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
The amendment filed January 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man et al. (“QoE Management for 5G New Radio,” ZTE Communications, vol. 19, no. 3, pp 64-72; published September, 2021) in view of Fan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0049021 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Man teaches “[a] method of a user equipment (UE) performing a quality of experience (QoE) reporting operation for extended reality (XR) media services, the method comprising: receiving configuration information for a QoE reporting operation” (see pp. 64, 67, section 3.5; QoE measurement configuration for QoE measurement reporting should be released and the NG-RAN node has such ability to issue a release of QoE measurement configuration for UE; thus, configuration information for a QoE reporting operation is received);
Man also teaches “in response to triggering the event, generating a QoE report” (see p. 66, section 3.3.1; after receiving the QoE measurement configuration, UE generates the QoE reports according to the QoE measurement results (i.e., generating a QoE report in response to triggering event)); and
Man also teaches “transmitting the generated QoE report” (p. 66, section 3.3.1, right column; UE sends the QoE report).
While Man does not explicitly state “determining whether an event for the QoE reporting operation is triggered based on the configuration information” and “generating a frame rate QoE metric comprising pose information of the UE” of claim 1. However, Man does disclose “[a]fter receiving the QoE measurement configuration, UE . . . starts QoE measurement collection based on the configuration” (see p. 66, section 3.3.1). The teaching of starting QoE measurement based on the configuration enables one of ordinary skill in the art to determine that the receiving the configuration information is an event for QoE reporting that has been triggered. Therefore, 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 the invention of Man to have a method that includes “determining whether an event for the QoE reporting operation is triggered based on the configuration information” as recited in claim 1. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve QoE reporting (see section 1).
Man also discloses “QoE report is the result of a series of QoE metrics data collected by the UE. QoE metrics are valid for the quality of the supported services provided by the operators” (see p. 67, section 3.3.2), and in Table 1 discloses “frame rate” and Man further discloses “solutions for area handling” which includes UE’s “ability to check the UE’s location for a specified area” (see p. 69, section area handling). UE’s location information is pose information of UE; [NOTE: according to applicant specification, ¶ 0085, “comprising pose information (e.g., a location and/or an orientation) of the UE 100”. The teaching of frame rate information being part of QoE metrics and UE being configured to determine UE location, enables one of ordinary skill in the art to generate QoE metrics comprising pose information of the UE. Therefore, 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 the invention of Man to have a method that includes “generating a frame rate QoE metric comprising pose information of the UE” of claim 1. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve QoE reporting (see section 1).
Man does not explicitly disclose “the event including an interactive event signalled from a UE application” of claim 1. However, the foregoing limitation was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Fan teaches “the event including an interactive event signalled from a UE application” (see ¶ [0080]; the QoE measurement configuration criterion and reporting format include parameters, at least one of the type of reporting, the service type, the event that triggers the QoE measurement reporting, and thresholds that triggers the QoE measurement reporting; service type includes the type of service for QoE measurement reporting, at least one of VR Based Interactive Service, Cloud Rendering for Games, and IoE based social networking services, (i.e., any of the foregoing are interactive applications from UE whose data inherently include events signalled from the application); thresholds that trigger the QoE measurement reporting include the threshold(s) of QoE metrics of a certain service type; in other words, if a threshold associated with any of the above mentioned interactive applications is satisfied, the QoE reporting operation is triggered; thus, Fan teaches the event for QoE reporting operation being triggered, includes an interactive event signalled from a UE application). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Man to incorporate the teachings of Fan to trigger QoE reporting event to be based on an interactive event. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve QoE measurement collection procedure (see ¶ [0016] of Fan).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Man and Fan teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the configuration information comprises at least one of a configuration of QoE metrics, a QoE metrics activation, or a QoE reporting rule” (see p. 66, section 3.3.1, and FIG. 2; the configuration information includes activating QoE measurement (i.e., QoE metrics activation), and the UE report once it is the configured time (i.e., QoE reporting rule)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Man and Fan teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the pose information comprises a number of pose instances being measured by the UE based on the configuration information” (see p. 67, section 3.3.2, and p. 69, area handling; the frame rate includes resolution period (i.e., a number of instances to be measured) and the UE determines the UE’s location (i.e., pose information); thus, the pose information comprises a number of pose instances being measured by the UE based on the configuration information).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Man and Fan teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the QoE report comprises: a round-trip time (RTT) QoE metric comprising a tethered delay between at least one tethered device and the UE” (see p. 67, Table 1; RTT is one of the QoE metrics; RTT consists of RTP level round-trip and additional delay to a client (i.e., tethered device); thus, the RTT comprises tethered delay between at least one tethered device and the UE).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Man and Fan teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the QoE report comprises: a codec QoE metric comprising a 3D media codec type for 3D media” (see p. 64, section 1, and p. 67, Table 1; QoE metrics include codec information metrics that contain details of the media codec settings; the multimedia services includes virtual reality (i.e., a 3D media type and 3D media), the codec information can include 3D media codec type).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Man and Fan teaches the method of claim 5, and further teaches “wherein the codec QoE metric comprises: at least one of a video profile or a profile level based on the 3D media codec type” (see p. 64, section 1, and p. 67, Table 1; the multimedia services includes virtual reality (i.e., 3D media), thus codec information includes profile level based on the 3D media codec type).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Man and Fan teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the configuration information comprises a sending rate and an event-triggered reporting rule associated with the event” (see p. 66, section 3.3.1; the time to report QoE measurement is configured (i.e., an event-triggered reporting rule associated with the event) and once it is the time configured, the UE sends the QoE report; sending the QoE report once can be a default sending rate of the report).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Man and Fan teaches the method of claim 7, and further teaches “when the sending rate is set to 0 and the event- triggered reporting rule is set, the UE sends the QoE report according to the event” (see p. 66, section 3.3.1; as discussed above, the sending rate can be a default rate of 0 and the time to report QoE measurement is configured; thus, the event- triggered reporting rule is set; once it is the time configured, the UE sends the QoE report; thus, the UE sends the QoE report according to the event).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Man and Fan teaches the method of claim 7, and further teaches “when the sending rate is set to a reporting time interval greater than 0 and the event-triggered reporting rule is set, the UE sends the QoE report at the reporting time interval” (see p. 66, section 3.3.1; UE is configured to send the QoE report once it is the time configured (i.e., at the reporting time interval)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Man and Fan teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “the QoE report comprises a location filter element indicating whether the UE is located in an indoor area or an outdoor area” (see p. 69, section area handling; UE have the ability to check the UE’s location for a specific area requested for QoE measurement collection; UE’s location can be based on indoor/outdoor areas; thus, the QoE report comprises a location filter element includes indoor area or outdoor area).
Regarding claims 11-20, they are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims of 1-10 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 1-10. Claims 11-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-10.
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0350518 A1) teaches determining quality of experience for VR multimedia.
Nadeau et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0400104 A1) teaches quality of experience determination for media services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights