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 .
Status of the Claims
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 18 August 2026), Claims 1-20 are pending.
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 18 August 2026), Claims 1 and 11 are amended and said amendments are supported.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the objection of Claims 6-8 and 16-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant did not provide arguments regarding this objection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “including an indication tha the network supports” and also recite “based on the indication that hte network supports QoE-Aware QoS handling”. Here, the recitations, “tha” and “hte”, should be amended to “that” and “the” respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “the request” while Claim 1 and Claim 11 also recite “a registration request”. Here, the recitations, “a request” and “the request”, should be amended to distinguish from “the registration request”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Centonza et al. (US 20230231779 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Centonza”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 11, Centonza discloses a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU), comprising one or more processors (¶377-382 & Fig. 25, Centonza discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising processing circuitry 2502) and one or more transceivers (¶377-382 & Fig. 25, Centonza discloses the UE further comprising radio frequency (RF) interface 2509);
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers to a network, a registration request (¶276-284 & Fig. 22 (2260), Centonza discloses transmitting, by the UE to a radio access network (RAN) node (RNN), a Quality of Experience (QoE) Availability indication. Examiner correlates the QoE Availability indication to "a registration request") comprising quality-of-experience (QoE) assistance information (¶276-284 & Fig. 22 (2260), Centonza discloses that the QoE Availability indication further includes assistance information. Examiner correlates the assistance information of the QoE Availability indication to "QoE assistance information"),
receive, via the one or more transceivers from the network, a registration acceptance response (¶273 & ¶275-276 & Fig. 22 (2270), Centonza discloses receiving, by the UE from the RNN, a QoE Report Request. Examiner corelates "a QoE Report Request" to "a registration acceptance response") including an indication tha the network supports QoE-Aware Quality-of-Service (QoS) handling (¶291-300 & Fig. 22 (2270) & ¶229 & ¶410, Centonza discloses that the QoE Report Request indicates one or more criteria such that the network requests QoE reports from the UE such that the network can provide QoS monitoring for applications at the UE) based on the QoE assistance information (¶273 & ¶275-276 & Fig. 22 (2270), Centonza discloses that the QoE Report Request is transmitted based on transmission of the QoE Availability indication including the assistance information), and
based on the indication that the network supports QoE-Aware QoS handling (¶291-305 & Fig. 22 (2270->2290) & ¶229 & ¶410, Centonza discloses that the transmission of the QoE report is based on reception of the QoE Report Request including a criteria for reporting) and responsive to a change in a QoE score associated with an application of the WTRU (¶270, Centonza discloses that the UE can be configured to send a QoE report including only the measured values based on the measured values satisfying a threshold criteria. Centonza also discloses that the UE can be configured to send the QoE report including an average of measured values. Here, an average of the measured values indicates that the measurement values are different or have changed), transmit, via the one or more transceivers to the network, one or more network or application performance measurements (¶301-305 & Fig. 22 (2290), Centonza discloses sending, by the UE, QoE measurement reports).
Regarding Claim 15, Centonza discloses the WTRU of claim 11.
Centonza further discloses the QoE assistance information comprises an identification of one or more static and/or dynamic factors corresponding to QoS scale factors (¶232, Centonza discloses that the assistance information of the QoE Availability Indication affects the network's ability to select and prioritize QoE reports and the frequency with which such QoE Report Requests are sent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centonza in view of Wang et al. (US 20240205875 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 12, Centonza discloses the WTRU of claim 11.
However, Centonza does not disclose wherein the registration request comprises an identifier of the WTRU.
Wang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the registration request comprises an identifier of the WTRU (¶650, Wang discloses an eighth message, requesting quality of service and/or quality of experience prediction, includes a user equipment (UE) identity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centonza by requiring that the registration request comprises an identifier of the WTRU as taught by Wang because effectiveness of resource allocation is improved by reducing handover failures, reducing ping pongs, and increasing the success rate of handover (Wang, ¶15).
Regarding Claim 13, Centonza discloses the WTRU of claim 11.
However, Centonza does not disclose the registration request comprises an identifier of a user of the WTRU.
Wang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the registration request comprises an identifier of a user of the WTRU (¶650, Wang discloses an eighth message, requesting quality of service and/or quality of experience prediction, includes a user equipment (UE) identity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centonza by requiring that the registration request comprises an identifier of a user of the WTRU as taught by Wang because effectiveness of resource allocation is improved by reducing handover failures, reducing ping pongs, and increasing the success rate of handover (Wang, ¶15).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centonza in view of Faheem et al. (US 20200213896 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Faheem”).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 14, Centonza discloses the WTRU of claim 11.
However, Centonza does not disclose wherein the QoE assistance information comprises an identification of a QoS scale factor.
Faheem, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the QoE assistance information comprises an identification of a QoS scale factor (¶98-99 & Fig. 7 (758) & ¶79, Faheem discloses that the UE assistance information associated with the QoS and the QoE comprises information that identifies a QoS scale factor, such as latency and/or jitter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centonza by requiring that the QoE assistance information comprises an identification of a QoS scale factor as taught by Faheem because user experience is improved by adaptively maintain and optimize the QoS configuration (Faheem, Abstract).
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centonza in view of Qiao et al. (US 20230276391 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Qiao”).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 16, Centonza discloses the WTRU of claim 11.
However, Centonza does not disclose the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, via the one or more transceivers to the network, a request to establish or modify a protocol data unit (PDU) session for the application.
Qiao, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, via the one or more transceivers to the network, a request to establish or modify a protocol data unit (PDU) session for the application (¶325-330 & Fig. 28, Qiao discloses transmitting, by a first wireless device to a session management function (SMF), a PDU Session Establishment request message).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centonza by requiring that the QoE assistance information comprises an identification of a QoS scale factor as taught by Wang because symmetry between uplink latency and downlink latency is improved by enabling the modification of one or more parameters (Qiao, ¶4).
Regarding Claim 17, Centonza in view of Qiao discloses the WTRU of claim 16.
Qiao, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the request to establish or modify the PDU session comprises a reserved transport indicator (¶325-330 & Fig. 28, Qiao discloses that the PDU Session Establishment request message comprises an identity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centonza in view of Qiao by requiring that the request to establish or modify the PDU session comprises a reserved transport indicator as taught by Wang because symmetry between uplink latency and downlink latency is improved by enabling the modification of one or more parameters (Qiao, ¶4).
Regarding Claim 18, Centonza in view of Qiao discloses the WTRU of claim 16.
Qiao, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the request to establish or modify the PDU session comprises a QoE-aware QoS handling indicator (¶325-330 & Fig. 28, Qiao discloses that the PDU Session Establishment request message comprises an End-to End Latency Measurement Request and a Latency Accuracy).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centonza in view of Qiao by requiring that the request to establish or modify the PDU session comprises a QoE-aware QoS handling indicator as taught by Wang because symmetry between uplink latency and downlink latency is improved by enabling the modification of one or more parameters (Qiao, ¶4).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centonza in view of Huang et al. (US 20120120922 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Huang”).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 20, Centonza discloses the WTRU of claim 11.
However, Centonza does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a radio access network (RAN) of the network cannot support a reserved transport session, and responsive to the determination: execute a handover procedure to another RAN node of the network.
Huang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the one or more processors are further configured to
determine that a radio access network (RAN) of the network cannot support a reserved transport session (¶21, Huang discloses determining that a current serving cell has or will have a radio link failure), and responsive to the determination: execute a handover procedure to another RAN node of the network (¶21, Huang discloses performing a cell reselection in response to a determination that a current serving cell has or will have a radio link failure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centonza by requiring that the one or more processors are further configured to determine that a radio access network (RAN) of the network cannot support a reserved transport session, and responsive to the determination: execute a handover procedure to another RAN node of the network as taught by Huang because cellular service continuity is improved by enabling the mobile device to be proactively commanded to switch to the candidate cell for receiving cellular service (Huang, ¶3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 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.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 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 ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights