CTNF 18/715,790 CTNF 89711 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. This action is in response to the application filed on 06/03/2024. The Claims 1-16 have been canceled by the applicant. The Claims 17-35 have been newly added by the applicant. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 17-21, 23-26, 28-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Arshad et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220295307) . Regarding claim 17 Arshad disclose a method in a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving, from a first network node, a first Minimization of Drive Tests (MDT) configuration relating to measurements for a first data radio bearer (DRB) of a first DRB type, wherein the first DRB type comprises one of para. 44, “receiving the MCG MDT configuration or the SCG MDT configuration” : Master Cell Group (MCG) bearer type, Secondary Cell Group (SCG) bearer type, and split bearer type para. 44, “includes receiving a generic MDT configuration and the method includes modifying the generic configuration with MCG related parameters” ; receiving, from a second network node, a second MDT configuration relating to measurements for a second DRB of the first DRB type para. 50, “receiving the SCG MDT configuration from a secondary node, SN and configuring MDT according to both the MCG MDT configuration and the SCG MDT configuration” ; and reporting a plurality of measurement reports para. 54, “reporting variables and/or memory storage for SCG-related MDT measurement data and MCG-related MDT measurement data”. Regarding claim 18 Arshad disclose, wherein reporting the plurality of measurement reports comprises: performing measurements for the first DRB according to the first MDT configuration para. 54, “Some embodiments include performing MDT according to the MCG MDT configuration” ; performing measurements for the second DRB according to the second MDT configuration para. 52, “Some embodiments include performing MDT according to the SCG MDT configuration simultaneously ; and reporting results of the performed measurements para. 54, “reporting variables and/or memory storage for SCG-related MDT measurement data and MCG-related MDT measurement data” . Regarding claim 19 Arshad disclose, wherein the measurements according to the first MDT configuration are reported to the first network node para. 65, “Some embodiments include transmitting an MCG MDT measurement report to a master node, MN, serving the MCG” , and the measurements according to the second MDT configuration are reported to the second network node para. 65, “Some embodiments include transmitting, an SCG MDT measurement report to a secondary node, SN, serving the SCG. Regarding claim 20 Arshad disclose, wherein the measurements according to one or more of the first and second MDT configuration quantify Radio Access Network packet delay para. 116, Table 2, “The measurement quantities for Immediate MDT MDT RRC mode states Measurement quantities Immediate RRC. M6: Packet Delay measurement, separately for DL and UL . Regarding claim 21 Arshad disclose, wherein the measurements according to one or more of the first and second MDT configuration comprise uplink (UL) Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) packet average delay measurements para. 116, Table 2, “The measurement quantities for Immediate MDT MDT RRC mode states Measurement quantities Immediate RRC. see UL PDCP Delay, by the UE” . Regarding claim 23 Arshad disclose, wherein the UE is operating in dual connectivity with the first network node and the second network node para. 116, “the UE is connected in a dual connectivity arrangement” . Regarding claim 24 Arshad disclose, wherein the first network node is a Master Node (MN) and the second network node is a Secondary Node (SN) para. 116, “configuration includes transmitting the MCG MDT configuration to a master node, MN, serving the MCG…, configuration includes transmitting the SCG MDT configuration to a secondary node, SN, serving the SCG”. Regarding claim 25 Arshad disclose, wherein the method further comprises sending, to a network node, an indication that the UE is configured for the first DRB type according to both the first MDT configuration and the second MDT configuration para. 163, “Transmitting the MCG MDT configuration and the SCG MDT configuration to one or more radio access network, RAN, nodes, for provision to the UE includes transmitting an MDT configuration that includes both MCG-related configuration information and SCG-related configuration information to a first RAN node for provision to the UE”. Regarding claim 26 Arshad disclose, wherein the method further receiving a third MDT configuration relating to measurements for a third DRB of a second DRB type; and reporting according to the third MDT configuration para. 35, “the first management node coordinates with a third management node (502) to generate the SCG MDT configuration”. Regarding claim 28 Jones teaches, a user equipment (UE), the UE comprising: a communication interface; and read as: “a wireless transceiver circuit 502”, processing circuitry read as: “a processor circuit 503” see para. 152; furthermore, the claim recites an apparatus corresponding to the system of claim 17 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 17. Regarding claims 29-32 and 34-35 the limitations of claims 29-32 and 34-35, respectively , are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 18-21 and 23-24, respectively . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 22 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220295307) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150092579) . Regarding claim 22 Arshad does not specifically disclose, wherein the measurements according to one or more of the first and second MDT configuration comprise D1 measurements. However, Li teach, “minimization of drive test method provided in the present embodiment comprises: a node receiving a MDT measurement and configuration parameter, wherein, the MDT measurement and configuration parameter carries a measurement requirement for obtaining a delay, and the node performs statistics on data information related to the total number of packets and the number of packets whose transmission time exceeds the packet delay budget of the air interface in measurement time”, see para. 32. Arshad and Li are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to minimization of drive test. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li in the system of Arshad so the system can accurately determine the packet delay between the transmitting node and the receiving node. The motivation for doing so would have been to evaluate the duration it takes to successfully transmit data packets through the network to improve the working quality of the system. Regarding claim 33 the limitations of claim 33 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 22 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arshad et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220295307) in view of Xu et al. (U.S. Pub. 20170208491) . Regarding claim 27 Arshad does not specifically disclose, wherein reporting according to the third MDT configuration comprises: performing measurements for the third DRB according to the third MDT configuration . However, Xu teach, para. 43, “The process may also comprise receiving a second minimization-of-drive test data from a third network node”. Xu further teach, reporting results of the performed measurements for the third DRB para. 44, “The first apparatus may also comprise first instructing means for instructing a second apparatus to at least one of collect and report a second minimization-of-drive-test data”. Arshad and Xu are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to minimization of drive test. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xu in the system of Arshad so the system can accurately determine the packet delay between the transmitting node and other nodes in the network. The motivation for doing so would have been to evaluate the duration it takes to successfully transmit data packets within the network to properly maintain the quality of services . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Shrestha et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220078872) which disclose(s) system and method for operation of enhanced machine type communication (EMTC) and narrow band internet-of-things (NB-IOT) user equipments (UES) when connected to 5G core network (5GCN) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–272–8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, 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. /R.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2471 /SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/715,790 Page 2 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/715,790 Page 3 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/715,790 Page 4 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/715,790 Page 5 Art Unit: 2471 Application/Control Number: 18/715,790 Page 8 Art Unit: 2471
Prosecution Insights