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 .
Claim Objections
The claims have been amended. The objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed 2025-09-25 have been fully considered. In view of the amended claims 28, 37, and 38 and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references and/or new prior art as presented in this Office action. Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 28-29, 31-34, 37-45, and 47 are therefore moot.
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 49 and 50 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 claims contain 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. Specifically, new claims 49 and 50 introduce new matter into the claims that does not have support in the original disclosure.
Claim 49 recites elements without support in the original disclosure. Specifically, the terms “enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB),” “ultra-reliable low-latency-communication (URLLC),” and “massive machine-type communication (mMTC)” are mentioned in the Background of the Specification (¶0002), but nowhere in the Specification or Drawings does applicant disclose that “the trained quality of experience (QoE) model is associated with at least: an enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) service, an ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) service, and a massive machine-type communication (mMTC) service”.
Claim 49 recites elements without support in the original disclosure. Specifically, the terms “connected mode,” “idle mode,” and “inactive mode” do not appear anywhere in the Specification or Drawings. Furthermore, nowhere in the Specification or Drawings does applicant disclose “wherein the measurement configuration specifies at least: connected mode, idle mode, and inactive mode”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 28, 32, 33, 38, 39, 44, 45, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0262924 to Dao et al. (“Dao”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0067793 to Dribinski et al. (“Dribinski”).
As to claim 28, Dao discloses a method (Figs. 2 and 6; ¶0058 and ¶0090), comprising: signaling at least one user equipment to start performing and logging quality of experience (QoE) related measurements (Figs. 2 and 6; ¶0058 and ¶0090); transmitting a request for a report on handover performance measurements to the at least one user equipment (Figs. 2 and 6, step 610; ¶0058 and ¶0090. Examiner notes that the NWDA sends measurement configuration data to the UE, in which it specifies information that the UE should monitor and report on. This information includes successful handover(s) and/or handover failure(s), which under the broadest reasonable interpretation are handover performance measurements.); and receiving the handover performance measurement report from the at least one user equipment, wherein the handover performance measurement report comprises at least one service identifier of a service running on the at least one user equipment (Figs. 2 and 7, step 710; ¶¶0054-0055, ¶0058, and ¶0091. Examiner notes that ¶¶0054-0055 states, "The reports from the UE 110 may include…the information of PDU session such as PDU session type (IP PDU Session, Ethernet PDU Session, or Unstructured PDU Session), packet flow description, DNN, start and end time of PDU session, information of QoS flows (such as packet filters of a packet filter sets of QoS flows). In the QoS and/or QoE reports of the UE 110, the geographical location of the UE 110 may be represented by one or combinations [sic] of the following information: … the (R)AN address (e.g. (R)AN Node Identifier) that served the UE. Note that the (R)AN node may include any radio nodes of different radio access technologies (RAT) such as 5G, 4G, 3G, 2G, WiFi." The UE reports information that can be used to identify a service running on the UE; thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the report comprises at least one service identifier of a service running on the UE.) and the QoE related measurements (Figs. 2 and 7, step 710; ¶0054, ¶0058, and ¶0091. Examiner notes that the UE sends measurement report(s) to the NWDA, and that the measurement reports include information that the UE was configured by the NWDA to monitor. This information includes successful handover(s) and/or handover failure(s), which under the broadest reasonable interpretation are handover performance measurements; thus, the report is a handover performance measurement report. Additionally, the information includes "QoE parameters" (¶0058), i.e., QoE related measurements.), wherein the signaling at least one user equipment to start performing and logging QoE related measurements comprises configuring the at least one user equipment to collect handover data (Figs. 2 and 6, step 610; ¶0058 and ¶0090); and wherein the method further comprises signaling the at least one user equipment … through at least one of a control channel or traffic channel (Figs. 2-4; ¶0057).
Dao does not disclose: for use to train a QoE model; and … to receive a trained QoE model.
