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
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 03/30/2026.
Claims 45, 54, 58 and 64 have been amended.
Claims 46-51 and 57 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 45 and 64 filed on 03/30/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are on the amended features raising a new scope and do not apply to any of the references being used in the instant office action, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
The applicant also presented other arguments drawn to the various dependent claims. However, said other arguments are all dependency based, depending from the arguments drawn to the independent claims’ limitations discussed above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 45, 52-56, 58-62 and 64 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/236918 (hereinafter App-918, amended claim set dated 01/28/2026, and now allowed on 03/20/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 45 for instance, as shown in the following table, claim 45 of App-918 recites all the claimed limitations of the claim 45.
App-918 Language
Claims / App Language
45. A method of quality of experience (QoE) measurement and reporting, comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE), from a first base station (BS), a first radio resource control (RRC) message comprising first configuration parameters of a first QoE configuration and second configuration parameters of a second QoE configuration;
receiving, by the UE, from the first BS, an RRC release message indicating transitioning of the UE from an RRC connected state to an RRC inactive state,
wherein the UE is in the connected state when the RRC release message is received;
receiving, by the UE, from a second BS base station (BS), an RRC resume message indicating transitioning of the UE from the RRC inactive state to the RRC connected state,
wherein the UE is in the inactive state when the RRC resume message is received; and
in response to receiving the RRC resume message, determining to discard a first QoE measurement report associated with the first QoE configuration and to maintain a second QoE measurement report associated with the second QoE configuration,
wherein the second QoE measurement report is associated with a QoE-related signalinq radio bearer (SRB) and the QoE-related SRB has a lower priority than a second SRB associated with an uplink common control loqical channel.
45. (Currently Amended) A method for a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving, by the UE, a first radio resource control (RRC) message comprising first configuration parameters of a first quality of experience (QoE) configuration and second configuration parameters of a second QoE configuration;
receiving, by the UE, an RRC release message indicating transitioning of the UE from an RRC connected state to an RRC inactive state,
wherein the UE is in the RRC connected state when the RRC release message is received;
receiving, by the UE, an RRC resume message indicating transitioning of the UE from the RRC inactive state to the RRC connected state,
wherein the UE is in the RRC inactive state when the RRC resume message is received; and
in response to receiving the RRC resume message, releasing the first QoE configuration and resuming the second QoE configuration.
Regarding claim 64 for instance, as shown in the following table, claim 45 of App-918 recites all the claimed limitations of the claim 45.
App-918 Language
Claims / App Language
45. A method of quality of experience (QoE) measurement and reporting, comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE), from a first base station (BS), a first radio resource control (RRC) message comprising first configuration parameters of a first QoE configuration and second configuration parameters of a second QoE configuration;
receiving, by the UE, from the first BS, an RRC release message indicating transitioning of the UE from an RRC connected state to an RRC inactive state,
wherein the UE is in the connected state when the RRC release message is received;
receiving, by the UE, from a second BS base station (BS), an RRC resume message indicating transitioning of the UE from the RRC inactive state to the RRC connected state,
wherein the UE is in the inactive state when the RRC resume message is received; and
in response to receiving the RRC resume message, determining to discard a first QoE measurement report associated with the first QoE configuration and to maintain a second QoE measurement report associated with the second QoE configuration,
wherein the second QoE measurement report is associated with a QoE-related signalinq radio bearer (SRB) and the QoE-related SRB has a lower priority than a second SRB associated with an uplink common control loqical channel.
64. A method for a base station (BS), comprising:
transmitting, by the BS, a radio resource control (RRC) resume message indicating transitioning of a user equipment (UE) from an RRC inactive state to an RRC connected state,
wherein the UE is in the RRC inactive state when the RRC resume message is received;
wherein the RRC resume message is used for the UE to release a first QoE configuration and to resume a second QoE configuration, first configuration parameters of the first QoE configuration and second configuration parameters of the second QoE configuration being received by the UE via a first RRC message.
App-918 does not explicitly teach the following. However, in the same field of endeavor, Wu et al. (US 2025/0081047, “Wu”) teaches
the RRC resume message is used for the UE to release a first QoE configuration and to resume a second QoE configuration ([Wu, 0141 and Fig. 14] “Next, at block 1412, the UE 102 determines whether the RRC message further includes a QoE pause indication, a QoE resume indication, or no status indication for the second QoE configuration.”, and [Wu, 0141 and Fig. 14] “the UE 102 refrains from transmitting QoE reports for the updated QoE configuration. If the UE 102 determines that the RRC message includes a QoE resume indication, then the flow continues to block 1418, where the UE 102 transmits a QoE report for the updated QoE configuration to the RAN 105”), first configuration parameters of the first QoE configuration and second configuration parameters of the second QoE configuration being received by the UE via a first RRC message ([Wu, 0140] “At block 1402, a UE 102 receives an RRC message including a first QoE configuration and a QoE configuration ID from a RAN 105 (e.g., events 308 or 384 of FIGS. 3A-3J). At block 1404, the UE 102 determines whether the UE 102 has a second QoE configuration associated with the QoE configuration ID (e.g., event 345 of FIG. 3B).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify App-918 by using the features of Wu in order to provide better services based on Key Performance Indicator calculations such that “A network node implements QMC and supports configuration and reporting for multiple simultaneous QoE measurements, for the same or different service types, for a UE. “ [Wu, 0007].
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.
Claim(s) 64 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teyeb et al. (US 2024/0196458, “Teyeb”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2025/0081047, “Wu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Teyeb unless otherwise mentioned.
Teyeb comprises the following features:
Regarding claim 64, a method for a base station (BS), comprising:
transmitting, by the BS, a radio resource control (RRC) resume message indicating transitioning of a user equipment (UE) from an RRC inactive state to an RRC connected state ([0143] “A WTRU configured for MR-DC with an MCG and an SCG, configured with an SCG that may be deactivated, and currently operating in the RRC INACTIVE state (e.g., second activity level), may receive an indication from the network to resume with the SCG activated or deactivated (e.g., in the SCG activated or deactivated state). The indication may include one or more of the following: … an indication in the RAN or CN paging (e.g., in case activation was due to arrival of DL data) received while the WTRU is in INACTIVE state; an indication in the Random-Access Response (RAR) message during the RA phase of the resume procedure; or an indication in the RRC Resume message.” Also see Fig. 2 step 4 “RRCResume”.),
wherein the UE is in the RRC inactive state when the RRC resume message is received (See aforesaid [0143] “while the WTRU is in inactive state”.).
It is noted that while disclosing RRC transitions with quality of service, Teyeb does not specifically teach about QoE configuration. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Wu as follows;
wherein the RRC resume message is used for the UE to release a first QoE configuration and to resume a second QoE configuration ([Wu, 0141 and Fig. 14] “Next, at block 1412, the UE 102 determines whether the RRC message further includes a QoE pause indication, a QoE resume indication, or no status indication for the second QoE configuration.”, and [Wu, 0141 and Fig. 14] “the UE 102 refrains from transmitting QoE reports for the updated QoE configuration. If the UE 102 determines that the RRC message includes a QoE resume indication, then the flow continues to block 1418, where the UE 102 transmits a QoE report for the updated QoE configuration to the RAN 105”), first configuration parameters of the first QoE configuration and second configuration parameters of the second QoE configuration being received by the UE via a first RRC message ([Wu, 0140] “At block 1402, a UE 102 receives an RRC message including a first QoE configuration and a QoE configuration ID from a RAN 105 (e.g., events 308 or 384 of FIGS. 3A-3J). At block 1404, the UE 102 determines whether the UE 102 has a second QoE configuration associated with the QoE configuration ID (e.g., event 345 of FIG. 3B).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Teyeb by using the features of Wu in order to provide better services based on Key Performance Indicator calculations such that “A network node implements QMC and supports configuration and reporting for multiple simultaneous QoE measurements, for the same or different service types, for a UE. “ [Wu, 0007].
Tentative Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45, 52-56 and 58-62 appear to contain allowable subject matters pending on satisfactory of overcoming above Non-Statutory Double Patenting (NSDP) rejection, and would be allowable if the NSDP rejection is overcome.
Said claims were tentatively allowed with allowable subject matter in the previous office action dated 12/31/2025 with reasons for allowance given then, and said claims remain allowed now.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights