Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/548,203

CONFIGURATION FOR QOE MEASUREMENT COLLECTION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 28, 2023
Examiner
MORLAN, ROBERT M
Art Unit
2409
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
356 granted / 484 resolved
+15.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
497
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.6%
-33.4% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
§112
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 484 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rune (US 2024/0098532) Regarding Claims 1, 10, 11 and 20, Rune teaches a base station for wireless communication network (figure 3, see specifically eNB) comprising: at least one memory (figure 14, see specifically memory); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the base station (figure 14, see specifically processor) to: generate a first configuration for quality of experience (QoE) measurements (¶ [0010], see specifically configure application measurements), the first configuration comprising at least one parameter to set up QoE measurements for at least one service type and at least one reporting configuration for the at least one service type (¶ [0096], see specifically service type); transmit transmitting the first configuration to a communication device (¶ [0168], see specifically RRC connection reconfiguration); receive a reporting message from the communication device, the reporting message comprising one or more QoE measurements collected in accordance with the first configuration (¶ [0168], see specifically the Measurement Report). Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Rune teaches the at least one parameter to set up QoE measurements comprises a list of QoE measurement configurations to set up or to modify (¶ [0029], see specifically list) Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Rune teaches the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to transmit, further comprising transmitting a second configuration to the communication device, second configuration comprising an indication to deactivate and release one or more QoE measurement configurations (¶ [0029], see specifically remove configurations.) Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Rune teaches the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to transmit, further comprising transmitting a second configuration to the communication device, a second configuration comprising at least one indication to pause reporting of a particular QoE measurement configuration (¶ [0221], see specifically see specifically pause) Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Rune teaches the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to transmit, further comprising transmitting a third configuration to the communication device, a third configuration comprising at least one indication to resume reporting of the particular QoE measurement configuration (¶ [0219], see specifically resume) Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Rune teaches the reporting message comprises a plurality of QoE measurement reports (¶ [0237] – [0241], see specifically add to the QoE report) Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Rune teaches to transmit transmitting the first configuration to the communication device, the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to transmit comprises transmitting ans a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message to a User Equipment user equipment (UE) device (¶ [0168], see specifically RRC connection reconfiguration); 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. 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. Claim(s) 3, 5, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune (US 2024/0098532) in view of Sakhnini (US 2021/0352506) Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Rune teaches each entry in the list of QoE measurement configurations comprises a corresponding service type, and a corresponding measurement configuration (¶ [0010], see specifically configure application measurements), Rune fails to explicitly teach an QoE configuration index. Sakhnini from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches an QoE configuration index (¶ [0060], see specifically measurement index). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to use an index in the case where multiple configurations are used in the system of Rune as taught by Sakhnini The motivation is that Rune teaches multiple configurations, an index is a well known tool to more easily differentiate between additional configurations. Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Rune teaches the indication to deactivate and release one or more QoE measurement configurations comprises a list of QoE measurement configurations to deactivate and release (¶ [0029], see specifically remove configurations.) Rune fails to explicitly teach each entry in the list of QoE measurement configurations comprises an QoE configuration index. Sakhnini from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches each entry in the list of QoE measurement configurations comprises an QoE configuration index (¶ [0060], see specifically measurement index). The motivation is that Rune teaches multiple configurations, an index is a well known tool to more easily differentiate between additional configurations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM. 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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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. /ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 ROBERT M. MORLAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2409
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 28, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 28, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598590
TRANSMISSION OR RECEPTION CONFIGURATION METHOD AND TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593252
METHOD AND DEVICE USED IN COMMUNICATION NODE FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587492
HANDLING RESETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581392
ACCESS CONTROL IN A RAN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574909
TIME SYNCHRONIZATION IN A COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+16.1%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 484 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month