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 .
Specification
The specification amendment submitted on 01/22/2024 which amended the abstract has been accepted.
The specification amendment submitted on 01/22/2024 which added the cross-reference to related applications has been accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “is based the”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “is based on the”.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the discarding the one or more first quality of experience (QoE) measurement reports”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “wherein the discarding of the one or more first QoE measurement reports”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the QoE configuration" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the first QoE configuration”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the one or more QoE measurement reports" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the one or more first QoE measurement reports”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "quality of experience (QoE) measurement and reporting" in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “QoE measurement and reporting” in claim 1, line 5. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a first QoE configuration" in line 2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a first QoE configuration” in claim 1, line 5. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the user equipment (UE) capabilities" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the one or more QoE measurement reports" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the one or more first QoE measurement reports”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the one or more QoE reports" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the one or more first QoE measurement reports”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 23 recites “QoE measurement” in lines 10-11. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “QoE measurement” in line 5. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 11-17, 19 and 22 are also rejected since they are depended on the rejected claims set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 6-10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (Lenovo, Motorola Mobility, “Further discussion on QoE measurement collection in NR standalone”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #114-e Electronic, 19th – 27th May 2021, R2-2105214, hereinafter “Lenovo”).
Regarding claim 1, Lenovo discloses a method of quality of experience (QoE) reconfiguration [see section 2.4; Need for QoE measurements configuration modification], comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from a base station (BS), at least one first message comprising configuration parameters associated with a first QoE configuration for QoE measurement and reporting [see section 2.4; The RAN searches for qualified UEs and sends the selected UEs the QoE measurements configuration (e.g. with RRC ID#0) received from OAM];
creating, by the UE based on the configuration parameters, one or more first QoE measurement reports for a scheduled transmission to the BS [see section 2.4; The UE AS forwards the received QoE measurements configuration to its application layer. The application layer starts QoE measurement collection acc. to the received configuration];
receiving, by the UE from the BS, at least one second message comprising the configuration parameters associated with the first QoE configuration, wherein the at least one second message indicates a change associated with the QoE configuration [see section 2.4; For a previously selected UE the RAN may decide to send them the new QoE measurements configuration per QoE measurements configuration modification command instead of releasing the previous configuration and adding a new configuration. The selected UE replaces the previous configuration with RRC ID#0 with the modified one]; and
discarding the one or more first QoE measurement reports in response to receiving the at least one second message [see section 2.4; The selected UE replaces the previous configuration with RRC ID#0 with the modified one and sends the modified configuration to the application layer. UE application layer replaces the previous configuration with ID#0 with the modified one and restarts the QoE measurement collection acc. to the modified configuration].
Regarding claim 2, Lenovo discloses wherein the one or more first QoE measurement reports are created for transmission via one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages [see section 2.1; RRC signaling for QoE measurements configuration and reporting].
Regarding claim 3, Lenovo discloses wherein the one or more first QoE measurement reports are associated with a QoE-related signaling radio bearer (SRB) [see section 1; Define SRB4 for transmission of QoE reports in NR].
Regarding claim 4, Lenovo discloses wherein the QoE-related signaling radio bearer (SRB) is SRB4 [see section 1; Define SRB4 for transmission of QoE reports in NR].
Regarding claim 6, Lenovo discloses wherein the one or more resource control (RRC) messages comprise a measurement report application layer information element (MeasReportappLayer IE) comprising the one or more QoE measurement reports [see section 1, Define an RRC message MeasReportAppLayer for the transmission of QoE reports in NR; see section 2.3, Agreements were made to use the OtherConfig IE in RRCReconfiguration for configuring QoE measurements and a new UL RRC message MeasReportAppLayer for the transmission of QoE reports].
Regarding claim 7, Lenovo discloses wherein the one or more first quality of experience (QoE) measurement reports comprise an identifier associated with the QoE configuration [see section 1; R2 assumes that for RRC an ID is required to identify a measurement, FFS whether this is the QoE reference ID or something else; see section 2.2, RRC signaling of QoE measurement identity, QoE reference ID].
Regarding claim 8, Lenovo discloses wherein the configuration parameters are associated with one or more service types or application types [see section 2.4; MTSI service; see section 2.5; 5 service types (Streaming services, MTSI services, VR, MBS, XR)].
Regarding claim 9, Lenovo discloses wherein quality of experience (QoE) measurement and reporting, associated with the first QoE configuration, is activated in response to receiving the at least one first message [see section 2.4; OAM is interested in receiving QoE measurements for MTSI service from UEs which are being serviced by a PLMN in a certain area and activates the QoE measurements configuration targeting an area and forwards the QoE measurement configuration to RAN using an “Activate QoE measurement” message].
Regarding claim 10, Lenovo discloses wherein the configuration parameters associated with a first QoE configuration are received by the base station (BS) from one of a core network (CN) and an operation and maintenance (OAM) entity of an operator [see section 2.2; The RAN node is aware of the QoE reference ID when it receives QoE measurements configuration from CN (in case of signaling-based initiation for QMC activation) or directly from OAM (in case of management-based initiation for QMC activation)], that are encapsulated in a transparent container [see section 2.2; The QoE reference ID is included in the container for QoE measurements configuration and reporting; see section 2.3; Maximum container size for QoE measurements configuration and reporting].
Regarding claim 23, Lenovo discloses a method of quality of experience (QoE) reconfiguration [see section 2.4; Need for QoE measurements configuration modification], comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from a base station (BS), at least one first message comprising configuration parameters associated with a first QoE configuration for QoE measurement and reporting [see section 2.4; The RAN searches for qualified UEs and sends the selected UEs the QoE measurements configuration (e.g. with RRC ID#0) received from OAM];
receiving, by the UE from the BS, at least one second message comprising the configuration parameters associated with the first QoE configuration, wherein the at least one second message indicates a change associated with the first QoE configuration [see section 2.4; For a previously selected UE the RAN may decide to send them the new QoE measurements configuration per QoE measurements configuration modification command instead of releasing the previous configuration and adding a new configuration. The selected UE replaces the previous configuration with RRC ID#0 with the modified one]; and
resetting a counter or restarting a timer associated with QoE measurement, or reporting in response to receiving the at least one second message [see section 2.4; The selected UE replaces the previous configuration with RRC ID#0 with the modified one and sends the modified configuration to the application layer. UE application layer replaces the previous configuration with ID#0 with the modified one and restarts the QoE measurement collection acc. to the modified configuration].
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenovo in view of Tang et al. (US 2024/0107360 A1, hereinafter “Tang”).
Regarding claim 5, Lenovo does not explicitly disclose wherein the quality of experience (QoE)-related signaling radio bearer (SRB) has a priority that is lower than a second SRB associated with an uplink common control channel logical channel.
However, Tang teaches quality of experience (QoE)-related signaling radio bearer (SRB) has a priority that is lower than a second SRB associated with an uplink common control channel logical channel [see Fig. 7, para. 71; priority of Logical Channels (LCs) of SRB4 is lower than a priority of any one of LCs of SRB0 to SRB3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “quality of experience (QoE)-related signaling radio bearer (SRB) has a priority that is lower than a second SRB associated with an uplink common control channel logical channel”, as taught by Tang into the system of Lenovo so that it would handle more efficiently communications having different transmission priorities based on different message types, thus enabling QoS handling for the new best effort service and enabling high transmission priority for the regular service [see Tang, para. 7].
Regarding claim 22, Lenovo does not explicitly disclose receiving an uplink grant indicating transmission parameters for the scheduled transmission.
However, Tang teaches receiving an uplink grant indicating transmission parameters for a scheduled transmission [see para. 59, 124-128; receiving an uplink grant indicating transmission parameters for a scheduled transmission].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “receiving an uplink grant indicating transmission parameters for a scheduled transmission”, as taught by Tang into the system of Lenovo so that it would handle more efficiently communications having different transmission priorities based on different message types, thus enabling QoS handling for the new best effort service and enabling high transmission priority for the regular service [see Tang, para. 7].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenovo in view of He et al. (US 11,228,926 B2, hereinafter “He”).
Regarding claim 17, Lenovo discloses the discarding of the one or more first quality of experience (QoE) measurement reports is based on the at least one second message [see section 2.4; The selected UE replaces the previous configuration with RRC ID#0 with the modified one and sends the modified configuration to the application layer. UE application layer replaces the previous configuration with ID#0 with the modified one and restarts the QoE measurement collection acc. to the modified configuration].
Lenovo does not explicitly disclose the discarding of the one or more first quality of experience (QoE) measurement reports is further based on “a processing time” of the at least one second message.
However, He teaches discarding of one or more QoE measurement reports is based on a processing time of at least one second message [see col. 8, lines 26-31, col. 10, lines 4-11, claim 18; discarding service quality report is based on a suspend timer of a configuration information message].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “discarding of one or more QoE measurement reports is based on a processing time of at least one second message”, as taught by He into the system of Lenovo so that it would provide for enhancement of quality of experience measurement collection reporting [see He, col. 3 lines 9-10].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469