DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted May 26, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 16-20 and 22-34 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
The previously set forth nonstatutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn and/or overcome.
Applicant argues the prior art of record “fails to teach or suggest the receiving, from the base station, a second message comprising a configuration that enables resuming QoE measurement reporting and transmitting, to the base station, a third message comprising one or multiple QoE measurement report segments based on the at least one QoE measurement report stored in the memory” (Remarks, p. 11). Examiner has carefully considered this argument and reviewed the prior art of record, but respectfully disagrees. Johansson modified by R2-2104271 teaches the base station indicating to pause reporting, indicating to resume reporting, and the actual reporting in segment form (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 31, 33, and all dependent thereon, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 31 and 33: there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term(s) “fragments” in these claims. For purposes of examination, these term(s) are interpreted as “segments.” Further, claim 33 appears to be a duplicate of claim 31, that should instead be dependent upon claim 271.
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 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 16-20 and 22-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0279385 A1 (hereinafter “Johansson”), in view of the non-patent literature document titled Discussion On Pause/Resume NR QoE Reporting (hereinafter “R2-2104271”).
Regarding claims 16, 22, 27, and 29: Johansson teaches a user Equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with the processor, the processor configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from [a] base station, a [second] message comprising a configuration that enables resuming (QoE) measurement reporting (see, e.g., figures 7, 8A, 8B, [0039], [0043], [0130]-[0136], [0146]-[0150]; the UE receives configuration regarding restarting QoE reporting); and
transmit, to the base station, a [third] message comprising at least one QoE measurement report stored in the memory (see, e.g., figures 7, 8A, 8B, [0039], [0043], [0130]-[0136], [0146]-[0150]; the UE reports QoE measurements).
Johansson does not explicitly state configuration to “receive, from a base station, a first message comprising an indication to pause reporting of at least one previously configured Quality of Experience (QoE) measurement,” nor the transmission of “one or more multiple QoE measurement report segments.” However, these features are taught in R2-2104271 (see, e.g., sections 1-2, figures 1 and 2; note configuration for pausing and resuming QoE reporting is sent from a base station; note also segmentation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of R2-2104271, such as the signaling and/or configuration functionality, within the system of Johansson, in order to improve responses to overload.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 16 is applicable to the methods and base station of claims 22, 27, and 29, respectively.
Regarding claims 17 and 23: Johansson modified by R2-2104271 further teaches wherein the memory comprises a buffer, and wherein the at least one QoE measurement report is stored in the buffer (see, e.g., Johansson [0008], [0028], [0149]; and/or R2-210417 section 2). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 17.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 17 is applicable to the method of claim 23.
Regarding claims 18 and 24: Johansson modified by R2-2104271 further teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause the UE to submit the at least one QoE measurement report stored in the memory of the UE to a lower layer of the UE for transmission based on the configuration (see, e.g., Johansson figures 7, 8A, 8B, [0136]; note submission(s) between layers). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 18.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 18 is applicable to the method of claim 24.
Regarding claims 19, 25, 28, and 30: Johansson modified by R2-2104271 further teaches wherein the configuration comprises an indication of a maximum buffering time for the at least one QoE measurement report stored in the memory (see, e.g., Johansson, [0008]; R2-2104271 section 2; note buffer limitation of duration or size). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 19.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 19 is applicable to the methods and base station of claims 25, 28, and 30, respectively.
Regarding claims 20 and 26: Johansson modified by R2-2104271 further teaches wherein the third message further comprises one or multiple complete QoE measurement reports based on the at least one QoE measurement report stored in the memory (see, e.g., Johansson figures 7, 8A, 8B, [0039], [0043], [0130]-[0136], [0146]-[0150]; the UE reports QoE measurements; see also R2-210417 section 1; note QoE reporting). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 20.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 20 is applicable to the method of claim 26.
Regarding claims 31 and 33: Johansson modified by R2-2104271 further teaches wherein the indication to pause reporting indicates to the UE to store at least one QoE measurement report in response to the indication to pause reporting, and wherein the one or multiple QoE measurement report fragments are based on the stored at least one QoE measurement report (see, e.g., R2-2104271 sections 1-2; note also the explanation set forth above regarding claim 29; indication to store is in response to the indication to pause). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 31 is applicable to claim 33.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 31 is applicable to the method of claim 33.
Regarding claims 32 and 34: Johansson modified by R2-2104271 further teaches wherein the third message further comprises one or multiple complete QoE measurement reports based on the stored at least one QoE measurement report (see, e.g., Johansson figures 7, 8A, 8B, [0039], [0043], [0130]-[0136], [0146]-[0150]; the UE reports QoE measurements; see also R2-210417 section 1; note QoE reporting). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 29 is applicable to claim 32.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 32 is applicable to the method of claim 34.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 Applicant and Examiner discussed these points (see the summary for interview held June 18, 2026).
Prosecution Insights