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 .
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) 1-10 and 13-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0225142, “Li”) in view of Xu et al. (US 2024/0196459, “Xu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Li unless otherwise mentioned.
Li comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, a method comprising:
determining, by a first network node of a radio access network (RAN) responsive to the first network node being in a dual connectivity configuration with a user equipment (UE) and a second network node of the RAN (Note that Li discloses a first node is to perform measurements related to MDT and QoE as seen in the following citations, and dual connectivity in [0484]. However, detail description about DC will be discussed in view of Xu.), that the first network node is to perform alignment of at least one minimization of drive test (MDT) measurement ([0080, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5] “Referring to FIG. 4, in step 401, a first node or a third node transmits a first message to a second node. The first message includes a configuration related to a second measurement, and the second measurement is used for assisting a first measurement. The assisting the first measurement may be assisting the management of the first measurement, which may refer to helping the network to further analyze, evaluate, or improve the results of the first measurement, or helping or assisting in analyzing the problems reflected by the first measurement… The second measurement may be an MDT measurement.” See [0135].) and at least one quality of experience (QoE) measurement that is to be utilized by the RAN, for QoE analysis ([0080, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5] “the first measurement may be an application layer measurement or a QoE measurement. The second measurement may be a radio-related measurement, which may be a measurement on a node serving the UE and/or a measurement on an access stratum of the UE. The second measurement may be an MDT measurement.”);
sending, by the first network node to the second network node of the RAN responsive to the second network node being in the dual connectivity configuration with the UE and the first network node of the RAN, a message indicating that the first network node is to perform the alignment (Note that Li discloses a first node sending a message to a second node as depicted in Fig. 7 for example. For more detail description and clarification, this will be discussed in view of Xu.); and
performing, by the first network node when in the dual connectivity configuration, the alignment for the QoE analysis (See aforesaid [0080 and Fig. 4] “transmits a first message”, and “further analyze, evaluate or improve the results”. See [0135], and [0484] “As described above, in a measurement configuration and reporting method for assisting QoE optimization in the disclosure, during the movement of the UE or in the dual-connectivity scenario”).
It is noted that while disclosing using an MDT measurement to assist a QoE measurement including network analysis, Li does not specifically teach about dual connectivity arrangement. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Xu as follows;
determining, by a first network node of a radio access network (RAN) responsive to the first network node being in a dual connectivity configuration with a user equipment (UE) and a second network node of the RAN ([Xu, 0136] “in particular, FIG. 9 shows an example of a method performed by a secondary node in a wireless communication system.”, and [Xu, 0137] In step S901, the secondary node may receive, from a master node, a request message for a Quality of Experience (QoE) management for a UE.”, [Xu, 0274] “a RAN node could efficiently handle QoE management in dual connectivity.”, and [Xu, 0275] “either a master node or a secondary node could perform QoE configuration and/or QoE reporting. Therefore, the conflict problem for deciding which node is in charge the QoE service can be solved.”);
sending, by the first network node to the second network node of the RAN responsive to the second network node being in the dual connectivity configuration with the UE and the first network node of the RAN ([Xu, 0008] “A secondary node receives, from a master node, a request message for a Quality of Experience (QoE) management for a UE.”, and aforesaid [Xu, 0274].), a message indicating that the first network node is to perform the alignment ([Xu, 0275] “either a master node or a secondary node could perform QoE configuration and/or QoE reporting. Therefore, the conflict problem for deciding which node is in charge the QoE service can be solved.”).
It would have been obvious to employ Xu’s DC node-responsibility coordination and MN to SN request message mechanism in Li’s MDT/QiE assistance arrangement, so that the first node informs he second node that the first node is responsible for performing the MDT-QoE alignment/analysis. Doing so would coordinate the nodes’ respective collection, reporting, and handling of related MDT and QoE information in a DC environment.
Regarding claim 15, it is a terminal claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations, “at least one processor” (See Fig. 13.), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the method of claim 1 and the first network node of claim 15, respectively, wherein the UE device generates a report according to the at least one QoE measurement,
wherein the report comprises at least one of:
a trace identifier (id) associated with the at least one MDT measurement ([0085] “reference information of the first measurement for identifying a measurement job ID corresponding to the first measurement, which can be an application layer reference, a QoE reference”, and [0086] “a recording session ID of the first measurement for indicating a recording session identification in which the first measurement is ongoing, so that the second node includes the ID in the report of the second measurement”),
an id of the at least one QoE measurement, an id of at least one QoE measurement to be utilized by an entity other than the RAN, an indication of at least one QoE metrics to include in the at least one QoE measurement, an indication of at least one QoE values to be determined from the at least one QoE metrics, an indication of one or more nodes of the RAN that is to utilize the at least one QoE measurement, time stamp information of the at least one QoE measurement, quality of service (QoS) flow information of the at least one QoE measurement, or data radio bearer (DRB) list information of the at least one QoE measurement (These alternatives are not examined.).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the method of claim 1 and the first network node of claim 15, respectively, comprising: receiving, by the first network node from the second network node of the RAN, a report of the at least one MDT measurement ([0204] “if the first node and the second node are base stations, the first node is the master base station, and the second node is the secondary base station, the assistance MDT configuration information can be transmitted through a secondary node addition request message or trace start message.”).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the method of claim 1 and the first network node of claim 15, respectively, comprising: receiving, by the first network node from the second network node of the RAN, a report of the at least one QoE measurement (See Fig. 5 between 502 and 503.).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the method of claim 1 and the first network node of claim 15, respectively, wherein the second network node receives, from a core network (CN) or an operations, administration and maintenance (OAM) function, an indication that the first network node is to perform the alignment (See Fig. 5 from 501 to 502.).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the method of claim 5 and the first network node of claim 15, respectively, wherein the second network node sends the indication to the first network node (See Fig. 5 from 502 to 503.).
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 6, comprising: determining, by the first network node according to the indication, that the first network node is to perform the alignment for the QoE analysis ([0139] “the UE 503 determines whether to start a QoE measurement according to the configuration condition. At the same time, nodes configured with the assistance measurement should also carry out correlated assistance measurement.”, and [0140] “The UE 503 delivers the measurement results including the QoE report and/or the assistance measurement results to the configured QoE data processing center 504 through the access network node in the 3GPP network 502.”).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1, comprising: receiving, by the first network node from a core network (CN) or an operations, administration and maintenance (OAM) function, an indication that the first network node is to perform the alignment ([0093] “The first node, the second node, and the third node may be an OAM, a core network node, a base station, a CU, a CU-CP, a CU-UP, a DU, or a UE.”).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 8, comprising: sending, by the first network node, the indication to the second network node ([0096] “If both the first node and the second node are base stations, the first message may be a handover request message, a secondary node addition request message, a retrieve UE context response message, a trace start message, etc.” Note that the first node having received the alignment/measurement configuration from OAM/CN forwards that indication to the second node via a secondary node addition request or similar message.).
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 9, wherein the second network node determines, according to the indication, that the first network node is to perform the alignment for the QoE analysis ([0044] “The configuration related to the second measurement may include third indication information indicating whether the first node has activated the second measurement, and the method may further include starting the second measurement according to the third indication information.”).
Regarding claim 13, the method of claim 1, wherein the first network node comprises a master node (MN), and the second network node comprises a secondary node (SN) (See aforesaid [0096].).
Regarding claim 14, the method of claim 1, wherein the first network node comprises a secondary node (SN), and the second network node comprises a master node (MN) (See aforesaid [0093].).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0225142, “Li”) in view of Xu et al. (US 2024/0196459, “Xu”) and further in view of Parichehrehteroujeni et al. (US 2025/0294387, “Ali”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Li unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that while disclosing QoE measurements, Li does not specifically teach about an XnAP . It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Ali as follows;
the method of claim 1, the method comprising: sending, by the first network node to a second network node of the RAN, a message via XnAP ([Ali, 0229] “the first RAN node sends a first inter-RAN node signal to a second RAN node (e.g., a TRACE START XnAP message)”), requesting or indicating that the first network node is to perform the alignment ([0096] “If both the first node and the second node are base stations, the first message may be a handover request message, a secondary node addition request message, a retrieve UE context response message, a trace start message”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Li by using the features of Ali in order to align, coordinate and link QoE and MDT measurements such that “These exemplary methods include receiving from another node or function associated with the RAN a measurement configuration that includes a first configuration for QoE measurements and an indication that the QoE measurements and the MDT measurements should be time aligned.” [Ali, 0022].
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 11, wherein in response to the message, the second network node sends an acknowledgment or confirmation to the first network node ([0341] “In step 902, the second node transmits a handover request acknowledgement message to the third node, which transmits a handover command to the first node.”).
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