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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 10 September 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 12, 17, 23, 52, 57 and 63 are currently amended.
Claims 1-11, 27-51, and 67-80 are canceled.
Claims 12-26, 52-66, 81 and 82 are currently pending.
The Office notes that Claims 81 and 82 are indicated “New” in the claim set filed 10 September 2026. However, the proper status identifier for these claims should be “Previously Presented”, having been newly added in the claim set filed 16 March 2026 and first treated on the merits in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 September 2026 regarding Claims 12 and 52 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first states (refer to page 9 of the response):
“However, a network node determining a mapping between QoS KPIs information and a predicted position of a UE, as in Consoli, does not teach or suggest the context indicators of claim 1 in which "each of the one or more context indicators is indicative of a feature of an environment of the user equipment and is associated with one or more modules of the user equipment, wherein detection of the feature is via the one or more modules of the user equipment," as recited in amended independent claim 12. A QoS KPI of Consoli might be indicative of a predicted position (via the mapping), but nothing in Consoli suggests that one or more modules of a UE are used to detect the position of the UE and are associated with the QoS KPI.
The Office respectfully disagrees. As described in the updated rejection below to address the newly added limitation, Consoli teaches that the UE provides an expected trajectory to the SMF (Figure 2 at step 1c and described at page 20, line 31-page 21, line 3), where the expected trajectory comprises an array of location coordinates from GPS and timestamps, which the Office submits reads on the “context indicators…indicative of a feature an environment of the user equipment” (i.e., the UE’s expected trajectory and relevant timestamps) as detected by the GPS of the user equipment (as shown in Figure 2). The Office notes that the claim language does not further described how the “feature of the environment” is “indicated” or how the context would be associated (e.g., directly, indirectly) with the UE. Therefore, the Office submits that Consoli’s disclosure reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language as presently drafted.
Applicant further states (refer to page 9 of the response):
“Additionally, a network node providing predicted QoS profiles per QoS flow to a UE, as in Consoli, also does not teach or suggest "providing contextual quality of service information to the user equipment including the one or more context indicators." To the extent the Office Action relies on the QoS KPI of Consoli as being analogous to the one or more context indicators of claim 1, then the Office Action must show that the QoS KPIs are provided via the predicted QoS profiles. The Office Action has failed to show that the QoS KPIs are actually provided within the predicted QoS profiles. Indeed, in Consoli, the predicted QoS profiles appear to be generated on reported QoS KPIs; the predicted QoS profiles don't include the QoS KPIs, but are derived from the QoS KPIs. Consoli merely describes providing information predicted at the network node to the UE. Thus, Consoli does not teach or suggest at least the aforementioned features of amended independent claim 12.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. As mapped in the rejection, the “contextual quality of service information” is mapped to the “in-advance Quality of Service prediction notification (IQN)” disclosed in Consoli, not the QoS KPIs as described above by Applicant. Specifically, at Figure 2, steps 2a-2d and page 21, line 5-35 – the network determines if an IQN needs to be delivered to the UE based on whether statistics at any of the positions provided by the UE is below any of the thresholds, and adds the IQS to the PDU session context. Further, at Figure 2, step 3 and page 21, line 37-page 22, line 5 – the SMF delivers the IQN (in-advance quality of service prediction notification) to the UE. Therefore the IQN delivered to the UE is tied to the projected location and thereby “includes” the one or more context indicators, absent further detail in the claim language. For these reasons, the rejection of Claims 12 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 September 2026 regarding Claims 26 and 66 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states (refer to page 11 of the response):
“However, reducing a resolution of a picture or video prior to sending it to a network, as in Srivastava, does not teach or suggest "receiving a media file from the user equipment," "detecting a context indicator in the media file," and "applying a quality of service rule based on the context indicator," as recited in dependent claim 26. For example, Srivastava describes a computing device decreasing a resolution of a picture or video and then sending that picture or video to a network. In other words, Srivastava describes that one device (the computing device 112) both decreases the resolution of the picture or video and transmits that picture or video to a network, which does not teach or suggest "receiving a media file from the user equipment," "detecting a context indicator in the media file," and "applying a quality of service rule based on the context indicator," as recited in dependent claim 26, at least because even if decreasing a resolution of a picture or video before transmitting it taught or suggested "applying a quality of service rule based on the context indicator"-which Applicant expressly does not concede- Srivastava describes decreasing a resolution of a picture or video at a computing device and then transmitting that picture or video whereas dependent claim 12 describes "receiving a media file from the user equipment," and then "applying a quality of service rule based on the context indicator."
Additionally, while Srivastava describes decreasing a resolution of a picture or video before transmitting it to a network, Srivastava is silent as to "detecting a context indicator in the media file," as recited in dependent claim 26. In other words, rather than describing "detecting a context indicator in the media file" and then "applying a quality of service rule based on the context indicator," as recited in dependent claim 26, Srivastava merely describes the communications application including instructions that cause the computing device to reduce the resolution of the picture or video before transmitting it, and is silent as to "detecting a context indicator in the media file," as claimed. Thus, Srivastava does not teach or suggest at least the aforementioned features of dependent claim 26.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Srivastava discloses, at paragraph 0026 that a communication (i.e., media file) includes information identifying a current location (i.e., context indicator) of computing device 112, which is used by one or more other computing devices to determine whether the computing device (that sent the communication) is within an area of interest, such as a geofenced area. Paragraph 0027 discloses a use for the geofence information, having been received by the communication device from a separate device. As the computing device reduces its resolution based on its location inside of a geofenced area, the Office submits that this disclosure reads on “applying a quality of service rule based on the context indicator” as recited in Claims 26 and 66. For these reasons, the rejection of Claims 26 and 66 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-15, 22, 23, 25, 52-55, 62, 63 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consoli et al (WIPO Publication 2020/147927 A1), hereinafter Consoli, in view of Patel et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0167114), hereinafter Patel.
Regarding Claim 52, Consoli discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a memory (Figure 12, the SMF node comprises a memory 1225);
at least one transceiver (Figure 12, the SMF comprises a receiver (1210) and transmitter (1230);
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver (Figure 12, the SMF comprises processing circuitry 1220 coupled to the receiver and transmitter), and configured to:
detect a context condition associated with a user equipment (Figure 2, step 1c and page 20, lines 31-35 – the SMF receives an updated expected trajectory (context condition) from the UE);
determine one or more context indicators and one or more quality of service rules based at least in part on the context condition, wherein each of the one or more context indicators is indicative of a feature of an environment of the user equipment and is associated with one or more modules of the user equipment, wherein detection of the feature is via the one or more modules of the user equipment (Figure 2, step 1c and page 20, line 31-page 21, line 3 – the SMF sends a Nsmf EventExposure Notify message in order to retrieve current/expected future UE positions and statistics of QoS KPI information; further, the SMF receives updated expected trajectory (as an array of location coordinates from GPS and timestamps) to allow a mapping between the QoS KPI information and the expective future UE positions along its route); and
provide contextual quality of service information to the user equipment including the one or more context indicators (Figure 2, steps 2a-2d and page 21, line 5-35 – the network determines if an IQN needs to be delivered to the UE based on whether statistics at any of the positions provided by the UE is below any of the thresholds, and adds the IQS to the PDU session context; Figure 2, step 3 and page 21, line 37-page 22, line 5 – the SMF delivers the IQN (in-advance quality of service prediction notification) to the UE).
However, Consoli does not disclose the one or more quality of service rules to limit a functionality of the user equipment as indicated by the one or more quality of service rules. In an analogous art, Patel discloses this. Specifically, Patel discloses when it is determined that the wireless device is operating beyond the applicable geo-fencing, the MME (or AMF/SMF) may deny the request for network services and/or disable the requested network services or throttle data service to the wireless device and may issue instructions to control network access to the wireless devices (refer to Figure 5 and paragraph 0060). The disclosed geo-fencing can be based, for example, on the device’s geographic location, cell ID, or tracking area identifier (paragraph 0056). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Consoli and Patel. One would have been motivated to do so in order to control access to network service based on a device’s location.
Claim 12 is a method comprising the same steps as performed the apparatus of Claim 52. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasoning as presented above for Claim 52.
Regarding Claims 13 and 53, Consoli discloses the at least one processor is further configured to receive an indication of the context condition from the user equipment (Figure 2, step 1c and page 20, lines 31-35 – the SMF receives an updated expected trajectory (context condition) from the UE).
Regarding Claims 14 and 54, Consoli discloses the at least one processor is further configured to determine a location of the user equipment (Figure 2, step 1c and page 20, line 31-page 21, line 3 – the SMF sends a Nsmf EventExposure Notify message in order to retrieve current/expected future UE positions and statistics of QoS KPI information).
Regarding Claims 15 and 55, Consoli discloses the at least one processor is further configured to provide the contextual quality of service information in one or more non-access stratum or radio resource control messages (Figure 2, step 3 and page 21, line 37-page 22, line 5 – the SMF delivers the IQN (in-advance quality of service prediction notification) to the UE via NAS messaging, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation).
Regarding Claims 22 and 62, Consoli discloses the one or more context indicators and quality of service rules are associated with a navigation module on the user equipment (Figure 2, step 1c and page 20, line 31-page 21, line 3 – the SMF sends a Nsmf EventExposure Notify message in order to retrieve current/expected future UE positions (e.g., GPS locations as shown in Figure 2) and statistics of QoS KPI information).
Regarding Claims 23 and 63, Consoli discloses the context condition is a time of day and the one or more context indicators includes a current location of the user equipment (Figure 2, steps 1c and 2a and page 20, line 31-page 21, line 3 – the expected trajectory used to determine the IQN includes GPS locations and timestamps (time of day)).
Regarding Claims 25 and 65, Consoli discloses the one or more context indicators and quality of service rules are associated with a communications module on the user equipment (Figure 2, step 3 and page 21, line 37 – page 22, line 5 – the SMF determines the appropriate path for sending the IQN to the UE (either via AMF or via V2X to the UE)).
Claims 16, 18-20, 26, 56, 58-60 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consoli in view of Patel, as applied to Claims 12 and 52 above, and further in view of Srivastava et al (WIPO Publication 2023/133348 A1), hereinafter Srivastava.
Regarding Claims 16 and 56, the combination of Consoli and Patel discloses the limitations of Claims 12 and 52, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the one or more context indicators and quality of service rules are associated with an optical module on the user equipment. In an analogous art, Srivastava discloses this. Specifically, Srivastava discloses a geofencing configuration where a computing device reduces the resolution of pictures, recorded video or video streams prior to sending to the network (paragraphs 0026-0027). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Consoli/Patel and Srivastava. One would have been motivated to do so in order to automate communication functions for first responders at an incident location (paragraphs 0010-0012 of Srivastava).
Regarding Claims 18 and 58, the combination of Consoli, Patel and Srivastava further discloses the quality of service rules includes reducing a resolution of an image obtained with the optical module (paragraphs 0026-0027 of Srivastava - a geofencing configuration where a computing device reduces the resolution of pictures, recorded video or video streams prior to sending to the network). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Consoli / Patel and Srivastava. One would have been motivated to do so in order to automate communication functions for first responders at an incident location (paragraphs 0010-0012 of Srivastava).
Regarding Claims 19 and 59, the combination of Consoli and Patel discloses the limitations of Claims 12 and 52, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the one or more context indicators and quality of service rules are associated with an acoustic module on the user equipment. In an analogous art, Srivastava discloses this. Specifically, Srivastava discloses geofencing devices at an incident location and permitting communication devices to send/receive live audio data (paragraphs 0040, 0056). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Consoli / Patel and Srivastava. One would have been motivated to do so in order to automate communication functions for first responders at an incident location (paragraphs 0010-0012 of Srivastava).
Regarding Claims 20 and 60, the combination of Consoli, Patel and Srivastava further discloses the context condition is a duration of time (Srivastava paragraph 0055 – in response to geofence information, recording devices transmit location data at a prescribed frequency (e.g., 30 seconds)) and the one or more context indicators include an audio component within an acoustic input obtained with the acoustic module (Srivastava paragraphs 0040, 0056 – recording live audio data at the incident site). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Consoli / Patel and Srivastava. One would have been motivated to do so in order to automate communication functions for first responders at an incident location (paragraphs 0010-0012 of Srivastava).
Regarding Claims 26 and 66, the combination of Consoli and Patel discloses the limitations of Claims 12 and 52, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a media file from the user equipment; detect a context indicator in the media file; and apply a quality of service rule based on the context indicator. In an analogous art, Srivastava discloses this. Specifically, Srivastava discloses a geofencing configuration where a computing device reduces the resolution of pictures, recorded video or video streams prior to sending to the network (paragraphs 0026-0027). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Consoli / Patel and Srivastava. One would have been motivated to do so in order to automate communication functions for first responders at an incident location (paragraphs 0010-0012 of Srivastava).
Claims 17 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consoli in view of Patel and Srivastava as applied to claims 16 and 56 above, and further in view of Bedoe et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0374364), hereinafter Bedoe. The combination of Consoli, Patel and Srivastava discloses the limitations of Claims 16 and 56, as described above. Consoli further discloses the context condition is a geographic area (Figure 2, step 1c and page 20, lines 31-35 – the SMF receives an updated expected trajectory (context condition) from the UE). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the one or more context indicators is one or more of a plain text indicator, a quick response code, a visual light communication emitting device, or any combinations thereof. In an analogous art, Bedoe discloses this. Specifically, Bedoe discloses geo-fencing to provide location information to a user and a QR code (thereby meeting the claimed alternative limitation) that allows specific applications to open on the user device (paragraph 0026). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Consoli/ Patel / Srivastava with Bedoe. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow users to match and meet one another in a common social setting and identify other users nearby with similar interests (paragraph 0026 of Bedoe).
Claims 21 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consoli in view of Patel and Srivastava as applied to claims 20 and 60 above, and further in view of Oberholzer et al (European Patent Application Publication EP 3079293), hereinafter Oberholzer. The combination of Consoli, Patel and Srivastava discloses the limitations of Claims 20 and 60, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the quality of service rules includes reducing a sample rate or limiting an audio bandwidth of the acoustic input obtained with the acoustic module. In an analogous art, Oberholzer discloses this. Specifically, Oberholzer discloses setting QoS Latency rules, where a transcoder subsystem may be configured to reduce the quality (e.g., audio compression or bitrate reduction) prior to transmission in order to meet bandwidth requirements (paragraph 0225). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Consoli/ Patel / Srivastava with Oberholzer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to meet bandwidth demands on public transportation (paragraph 0003 of Oberholzer).
Claims 24 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consoli in view of Patel, as applied to Claims 23 and 63 above, and further in view of Zhao (United States Patent 12389195). The combination of Consoli and Patel discloses the limitations of Claims 23 and 63, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the quality of service rules includes reducing an accuracy of a location estimate for the user equipment. In an analogous art, Zhao discloses this. Specifically, Zhao discloses varying location determination accuracy based on a user’s location in a geofence environment (column 25, line 45 – column 26, line 33). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Consoli / Patel and Zhao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve power on the mobile device battery (column 26, lines 13-16 of Zhao).
Claims 81 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consoli in view of Patel, as applied to Claims 12 and 52 above, and further in view of Daniel et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20140157333), hereinafter Daniel. The combination of Consoli and Patel discloses the limitations of Claims 12 and 52, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the one or more quality of service rules limit the functionality of the user equipment based at least in part on at least one context indicator of the one or more context indicators being associated with protected content. In an analogous art, Daniel discloses this. Specifically, Daniel discloses, at paragraph 0036, in some jurisdictions, re-broadcasting content to users may comprise copyright violation, unless said users are authorized to receive, view, or hear said content. In most cases, patrons of a venue are authorized to receive, view, and heard content being played at the venue. By geo-fencing users to locations where they are authorized to receive, view, or hear the content, the systems and methods described herein may be operated and performed in a legal manner and without violating copyright law. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Consoli / Patel and Daniel. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide user-friendly and legally compliant venue based content-over-air systems via custom graphical user interfaces to mobile devices based on the mobile devices' locations or venues (paragraph 0007 of Daniel).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chaugule et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220394492) discloses enabling and/or disabling geofence related CBRS profiles (e.g., refer to Figure 8).
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 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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