However, Dribinski discloses: for use to train a QoE model (Fig. 4, steps 401-402; ¶¶0064-0068, and ¶¶0080-0081. Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Dribinski's "selection of desirable cells corresponding to location, speed, activated service(s) and RAT-related measurements" (¶0064) would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art as a selection of cells that improve the overall level of service; it follows that this selection of cells improves the user's quality of experience. Thus, Dribinski's predictive model is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a QoE model (see also ¶¶0042-45). Furthermore, and more generally speaking, Dribinski provides a model that is continuously trained on data/measurements and provided to the vehicles to manage connectivity (¶0025, ¶¶0064-65, ¶¶0080-0081); it would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the data/measurement inputs are QoE related measurements (as provided by Dao), then the predictive model of Dribinski is a QoE model); and … to receive a trained QoE model (Figs. 2-4; ¶¶0064-0068, steps 402-403, ¶0046, ¶0053, and ¶¶0080-0081).
Dao and Dribinski are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao to incorporate the teachings of Dribinski to include: for use to train a QoE model; and … to receive a trained QoE model. Doing so would provide a "capability of exploiting existing cellular standards for managing connectivity of a vehicle, in consideration of its speed, location and desired QoS" (Dribinski, ¶0025).
As to claim 32, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 28, wherein the handover performance measurement report comprises a time-stamped observation matrix comprising the at least one service identifier of the service running on the at least one user equipment and the QoE related measurements (Dao, ¶0054).
As to claim 33, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 28, wherein the receiving of the handover performance measurement report comprises receiving the handover performance measurement report through at least one of a control channel or traffic channel (Dao, Figs. 2-4; ¶0056).
As to claim 38, Dao discloses a method (Figs. 2, 6-7; ¶0058 and ¶¶0090-0091), comprising: receiving, from a network node, a message for logging of quality of experience (QoE) related measurements at a user equipment; calculating and logging the QoE related measurements; receiving, from the network node, a request for a report of handover performance; and generating a handover performance measurement report, wherein the handover performance measurement report comprises at least one service identifier of a service running on the user equipment and the QoE related measurements (Figs. 2 and 6, step 610, and Fig. 7, step 710; ¶¶0054-0057, ¶0058, and ¶¶0090-0091. Examiner notes that the NWDA sends measurement configuration data to the UE, in which it specifies information that the UE should monitor and report on. This information includes successful handover(s) and/or handover failure(s), which under the broadest reasonable interpretation are handover performance measurements. Further, ¶¶0054-0055 states, "The reports from the UE 110 may include…the information of PDU session such as PDU session type (IP PDU Session, Ethernet PDU Session, or Unstructured PDU Session), packet flow description, DNN, start and end time of PDU session, information of QoS flows (such as packet filters of a packet filter sets of QoS flows). In the QoS and/or QoE reports of the UE 110, the geographical location of the UE 110 may be represented by one or combinations [sic] of the following information: … the (R)AN address (e.g. (R)AN Node Identifier) that served the UE. Note that the (R)AN node may include any radio nodes of different radio access technologies (RAT) such as 5G, 4G, 3G, 2G, WiFi." The UE reports information that can be used to identify a service running on the UE; thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the report comprises at least one service identifier of a service running on the UE. Examiner also notes the UE sends measurement report(s) to the NWDA, and that the measurement reports include information that the UE was configured by the NWDA to monitor. This information includes successful handover(s) and/or handover failure(s), which under the broadest reasonable interpretation are handover performance measurements; thus, the report is a handover performance measurement report. Additionally, the information includes "QoE parameters" (¶0058), i.e., QoE related measurements.); wherein the method further comprises: … at least one of a control channel or traffic channel (Figs. 2-4; ¶0057).
Dao does not disclose: receiving a trained QoE model; using the trained QoE model to select or compute applicable handover settings; and applying the handover settings to determine one or more handovers at the user equipment.
