DETAILED ACTION
Status of Case
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/13/2025.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 3/3/2023 and 8/15/2024 have been considered by Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that “[t]he SR does not ‘initiate a connection’ from an idle state.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the terms “from an idle state” are not recited in the claim language and thus, Applicant’s argument cannot be given patentable weight. Without reciting “from an idle state,” Examiner notes that Chou’s disclosure of sending an SR itself can be construed as initiating a connection, since this satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of initiating a connection can be the transmission of data, even multiple such transmissions over time, between two nodes, since any one of such transmissions can be taken as “initiating a connection.” Furthermore, since Chou (in figure 12) also discloses that the UE sends an SR to the base station in step 1214 and in response to that, the BS sends the UE an UL grant in step 1215, this proves to be an even stronger showing that the “UE send[s] a connection message to the base station to initiate a connection with the base station,” as recited in the claim language.
Examiner notes that either of two claim amendments would overcome the prior art of Chou: a) reciting “…initiate a connection from an idle state; or b) reciting “…initiating a new connection...”
Applicant also states that Chou provides examples of events, such as “UE finds DRX performance is not good,” “UE battery level has reached a threshold,” and “a specific application is running on UE,” and Applicant states that this data is “metadata about the state of the UE or the connection. It is not an ‘application parameter’ generated by a local application part to be consumed by a remote application part for controlling its execution.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language broadly recites an “application parameter” and although Applicant provides further details by specifying that the application parameter is supposed to “generated by a local application part to be consumed by a remote application part for controlling its execution,” this language is not recited in the claim language and thus, cannot be given patentable weight and Chou’s disclosure, in the cited portion, sufficiently describes the broad term “application parameter.”
Examiner notes that if further details regarding the “application parameter” were in fact recited in the claim language, it could overcome the prior art reference of Chou.
Thus, based on the above remarks, and absent any amendments to the claims, Examiner maintains the rejection. Examiner encourages Applicant to consider the above suggestions regarding possible claim amendments in order to overcome Chou and advance prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chou (USPAN 2013/0201851).
Consider claim 1, Chou discloses a method in a telecommunications system (see figure 11, reproduced below for convenience, wherein disclosed is said method) including a User Equipment, UE, at which a local part of an application producing application data executes (see figure 11 and paragraph 69 and figure 12 and paragraph 70, wherein disclosed is UE-triggered reporting to embodiments of figure 10, paragraph 65+: traffic measurements and statistics collection application) and a base station, at which a remote part of the application executes (see paragraphs 65 and 68: configuration of traffic measurements and determination of RRC parameters), the method comprising: when the local part of the application at the UE starts to execute (see paragraph 69: UE starts traffic measurement), the UE sending a connection message to the base station to initiate a connection with the base station (see paragraphs 69-70: reporting triggered by UE, SR standing for Scheduling Request), the connection message including an application parameter generated by the local part of the application (see paragraph 70, last 5 lines: when reporting, UE may further indicate what kind of event is triggered); and the base station passing the application parameter to the remote part of the application (see paragraphs 68-69: determine RRC parameters step after report reception).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consider claim 2, Chou discloses that the application parameter is sent in a control channel used to set up the connection with the base station, for example embedded within a Radio Resource Control, RRC, message (see paragraph 68: RRC parameters).
Consider claim 3, Chou discloses transfer of application data produced by the application between the UE and the base station (see figures 11-12 and paragraphs 68-70: transfer of application data between UE and eNB).
Consider claim 4, Chou discloses that the base station, in response to receipt of the application parameter, changes the execution of the application and/or sends feedback from the remote part of the application to the UE and/or changes one or more transmission parameters in response to the application parameter (see paragraphs 68-70, particularly paragraph 70).
Consider claim 5, Chou discloses that the remote part of the application executes directly on the base station or on an entity in a data network directly connected to the base station and the local part of the application executes directly on the UE or on a device directly connected to the UE (see figures 11-12 and paragraphs 68-70).
