CSCF/PCRFs 412-1, 412-2 can decide to request that each of the base stations 322-1, 322-2 provide links to support PLRs that are based on a particular ratio.).
As to claim 10, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the network entity according to claim 8 above. LEUNG further teaches the operations further comprising: causing, via the transmitted uplink maximum PLR value and the downlink maximum PLR value, the base station to determine one or more handover thresholds (See ¶ [0078], Teaches that FIGS. 4A-4C illustrate exemplary communication flows that can be used to provide a base station (e.g., base stations 322-1, 322-2) with suitable information to establish an appropriate handover threshold based on tolerable packet loss at a terminal (e.g., UEs 302-1, 302-2). Furthermore, because the PLC algorithm(s) and JBM implementation(s) can vary from one terminal to another, the appropriate handover threshold may be UE-specific because two UEs that are using the same multimedia codec may be able to tolerate different PLRs due to differences in the PLC algorithm(s) and/or JBM implementation(s) in use at the respective UEs.).
As to claim 11, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the network entity according to claim 8 above. LEUNG further teaches wherein the maximum PLR value indicates a robustness of a codec (See ¶¶ [0288], [0006], Teaches that the first UE transmits, to the second UE, the maximum end-to-end PLR that the first UE can tolerate for received media given the negotiated codec configuration. Based on the exchanged information, a message may be sent to a base station to indicate the maximum packet loss rate (PLR) for each terminal. Additional techniques may ensure that the terminals use the most robust codecs or codec modes that are available when nearing the edge of coverage to help avoid unnecessary and/or excessive handovers.).
As to claim 12, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the network entity according to claim 9 above. LEUNG further teaches wherein receiving the maximum PLR value comprises: obtaining a SDP parameter from the first UE, and wherein the SDP parameter comprises the maximum PLR value (See ¶ [0081], Teaches that UE 302-1 may send an SDP message with the maximum end-to-end PLR that the UE 302-1 can receive for a codec mode and a current PLC/JMB implementation (e.g., six percent). The other UE 302-2 receives the parameter in the SDP message and decides to use of a portion of this end-to-end PLR for the uplink to base station 322-2 (e.g., four percent)).
As to claim 16, LEUNG teaches an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: adaptively determining a maximum packet loss rate (PLR) value for an end-to- end communication between a user equipment (UE) that supports coverage and handover enhancements using multimedia error robustness (CHEM) and a second UE (See ¶¶ [0085], [0087], [0261] Teaches that UE 302-1 may send an SDP message with the maximum end-to-end PLR that the UE 302-1 can receive for a codec mode and a current PLC/JMB implementation. According to various aspects, as described herein, the maximum end-to-end PLR and the PLR for each of the links 332, 336, 342, 346 may be pre-configured at the device level (e.g., at manufacture time) and/or configured at the device level via OMA-DM. For example, as noted above, the PLR values may generally depend on device-specific and/or operator-specific parameters related to supported codecs, supported codec modes, PLC algorithms, JBM implementations, and so on. When a session is initiated or modified, the PCF supporting the Coverage and Handoff Enhancements using Multimedia error robustness feature (CHEM) can derive the PLR_adapt and maxe2e-PLR attribute values based on attributes in both the SDP offer and/or SDP answer to determine the maximum tolerable end-to-end PLR budget distributed across the uplink and downlink in a media transport path.);
wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object specifying the maximum PLR value in alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange between the first UE and the second UE (See ¶¶ [0081], [0080], Teaches that the UEs 302-1, 302-2 may engage in a negotiation (e.g., via session description protocol (SDP)) to explicitly negotiate how to distribute the distribute the maximum tolerable end-to-end PLR. The UEs 302-1, 302-2 can be specified, pre-configured, or dynamically configured (e.g., via open mobile alliance device management (OMA-DM)) to divide the max end-to-end (e2e) PLR across the uplink and downlink according to an agreed-upon ratio.);
and causing the UE to transmit the maximum PLR value to a network entity (See ¶¶ [0288], [0289], [0261] Teaches that the first UE transmits, to the second UE, the maximum end-to-end PLR that the first UE can tolerate for received media given the negotiated codec configuration. The first UE receives, from the second UE, a maximum end-to-end PLR that the second UE can tolerate for received media given the negotiated codec configuration.),
wherein the network entity distributes the maximum PLR value between an uplink maximum PLR value and a downlink maximum PLR value (See ¶ [0290], Teaches that the first UE negotiates a distribution of the maximum end-to-end PLRs among respective uplinks and downlinks at the first UE and the second UE. In an aspect, operation 740 may be performed by communication device 608, processing system 632, memory component 638, and/or negotiation module 644, any or all of which may be considered means for performing this operation.),
and wherein the network entity transmits the uplink maximum PLR value and the downlink maximum PLR value to the base station (See ¶ [0291], Teaches that the first UE optionally transmits, to a serving base station, a message to request a maximum uplink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the first UE to the second UE and a maximum downlink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the second UE to the first UE according to the negotiated distribution. In an aspect, operation 750 may be performed by transmitter 610, processing system 632, memory component 638, and/or negotiation module 644, any or all of which may be considered means for performing this operation.).
However, it does not expressly teach the details of that supports coverage and handover enhancements using multimedia error robustness (CHEM); wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object; alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange.
3GPP Specification, from analogous art, teaches that supports coverage and handover enhancements using multimedia error robustness (CHEM) (See Annex X Pgs. 3-8, Annex X specifies the CHEM feature which enables the 3GPP system to exploit error robustness to avoid, delay, or reduce the need to handoff a terminal due to degradation in the media quality.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of 3GPP Specification into LEUNG in order to comply with the technical standard as stated by the 3GPP (See 3GPP Specification).
However, it does not expressly teach the details of wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object specifying the maximum PLR value in character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange between the first UE and the second UE; alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange.
LEUNG’552, from analogous art, teaches wherein the maximum PLR value is adaptively determined based at least on an Open Mobile Alliance-Device Management (OMA-DM) media adaptation management object specified during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange between the first UE and the second UE (See ¶ [0029], Teaches that the configuration data 107 includes one or more open mobile alliance (OMA) device management (DM) standardized objects to specify one or more of the PLR average window duration 162, the codec configuration list 164, the high PLR threshold list 166, the low PLR threshold list 168, the high PLR adaptation request type list 172, or the low PLR adaptation request type list 174. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for LEUNG’s negotiation (e.g., via session description protocol (SDP)) to be an OMA-DM) media adaptation management object).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of LEUNG’552 into the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification in order to determine when to adjust codec modes based on comparing a determined packet loss rate to the packet loss rate thresholds in the configuration data and to select the next codec configuration mode to be used (See LEUNG’552 ¶ [0022]).
However, it does not expressly teach the details of alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange.
Gestraud et al., from analogous art, teaches alphabetical character format during a session description protocol (SDP) exchange (See ¶ [0094], Teaches that An SDP invitation message is for example composed of different lines of “<character>=<value>”, where “<character>” denotes an alphabetic letter and where “<value>” is a structured text. A description of the session can be given by “o=(origin and session identifier: user name, identifier, version number, network address)” to define the initiator and/or recipient of the communication. A description of the time synchronization of the session can for example be given by “t=(time at which the session is activated)”. A description of the types of signals transmitted during the communication can for example be given by “m=(name of the medium and address of the transport)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gestraud et al. into the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 in order to e to establish communications on networks managed by different operators (See Gestraud et al. ¶ [0004]).
As to claim 17, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the apparatus according to claim 16 above. LEUNG further teaches wherein the maximum PLR value indicates a robustness of a codec (See ¶¶ [0288], [0006], Teaches that the first UE transmits, to the second UE, the maximum end-to-end PLR that the first UE can tolerate for received media given the negotiated codec configuration. Based on the exchanged information, a message may be sent to a base station to indicate the maximum packet loss rate (PLR) for each terminal. Additional techniques may ensure that the terminals use the most robust codecs or codec modes that are available when nearing the edge of coverage to help avoid unnecessary and/or excessive handovers.).
As to claim 18, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the apparatus according to claim 16 above. LEUNG further teaches wherein: the one or more processors are configured to cause the first UE to transmit a SDP parameter to the network entity, and the SDP parameter comprises the maximum PLR value (See ¶ [0081], Teaches that UE 302-1 may send an SDP message with the maximum end-to-end PLR that the UE 302-1 can receive for a codec mode and a current PLC/JMB implementation (e.g., six percent). The other UE 302-2 receives the parameter in the SDP message and decides to use of a portion of this end-to-end PLR for the uplink to base station 322-2 (e.g., four percent)).
As to claim 20, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the apparatus according to claim 16 above. LEUNG further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the first UE to adaptively determine the maximum PLR value with the second UE based on at least one of: application layer redundancy, jitter buffer management (JBM), or packet loss concealment (PLC) (See ¶ [0008], Teaches that According to various aspects, another method for increasing network coverage for a VoIP session between a first UE and a second UE may comprise monitoring, by a network entity serving the first UE, a codec configuration negotiation between the first UE and the second UE, wherein the codec configuration negotiation includes an exchange of maximum end-to-end PLRs that the first UE and the second UE can tolerate for received media based at least in part on the negotiated codec configuration, wherein the maximum end-to-end PLRs may be further based on respective PLC and JBM implementations in use at the first UE and the second UE, determining, by the network entity, an agreed-upon distribution of the maximum end-to-end PLRs among respective uplinks and downlinks at the first UE and the second UE, and transmitting, by the network entity to a base station serving the first UE, a message to request a maximum uplink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the first UE to the second UE and a maximum downlink PLR for media transmitted in a direction from the second UE to the first UE according to the agreed-upon distribution.).
As to claim 21, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 above. However, it does not expressly teach the details of wherein the maximum PLR value indicates the highest tolerable PLR at a specified codec configuration before the first UE requests a more robust codec configuration that will yield lower PLR.
3GPP Specification, from analogous art, teaches wherein the maximum PLR value indicates the highest tolerable PLR at a specified codec configuration before the first UE requests a more robust codec configuration that will yield lower PLR (See Annex X.3.3 Pg. 5, Annex X.2 Pg. 3-4, Teaches that The maxe2e-PLR represents the maximum end-to-end packet loss rate that can be properly received by the media decoder in the answering MTSI client (including effects of codec mode, packet loss concealment, de-jitter buffering, etc...) indicated by the RTP payload type number payload-type (as used in an “m=” line). when the MTSI client receiving media detects packet losses higher than tolerable by the current codec configuration in use and a more robust codec configuration is available for the same codec, the MTSIclient shall send a request to the media sender to use a more robust codec configuration of the same codec. when the MTSI client receiving media detects a packet loss rate low enough to support a codec configuration of the same codec that provides better media quality than the current codec configuration, and switching to the new codec configuration will not cause oscillating between more robust and less robust codec configurations, then the MTSI client should send a request to the media sender to use the codec configuration of the same codec that provides better media quality.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of 3GPP Specification into the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 in order to comply with the technical standard as stated by the 3GPP (See 3GPP Specification).
Claims 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEUNG (US 20200153972 A1) and of S4-190016 (“Change Request for Coverage and Handoff Enhancements for Media (CHEM)”, NPL), hereinafter 3GPP Specification and LEUNG (US 20200358552 A1), hereinafter LEUNG’552, and Gestraud et al. (US 20220021658 A1) and further in view of LEUNG et al. (US 20190141598 A1), hereinafter LEUNG’598.
As to claim 5, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 above. However, it does not expressly teach wherein the maximum PLR value is adaptively determined with application layer redundancy.
LEUNG’598, from analogous art, teaches wherein the maximum PLR value is adaptively determined with application layer redundancy (See ¶ [0064], Teaches that operations 600 may further comprise determining the maximum PLR based on the employed application layer redundancy.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of LEUNG’598 into the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 in order to determine a maximum packet loss rate (MaxPLR) supported by a VOIP terminal and/or adjust handover thresholds based on the maximum packet loss rate (MaxPLR) supported by a VOIP terminal, such as a Voice over LTE (VoLTE) UE (See LEUNG’598 ¶ [0028]).
As to claim 13, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the network entity according to claim 8 above. However, it does not expressly teach wherein the maximum PLR value is adaptively determined based on at least one of application layer redundancy, jitter buffer management (JBM), or packet loss concealment (PLC).
LEUNG’598, from analogous art, teaches wherein the maximum PLR value is adaptively determined based on at least one of application layer redundancy, jitter buffer management (JBM), or packet loss concealment (PLC) (See ¶ [0064], Teaches that operations 600 may further comprise determining the maximum PLR based on the employed application layer redundancy.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of LEUNG’598 into the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. in order to determine a maximum packet loss rate (MaxPLR) supported by a VOIP terminal and/or adjust handover thresholds based on the maximum packet loss rate (MaxPLR) supported by a VOIP terminal, such as a Voice over LTE (VoLTE) UE (See LEUNG’598 ¶ [0028]).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEUNG (US 20200153972 A1) and of S4-190016 (“Change Request for Coverage and Handoff Enhancements for Media (CHEM)”, NPL), hereinafter 3GPP Specification and LEUNG (US 20200358552 A1), hereinafter LEUNG’552, and Gestraud et al. (US 20220021658 A1) and further in view of Oyman et al. (US 20190045578 A1).
As to claim 22, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 above. However, it does not expressly teach the details of wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on a first threshold value to trigger Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC) for a downlink connection between the base station and the first UE.
Oyman et al., from analogous art, teaches wherein the maximum PLR value is based at least on a first threshold value to trigger Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC) for a downlink connection between the base station and the first UE (See ¶¶ [0141]-[0142], Fig. 11, Teaches that FIG. 11 illustrates an end-to-end VoLTE flow 1170 from UE B 1120 to UE A 1110 and an end-to-end VoLTE flow 1180 from UE A 1110 to UE B 1120. In the end-to-end VoLTE flow 1170, an eNB A downlink PLR 1176 is the maximum PLR value to be set as the threshold to trigger SRVCC for the DL connection between eNB A 1130 and UE A 1120. Likewise, eNB_B_UL_PLR 1172 is the maximum PLR value to be set as the threshold to trigger SRVCC for the UL connection between eNB B and UE B. It is assumed that a backhaul 1174 between eNB B 1140 and eNB A 1130 introduces negligible error. Under this assumption, the following PLR condition should be maintained: (eNB A downlink PLR 1176)+(eNB B uplink PLR 1172)≤Max PLR codec and (PLC+JBM in UE A 1110) As such, UE A 1110 can determine the maximum PLR it can tolerate based on its PLC and JBM implementation and then decide how this should be distributed between eNB A downlink PLR 1176 and eNB B uplink PLR 1172. In particular, UE A 1110 can decide on the value of eNB A downlink PLR 1176 based on the evaluation of the local downlink radio conditions between UE A 1110 and eNB A 1130, and then determine eNB B uplink PLR 1172 by subtracting eNB A downlink PLR 1176 from the maximum end-to-end PLR (Max PLR at UE A 1110). While UE A 1110 can signal eNB A downlink PLR 1176 to its eNB A 1130 locally over the RAN interface (e.g., via RRC signaling), UE A 1110 may not signal eNB B uplink PLR 1172 to eNB B 1140.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Oyman et al. into the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. in order to have more optimized SRVCC handovers (See Oyman et al. ¶ [0139]).
As to claim 23, the combination of LEUNG and 3GPP Specification and LEUNG’552 and Gestraud et al. and Oyman et al. teaches the method according to claim 22 above. However, it does not expressly teach the details of wherein the maximum PLR value is further based on a second threshold value to trigger SRVCC for an uplink connection between the second UE and a second base station serving the second UE.
Oyman et al., from analogous art, teaches wherein the maximum PLR value is further based on a second threshold value to trigger SRVCC for an uplink connection between the second UE and a second base station serving the second UE (See ¶¶ [0141]-[0142], Fig. 11, Teaches that FIG. 11 illustrates an end-to-end VoLTE flow 1170 from UE B 1120 to UE A 1110 and an end-to-end VoLTE flow 1180 from UE A 1110 to UE B 1120. In the end-to-end VoLTE flow 1170, an eNB A downlink PLR 1176 is the maximum PLR value to be set as the threshold to trigger SRVCC for the DL connection between eNB A 1130 and UE A 1120. Likewise, eNB_B_UL_PLR 1172 is the maximum PLR value to be set as the threshold to trigger SRVCC for the UL connection between eNB B and UE B. It is assumed that a backhaul 1174 between eNB B 1140 and eNB A 1130 introduces negligible error. Under this assumption, the following PLR condition should be maintained: (eNB A downlink PLR 1176)+(eNB B uplink PLR 1172)≤Max PLR codec and (PLC+JBM in UE A 1110) As such, UE A 1110 can determine the maximum PLR it can tolerate based on its PLC and JBM implementation and then decide how this should be distributed between eNB A downlink PLR 1176 and eNB B uplink PLR 1172. In particular, UE A 1110 can decide on the value of eNB A downlink PLR 1176 based on the evaluation of the local downlink radio conditions between UE A 1110 and eNB A 1130, and then de