However, Dribinski discloses: receiving a trained QoE model (Figs. 2-4, steps 401-402; ¶¶0064-0068, steps 401-403, ¶0046, ¶0053, and ¶¶0080-0081. Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Dribinski's "selection of desirable cells corresponding to location, speed, activated service(s) and RAT-related measurements" (¶0064) would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art as a selection of cells that improve the overall level of service; it follows that this selection of cells improves the user's quality of experience. Thus, Dribinski's predictive model is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a QoE model (see also ¶¶0042-45). Furthermore, and more generally speaking, Dribinski provides a model that is continuously trained on data/measurements and provided to the vehicles to manage connectivity (¶0025, ¶¶0064-65, ¶¶0080-0081); it would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the data/measurement inputs are QoE related measurements (as provided by Dao), then the predictive model of Dribinski is a QoE model); using the trained QoE model to select or compute applicable handover settings; and applying the handover settings to determine one or more handovers at the user equipment (Figs. 2-4, step 403, Fig. 5, and Fig. 7; ¶¶0064-0071, ¶0046, ¶0053, ¶¶0080-0081, and ¶0108).
Dao and Dribinski are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao to incorporate the teachings of Dribinski to include: receiving a trained QoE model; using the trained QoE model to select or compute applicable handover settings; and applying the handover settings to determine one or more handovers at the user equipment. Doing so would provide a "capability of exploiting existing cellular standards for managing connectivity of a vehicle, in consideration of its speed, location and desired QoS" (Dribinski, ¶0025).
As to claim 39, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38, further comprising transmitting the handover performance measurement report to the network node, based on a result of an evaluation of the handover of the user equipment (Dao, Figs. 2 and 7; ¶0054-58 and ¶0091).
As to claim 44, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38, wherein the calculating the QoE related measurements comprises using performance evaluation functions to measure loss or gain in QoE based on the service running on the user equipment as defined by the service identifier (Dao, Fig. 2 and ¶0054-0058, ¶0091).
As to claim 45, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38, wherein the handover performance measurement report comprises a time-stamped observation matrix comprising the at least one service identifier of the service running on the at least one user equipment and the QoE related measurements (Dao, Fig. 2 and ¶0054-0058, ¶0091).
As to claim 47, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38, wherein the handover performance measurement report comprises a loss or gain in QoE (Dao, Fig. 2 and ¶0054-0058, ¶0091) associated with the handover settings (Dribinski, Figs. 2-4, step 403, Fig. 5, and Fig. 7; ¶¶0064-0071, ¶0046, ¶0053, ¶¶0080-0081, and ¶0108).
As to claim 48, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38, wherein the handover performance report comprises at least: a time-stamped observation matrix of QoE measurements, at least one service identifier, an indication of QoE loss or gain, and radio-specific handover data (Dao, Fig. 2 and ¶0054-0058).
Claims 29, 31, 41-43, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao in view of Dribinski and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0292166 to Centonza et al. (“Centonza”).
As to claim 29, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 28.
Dao in view of Dribinski does not disclose: wherein the signaling comprises signaling an indication of at least: start conditions for the at least one user equipment to start the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements and stop conditions for the at least one user equipment to stop the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements.
However, Centonza discloses: wherein the signaling comprises signaling an indication of at least: start conditions for the at least one user equipment to start the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements and stop conditions for the at least one user equipment to stop the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements (Figs. 10A-B; ¶0079, ¶0141, ¶0161, and ¶0171. Examiner notes that the RAN configures the UE with condition(s) for pausing QoE measurement(s) (¶0141), and that being configured with condition(s) for pausing QoE measurement(s) includes both start conditions (i.e., the pause condition has ended and the measurements are started) (¶0079, ¶0171) and stop conditions (i.e., the pause condition is detected and measurements are stopped) (¶0079, ¶0161)).
Dao, Dribinski, and Centonza are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao in view of Dribinski to incorporate the teachings of Centonza to include: wherein the signaling comprises signaling an indication of at least: start conditions for the at least one user equipment to start the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements and stop conditions for the at least one user equipment to stop the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements. Doing so would "allow for QoE measurements to be configured and performed without the risk of being stopped due to overwriting QoE measurement configurations. This would make it possible for the RAN to control the duration of the QoE measurement process. The RAN is enabled to know when the UE will be ready for a new QoE measurement configuration without interrupting previously configured ones because the UE will not report QoE measurement once the configuration period has expired" (Centonza, ¶0147).
As to claim 31, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 28.
Dao in view of Dribinski does not disclose: wherein the signaling comprises signaling an indication of a duration for the logging of the QoE related measurements, wherein the duration at least captures some period of time before and after a handover of the at least one user equipment occurs.
However, Centonza discloses: wherein the signaling comprises signaling an indication of a duration for the logging of the QoE related measurements (Figs. 10A-B, ¶0154), wherein the duration at least captures some period of time before and after a handover of the at least one user equipment occurs (Figs. 10A-B, ¶0165-0172).
Dao, Dribinski, and Centonza are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao in view of Dribinski to incorporate the teachings of Centonza to include: wherein the signaling comprises signaling an indication of a duration for the logging of the QoE related measurements, wherein the duration at least captures some period of time before and after a handover of the at least one user equipment occurs. Doing so would "allow for QoE measurements to be configured and performed without the risk of being stopped due to overwriting QoE measurement configurations. This would make it possible for the RAN to control the duration of the QoE measurement process. The RAN is enabled to know when the UE will be ready for a new QoE measurement configuration without interrupting previously configured ones because the UE will not report QoE measurement once the configuration period has expired" (Centonza, ¶0147).
As to claim 41, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38.
Dao in view of Dribinski does not disclose: wherein the receiving of the message for logging of QoE related measurements comprises receiving an indication of at least: one or more start conditions for the user equipment to start the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements and one or more stop conditions for the user equipment to stop the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements.
However, Centonza discloses: wherein the receiving of the message for logging of QoE related measurements comprises receiving an indication of at least: one or more start conditions for the user equipment to start the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements and one or more stop conditions for the user equipment to stop the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements (Figs. 10A-B; ¶0079, ¶0141, ¶0161, and ¶0171. Examiner notes that the RAN configures the UE with condition(s) for pausing QoE measurement(s) (¶0141), and that being configured with condition(s) for pausing QoE measurement(s) includes both start conditions (i.e., the pause condition has ended and the measurements are started) (¶0079, ¶0171) and stop conditions (i.e., the pause condition is detected and measurements are stopped) (¶0079, ¶0161)).
Dao, Dribinski, and Centonza are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao in view of Dribinski to incorporate the teachings of Centonza to include: wherein the receiving of the message for logging of QoE related measurements comprises receiving an indication of at least: one or more start conditions for the user equipment to start the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements and one or more stop conditions for the user equipment to stop the performing and logging of the QoE related measurements. Doing so would "allow for QoE measurements to be configured and performed without the risk of being stopped due to overwriting QoE measurement configurations. This would make it possible for the RAN to control the duration of the QoE measurement process. The RAN is enabled to know when the UE will be ready for a new QoE measurement configuration without interrupting previously configured ones because the UE will not report QoE measurement once the configuration period has expired" (Centonza, ¶0147).
As to claim 42, Dao in view of Dribinski and further in view of Centonza discloses the method according to claim 41, wherein the calculating comprises starting the calculating and logging of the QoE related measurements when the start conditions are met, and stopping the calculating and logging of the QoE related measurements when the stop conditions are met (Centonza, Figs. 10A-B, steps 1016 and 1030; ¶0079, ¶0141, ¶0161, and ¶0171).
As to claim 43, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38.
Dao in view of Dribinski does not disclose: wherein the receiving of the message for logging of QoE related measurements comprises receiving an indication of a duration for the logging of the QoE related measurements, wherein the duration at least captures some period of time before and after a handover of the user equipment occurs.
However, Centonza discloses: wherein the receiving of the message for logging of QoE related measurements comprises receiving an indication of a duration for the logging of the QoE related measurements (Figs. 10A-B, ¶0154), wherein the duration at least captures some period of time before and after a handover of the user equipment occurs (Figs. 10A-B, ¶0165-0172).
Dao, Dribinski, and Centonza are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao in view of Dribinski to incorporate the teachings of Centonza to include: wherein the receiving of the message for logging of QoE related measurements comprises receiving an indication of a duration for the logging of the QoE related measurements, wherein the duration at least captures some period of time before and after a handover of the user equipment occurs. Doing so would "allow for QoE measurements to be configured and performed without the risk of being stopped due to overwriting QoE measurement configurations. This would make it possible for the RAN to control the duration of the QoE measurement process. The RAN is enabled to know when the UE will be ready for a new QoE measurement configuration without interrupting previously configured ones because the UE will not report QoE measurement once the configuration period has expired" (Centonza, ¶0147).
As to claim 51, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38, wherein the measurement configuration further comprises at least: … an indication of reporting conditions (Dao, ¶0058).
Dao in view of Dribinski does not disclose: an indication of start conditions, an indication of stop conditions, an indication of logging duration.
However, Centonza discloses: an indication of start conditions, an indication of stop conditions (Figs. 10A-B; ¶0079, ¶0141, ¶0161, and ¶0171. Examiner notes that the RAN configures the UE with condition(s) for pausing QoE measurement(s) (¶0141), and that being configured with condition(s) for pausing QoE measurement(s) includes both start conditions (i.e., the pause condition has ended and the measurements are started) (¶0079, ¶0171) and stop conditions (i.e., the pause condition is detected and measurements are stopped) (¶0079, ¶0161)), an indication of logging duration (Figs. 10A-B, ¶0154).
Dao, Dribinski, and Centonza are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao in view of Dribinski to incorporate the teachings of Centonza to include: an indication of start conditions, an indication of stop conditions, an indication of logging duration. Doing so would "allow for QoE measurements to be configured and performed without the risk of being stopped due to overwriting QoE measurement configurations. This would make it possible for the RAN to control the duration of the QoE measurement process. The RAN is enabled to know when the UE will be ready for a new QoE measurement configuration without interrupting previously configured ones because the UE will not report QoE measurement once the configuration period has expired" (Centonza, ¶0147).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao in view of Dribinski and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0017214 to O’Keeffe.
As to claim 34, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses method according to claim 28, further comprising receiving radio specific handover data from the at least one user equipment (Dao, ¶0058), wherein the QoE model is trained (Dribinski, Fig. 4, ¶¶0064-0068, steps 401-402, and ¶¶0080-0081) using … the radio specific handover data and corresponding QoE related measurements received from the at least one user equipment (Dao, ¶0058).
Dao in view of Dribinski does not disclose: a hash.
However, O’Keeffe discloses: a hash (Fig. 6; ¶0114).
Dao, Dribinski, and O’Keeffe are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao in view of Dribinski to incorporate the teachings of O’Keeffe to include: a hash. Doing so would ensure data integrity and privacy, provide a means of data validation, and/or allow for "pattern recognition and understanding of the capabilities of a particular type or model of device" (O’Keeffe, ¶0111).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dribinski in view of Dao.
As to claim 37, Dribinski discloses a method (Fig. 4; ¶0057), comprising: signaling, to a user equipment, to receive a trained quality of experience (QoE) model, wherein the trained QoE model is trained with historically collected data from one or more user equipment (UEs), and wherein the trained QoE model is associated with a service or network slice of the user equipment (Figs. 2-4, steps 401-403; ¶¶0064-0068, ¶0046, ¶0053, and ¶¶0080-0081. Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Dribinski's "selection of desirable cells corresponding to location, speed, activated service(s) and RAT-related measurements" (¶0064) would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art as a selection of cells that improve the overall level of service; it follows that this selection of cells improves the user's quality of experience. Thus, Dribinski's predictive model is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a QoE model (see also ¶¶0042-45).).
Dribinski does not disclose: through at least one of a control channel or traffic channel.
However, Dao discloses: through at least one of a control channel or traffic channel (Figs. 2-4; ¶0057).
Dribinski and Dao are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dribinski to incorporate the teachings of Dao to include: through at least one of a control channel or traffic channel. Doing so would "provide an improved system and methods of policy optimization in a communications network" (Dao, ¶0005), which would reduce network congestion and increase throughput, quality of service, and quality of experience for users in the network.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao in view of Dribinski and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,493 to Rajendran et al. (“Rajendran”).
As to claim 40, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38.
Dao in view of Dribinski does not disclose: wherein the handover performance measurement report is encrypted so as to maintain anonymity of a user of the user equipment and privacy of location and service information.
However, Rajendran discloses: wherein the handover performance measurement report is encrypted so as to maintain anonymity of a user of the user equipment and privacy of location and service information (Fig. 16 and Col. 21: line 28 through Col. 22: line 5. Examiner notes that Fig. 16 depicts the gNB performing both "Encrypt (TOKEN+SIB)" (step 1) and "Decrypt (TOKEN+MR)" (step 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the measurement report (MR) is encrypted and decrypted using the process described in the cited portions and Figure of Rajendran.).
Dao, Dribinski, and Rajendran are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao in view of Dribinski to incorporate the teachings of Rajendran to include: wherein the handover performance measurement report is encrypted so as to maintain anonymity of a user of the user equipment and privacy of location and service information. Doing so would "prevent a UE from being served by a false base station and will verify the base station's legitimacy and may also provide a mechanism to isolate the fake base station using Anonymity Challenge Parameter in the 5G system" (Rajendran, Col. 13: lines 49-53) as well as "ensure that the system information block has not been tampered by any attacker and attacks such as DoS attack on the UE and the network, subscriber's privacy attack, rogue services may be prevented" (Rajendran, Col. 13: lines 53-57).
Claims 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dao in view of Dribinski and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0185566 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”).
As to claim 49, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38.
Dao in view of Dribinski does not disclose: wherein the trained quality of experience (QoE) model is associated with at least: an enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) service, an ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) service, and a massive machine-type communication (mMTC) service.
However, Zhu discloses: wherein the trained quality of experience (QoE) model is associated with at least: an enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) service, an ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) service, and a massive machine-type communication (mMTC) service (¶0068).
Dao, Dribinski, and Zhu are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao in view of Dribinski to incorporate the teachings of Zhu to include: wherein the trained quality of experience (QoE) model is associated with at least: an enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) service, an ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) service, and a massive machine-type communication (mMTC) service. Doing so would allow "a UE [to] experience less MBS disruption, improved performance, and/or the like by making service continuity decisions that consider both unicast and MBS measurements" (Zhu, ¶0085).
As to claim 50, Dao in view of Dribinski discloses the method according to claim 38.
Dao in view of Dribinski does not disclose: wherein the measurement configuration specifies at least: connected mode, idle mode, and inactive mode.
However, Zhu discloses: wherein the measurement configuration specifies at least: connected mode, idle mode, and inactive mode (Fig. 9C and ¶0103).
Dao, Dribinski, and Zhu are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: determination of parameters used for hand-off; supervisory, monitoring, or testing arrangements, e.g. scheduling measurement reports; and/or computing arrangements based on specific computational models, e.g. machine learning. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dao in view of Dribinski to incorporate the teachings of Zhu to include: wherein the measurement configuration specifies at least: connected mode, idle mode, and inactive mode. Doing so would allow "a UE [to] experience less MBS disruption, improved performance, and/or the like by making service continuity decisions that consider both unicast and MBS measurements" (Zhu, ¶0085).
References Cited
Centonza, Angelo et al. (2023). Configuration of qoe measurements and associated measurement duration time supporting mobility (US 2023/0292166 A1). Filed 2021-06-29.
Dao, Ngoc Dung et al. (2018). System and method of network policy optimization (US 2018/0262924 A1). Filed 2018-02-17.
Dribinski, Daniel et al. (2020). Method and system of managing radio connectivity of a vehicle (US 2020/0067793 A1). Filed 2019-10-31.
O’Keeffe, James Thomas (2017). System and method for estimating the number of people in a smart building (US 2017/0017214 A1). Filed 2016-03-07.