Consider claim 11, Chou discloses a telecommunications method in a User Equipment, UE, at which a local part of an application producing application data executes (see figure 11, reproduced below for convenience, wherein disclosed is said method) wherein: when the local part of the application starts to execute (see paragraph 69: UE starts traffic measurement), the UE sends a connection message for telecommunication to a base station to initiate a connection with the base station (see paragraphs 69-70: reporting triggered by UE, SR standing for Scheduling Request), the connection message including an application parameter generated by the local part of the application (see paragraph 70, last 5 lines: when reporting, UE may further indicate what kind of event is triggered).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consider claim 12, Chou discloses a telecommunications method in a base station at which a remote part of an application executes (see figure 11, reproduced below for convenience, wherein disclosed is said method), wherein: the base station receives a connection message for telecommunication sent from a UE to initiate a connection with the base station (see paragraphs 69-70: reporting triggered by UE, SR standing for Scheduling Request), the connection message including an application parameter generated by a local part of the application when the local part of the application starts to execute (see paragraph 70, last 5 lines: when reporting, UE may further indicate what kind of event is triggered); and the base station passes the application parameter to the remote part of the application (see paragraphs 68-69: determine RRC parameters step after report reception).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (USPAN 2013/0201851) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
Consider claim 6, Chou does not specifically disclose that the telecommunications system is a New Radio, NR, system and the method further comprises routing application data from the local part of the application to the remote part of the application via the User Plane Function, UPF.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art discloses that the telecommunications system is a New Radio, NR, system and the method further comprises routing application data from the local part of the application to the remote part of the application via the User Plane Function, UPF (see paragraphs 9 and 40 of the published specification (which is in the Background section of the instant application and described in terms to imply that this is known in the art): NR and UPF).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou and combine it with the noted teachings of the instant application’s admitted prior art. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a telecommunications method for providing a local part of an application at a user equipment and a remote part of an application at a base station (see paragraph 53 of the instant application).
Consider claim 7, Chou does not specifically disclose that the base station is an Open Radio Access Network, O-RAN, base station and the application parameter is passed via the O-RAN Central Unit - User Plane, O-CU-UP, to the remote part of the application or to algorithms used in the remote part of the application.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art discloses the base station is an Open Radio Access Network, O-RAN, base station and the application parameter is passed via the O-RAN Central Unit - User Plane, O-CU-UP, to the remote part of the application or to algorithms used in the remote part of the application (see paragraph 46 of the published specification (which is in the Background section of the instant application and described in terms to imply that this is known in the art): O-RAN and O-CU-UP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou and combine it with the noted teachings of the instant application’s admitted prior art. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a telecommunications method for providing a local part of an application at a user equipment and a remote part of an application at a base station (see paragraph 53 of the instant application).
Consider claim 8, Chou does not specifically disclose that the O-RAN base station passing the application parameter to the application over the E2 interface from the O-CU-UP to the application.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art discloses the O-RAN base station passing the application parameter to the application over the E2 interface from the O-CU-UP to the application (see paragraphs 49-50 of the published specification (which is in the Background section of the instant application and described in terms to imply that this is known in the art): E2 interface from O-CU-CP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou and combine it with the noted teachings of the instant application’s admitted prior art. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a telecommunications method for providing a local part of an application at a user equipment and a remote part of an application at a base station (see paragraph 53 of the instant application).
Consider claim 9, Chou does not specifically disclose algorithms used in the remote part of the application execute in the Non Real Time Radio Access Network Intelligent Controller, Non-RT RIC, with filtering in the O-RAN Central Unit - User Plane, O-CU-UP, and data is transferred via the UPF to the remote part of the application.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art discloses algorithms used in the remote part of the application execute in the Non Real Time Radio Access Network Intelligent Controller, Non-RT RIC, with filtering in the O-RAN Central Unit - User Plane, O-CU-UP, and data is transferred via the UPF to the remote part of the application (see paragraph 48 of the published specification (which is in the Background section of the instant application and described in terms to imply that this is known in the art): both units are connected to Near-RT RIC (O-RAN near real time RAN Intelligent Controller) and Non-RT RIC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou and combine it with the noted teachings of the instant application’s admitted prior art. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a telecommunications method for providing a local part of an application at a user equipment and a remote part of an application at a base station (see paragraph 53 of the instant application).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not disclose an AI indicator filtering application data sent between the UE and the base station.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamal Javaid whose telephone number is 571-270-5137 and email address is Jamal.Javaid@uspto.gov.
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, Charles Jiang, can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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).
/JAMAL JAVAID/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights