CTNF 18/702,466 CTNF 79123 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Examiner’s Note The cited art in PCT search has been thoroughly reviewed but not relied by Examiner for claims rejection because they fail to disclose limitations required by claims in the pending application. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, in line 1, replace “A processor configured to” with --A user equipment (UE) comprising at least a processor configured to--. An apparatus claim must include at least a physical structure for performing the operations. Regarding claims 2-11, in line 1, replace “The processor” with --The UE--. Regarding claim 7, in line 9, “inidcate” is mistyped. Regarding claim 12, in line 1, replace “A processor configured to” with --A base station (BS) comprising at least a processor configured to--. An apparatus claim must include at least a physical structure for performing the operations. Regarding claims 13-15, in line 1, replace “The processor” with --The BS--. Regarding claim 16, in line 1, replace “A processor configured to” with --A base station (BS) comprising at least a processor configured to--. An apparatus claim must include at least a physical structure for performing the operations. Regarding claims 17-19, in line 1, replace “The processor” with --The BS --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 8, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al (US 2023/0134119 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a processor (Fig. 11, electronic processor 1110) configured to: receiving a quality of experience (QoE) measurement configuration to perform QoE measurements, wherein the QoE measurement configuration includes at least one QoE measurement session (Fig. 1, block 107, 43 rd , 45 th , and 136 th paragraphs, UE receives QoE configuration from source gNB for QoE measurement. Wherein, QoE configuration comprises a QoE measurement collection identifier for a session); receiving a QoE measurement deactivation command including an indication as to whether the QoE measurements are deactivated based on a geographical area scope restriction (Fig. 2, block 207, and 50 th paragraph, UE receives a QoE measurement deactivation indication and/or within Area indication (out) to indicate the target cell is outside the area scope); and based on the indication, determining whether to promptly deactivate the QoE measurements (Fig. 2, block 209 and 52 nd paragraph, UE checks the within Area indication and if the target cell is outside the scope where the QoE measurement will take place, the UE stops the QoE measurements) or to deactivate the QoE measurements when an active measurement session has ended. Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses maintain a session state for the QoE measurements (38 th paragraph, QoE configuration includes an identifier for a session), wherein the session state comprises a first state when a current QoE measurement session is active (45 th paragraph, UE performs measurement for a QoE) or a second state when the current QoE measurement session is not active (52 nd paragraph, UE does not perform QoE measurement for a QoE). Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses that wherein the indication comprises an enumerated parameter (Fig. 2, block 207, and 50 th paragraph, UE receives a QoE measurement deactivation indication and/or within Area indication (out) to indicate the target cell is outside the area scope). Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses that wherein the indication is included in an RRC Reconfiguration message (Fig. 2, block 207, UE receives a QoE measurement deactivation indication and/or within Area indication (out) to indicate the target cell is outside the area scope in RRC connection Reconfiguration). Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses a processor (Fig. 11, electronic processor 1110) configured to: determine that a user equipment (UE) configured for performing quality of experience (QoE) measurements has moved to a location (Fig. 2, UE is moving from 5G to LTE while QoE measurement being configured) where a geographical area scope restriction is imposed for the QoE measurements (Fig. 2, target eNB is outside of area scope); and generate, for transmission to the UE, a QoE measurement deactivation command to the UE including an indication the QoE measurements are deactivated based on the geographical area scope restriction (Fig. 2, block 207, and 50 th paragraph, UE receives a QoE measurement deactivation indication and/or within Area indication (out) to indicate the target cell is outside the area scope). Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses that wherein the indication comprises an enumerated parameter (Fig. 2, block 207, and 50 th paragraph, UE receives a QoE measurement deactivation indication and/or within Area indication (out) to indicate the target cell is outside the area scope). Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses that wherein the indication is included in an RRC Reconfiguration message (Fig. 2, block 207, UE receives a QoE measurement deactivation indication and/or within Area indication (out) to indicate the target cell is outside the area scope in RRC connection Reconfiguration) . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (US 2023/0199543 A1) . Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses a processor (Fig. 18, electronics processor 1810) configured to: process, based on signals received from a core network entity or an operations, administration and maintenance (OAM) domain, a quality of experience (QoE) measurement deactivation command to deactivate a QoE measurement configuration for a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 5, case 1, 1a, NG-RAN receives QoE deactivation indication from OAM/CN); and generate for transmission to the UE, the QoE measurement deactivation command in a transparent container (30 th paragraph, for QoE configuration, information is transferred as a container to RAN node) including an indication the QoE measurements are deactivated based on a request from the core network entity (Fig. 5, NG-RAN transmits RRC message with deactivation indication, as requested by OAM/CN to UE AS). Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses that wherein the indication is an enumerated parameter (Fig. 5, case 1, 1a, NG-RAN receives QoE deactivation indication from OAM/CN). Regarding claim 19, Zhang discloses that wherein the indication is included in an RRC Reconfiguration message (Fig. 5, RRC message with deactivation indication. This RRC is a RRC Reconfiguration message since RRC Configuration message having QoE configuration already sent in earlier stage, Fig. 4, block 4) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Zhang . Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses that wherein, when the processor determines to promptly deactivate the QoE measurements, the processor is further configured to: discard, by an access stratum (AS) layer, unsent QoE measurement reports; and indicate, by the AS layer, the QoE measurement deactivation to an application layer (AL). Zhang discloses that the UE receiving the deactivation indication, the access stratum (AS) layer sends the received deactivation indication to UE application layer and deletes QoE measurement (182 nd and 183 rd paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include deleting QoE measurement and informing the application layer of deactivation in Liu’s system, as suggested by Zhang, to release resources associated with QoE deactivation . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 18 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. Conclusion Liu et al (US 2024/0188175 A1), generally related, discloses QoE operations handling for an inactive state (Figs. 4-9). Li et al (US 2022/0225142 A1), generally related, discloses QoE measurement configuration in handover procedure (Figs. 17). Eklof et al (US 2023/0388830 A1), generally related, discloses mobility handling of QoE (Figs. 9-11). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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. ANH VU H. LY Primary Examiner Art Unit 2472 /ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/702,466 Page 2 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/702,466 Page 3 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/702,466 Page 4 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/702,466 Page 5 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/702,466 Page 6 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/702,466 Page 7 Art Unit: 2472 Application/Control Number: 18/702,466 Page 8 Art Unit: 2472
Prosecution Insights