Rajendran, Rohini et al. (2025). Source base station, ue, method in wireless communication system (US 12,200,493 B2). Filed 2019-12-10.
Zhu, Xipeng et al. (2021). Measurements for multicast/broadcast service continuity (US 2021/0185566 A1). Filed 2020-10-26.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Agarwal, Ravi et al. (2022). Service relationship in a wireless communication system (US 20220015025 A1). Filed 2021-06-30.
Akdeniz, Mustafa et al. (2020). Handover-related technology, apparatuses, and methods (US 20200252838 A1). Filed 2018-06-28.
Bell, Tyler et al. (2014). Apparatus, systems, and methods for analyzing movements of target entities (US 20140274022 A1). Filed 2014-03-14.
Bonnett, NICK et al. (2018). Method and system for testing telecommunications infrastructure (US 20180352451 A1). Filed 2015-08-28.
Catovic, Amer et al. (2009). Method and apparatus for automatic handover optimization (US 20090323638 A1). Filed 2009-06-24.
Coleman, Ii, Neal Edgar et al. (2019). Data processing system with machine learning engine for providing driving data analysis and vehicle control functions (US 20190101914 A1). Filed 2017-10-02.
Hwang, June et al. (2022). Method and terminal for performing rrm measurement in wireless communication system (US 20220295318 A1). Filed 2020-08-13.
Hévizi, László et al. (2023). Method and apparatus for managing conditional handover of a user equipment (US 20230247512 A1). Filed 2021-08-16.
Kim, Sangbum et al. (2023). Method and apparatus for recording information in mobile communication system (US 20230134552 A1). Filed 2023-01-04.
Kapoulas, Spyridon et al. (2017). Management of mobility traffic flows in mobile cellular networks (US 20170303180 A1). Filed 2016-04-14.
Kersch, Péter et al. (2023). Correlating network data with instant app feedback for ml-based customer experience management (US 20230300039 A1). Filed 2020-08-03.
Kulkarni, Apeksha Jayateerth et al. (2021). Handover success rate prediction and management using machine learning for 5g networks (US 11109283 B1). Filed 2020-09-22.
Lau, Kevin et al. (2016). Contextual quality of user experience analysis using equipment dynamics (US 20160112894 A1). Filed 2015-12-30.
Nascimento Junior, Amadeu et al. (2023). Methods, system and access point of a wlan for handling a wireless device connected to an access point (US 20230319666 A1). Filed 2020-08-25.
Parichehrehteroujeni, Ali et al. (2023). Reconfiguration procedure in a wireless communication network (US 20230232298 A1). Filed 2021-06-15.
Pateromichelakis, Emmanouil et al. (2023). Model based predictive interference management (US 20230209370 A1). Filed 2020-06-10.
Ren, Yuwei et al. (2023). Machine learning handover prediction based on sensor data from wireless device (US 20230209419 A1). Filed 2020-07-09.
Ramachandra, Pradeepa et al. (2023). User plane aspects considering duplicate discard for dual active protocol stack handover report (US 20230292205 A1). Filed 2021-08-05.
Rune, Johan et al. (2023). Special qoe measurements during rrc connected state mobility (US 20230318941 A1). Filed 2021-08-05.
Shrestha, Deep et al. (2023). Methods of managing communication based on information defining an operational environment and related nodes (US 20230057057 A1). Filed 2020-01-14.
Tan, Ahmet Serdar et al. (2024). Methods of facilitating the handover of a user equipment, ue, in a telecommunication network from a base station to a relay node, as well as corresponding nodes and modules (US 20240205778 A1). Filed 2020-07-30.
Yajnanarayana, Vijaya Parampalli et al. (2022). Network nodes and methods performed therein for supporting handover of a wireless device (US 20220303843 A1). Filed 2020-01-31.
Yang, Ming et al. (2015). Inter-radio access technology (irat) measurement during handover (US 20150099523 A1). Filed 2013-10-03.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 7am – 4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649