DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 08/20/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for Examination.
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 Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2026/0239078 A1, Xu.
With respect to claim 1, Xu teaches:
An apparatus (paras. [0238]-[0239] and [0243]-[0246], and Network apparatus 1200/1400 of Figs. 12 and 14), comprising:
one or more processors (paras. [0238]-[0239] and [0243]-[0246]; network apparatus 1200/1400 with processor/CPU 1201/1401 of Figs. 12 and 14); and
one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (paras. [0238]-[0239] and [0243]-[0246]; network apparatus 1200/1400 with CRM/memory 1202/1402-1403 of Figs. 12 and 14), wherein the one or more memories comprise instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
obtain source encoding information associated with application data for a UE (paras. [0009]-[0012], [0076]-[0080] and [0089]; Table 1 and Figs. 3 and 6A —a VAL/SEALDD NW server can obtain Application signaling/data traffic request information corresponding to Application traffic associated with a VAL UE client and encoded via a SEALDD server traffic flow, as depicted in block 1 of Fig. 6A —source encoding information can correspond to application traffic ID and application bitrate, etc., of a subscription request —the Examiner notes Applicant’s disclosure similarly describes source encoding info to include options, features, means or instructions of at least one QoE value(s) such as a bitrate, resolution or quality of payload, frame type, etc., at para. [0017] and Table 2);
obtain link condition information associated with a network entity that supports communications for the UE (paras. [0018]-[0021] and [0077]-[0083]; and Table 1 -—a VAL/SEALDD NW server can obtain one or more spatial and/or temporal NW link condition parameters requisite for supporting UE/client measurement and/or data communications as part of a SEALDD communications flow procedure);
output an indication of one or more source configuration parameters for encoding the application data for the UE, the one or more source configuration parameters based at least in part on the source encoding information and the link condition information (paras. [0018][0022], [0027], [0077]-[0083]; Table 1, and Figs. 3, 15-16 —a VAL server can output to a SEALDD server, depicted in Fig. 3, various configuration parameters as part of a subscription request, including encoding bitrate information for Application Signaling/Traffic data to be communicated with a VAL client(s) running the corresponding application, as depicted in Table 1); and
output an indication of one or more network configuration parameters to the network entity for communicating the application data to the UE, the one or more network configuration parameters based at least in part on the source encoding information and the link condition information (paras. [0018]-[0022], [0027], [0077]-[0083]; Table 1, and Figs. 3, 15-16 —a VAL server can output to a SEALDD server, depicted in Fig. 3, various configuration parameters as part of a subscription request, including measurement conditions and quality and/or scheduling requirement information, i.e., UE reporting frequency, periodicity, granularity, etc., for Application Signaling/Traffic data to be communicated with a VAL client(s) running the corresponding application, as depicted in Table 1 —the Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure describes network configuration parameters to include those indicating “a resource scheduling policy associated with a UE” at para. [0169]).
With respect to claim 2, Xu teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
receive, from the UE, a measurement report associated with the communications for the UE, wherein the one or more network configuration parameters, the one or more source configuration parameters, or both, are based at least in part on the measurement report (paras. [0073], [0077]-[0086], and [0089]-[0095]; Tables 1 and 3, and Step 7 of Fig. 6B —an identified UE, or UE group, of a subscription request, can perform quality measurements in accordance with the subscription request params, i.e., bitrate requirement, channel condition requirements, reporting instructions, etc., and then provide corresponding measurement(s) to a subscribing VAL Server via the SEALDD client/server tunnel —the alternative terminology: X, Y, “or” both, only requires examination on the merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Limitations section).
With respect to claim 3, Xu teaches:
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
transmit an indication of a configuration for the measurement report, the configuration indicating one or more measurements for inclusion in the measurement report, wherein the one or more measurements include at least a quality of experience measurement, a round trip time measurement, a packet error rate measurement, a frame error rate and jitter measurement, or any combination thereof, and wherein the measurement report is received based at least in part on the configuration for the measurement report (paras. [0018]-[0027], [0073], [0077]-[0086], and [0089]-[0095]; Table 1 and 3 —a VAL server can submit a subscription request as a configuration for UE measurement reporting, where the request includes indication of a measurement associated with QoE and packet error rate, i.e., latency and packet loss rate, or jitter at para. [0104] —the subscribing VAL server can then receive a measurement report based on its configuration/subscription request indications/parameters, i.e., including UE-measured latency and packet loss rate —the alternative terminology: W, X, Y, Z “or any combination thereof” only requires examination on the merits of two claimed alternatives, i.e., X and Z, or W and Y, etc., for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Limitations section).
With respect to claim 4, Xu teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
obtain a subscription request, wherein the source encoding information is obtained and the indication of the one or more source configuration parameters are outputted at least in part on the subscription request (paras. [0018]-[0027], [0073], [0077]-[0086], and [0089]-[0095]; Tables 1 and 3, and Fig. 2 —a subscription request corresponding to UE measurement reporting can be acquired at a VAL server, where the request may include an application traffic bitrate, i.e., source encoding info —indication of various configuration parameters for UE reporting, i.e., source configuration parameters, can be indicated in the subscription request of a VAL server and outputted therefrom via the SEALDD server/client to a VAL client).
With respect to claim 5, Xu teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
output a link condition measurement configuration, wherein the link condition information is obtained based at least in part on the link condition measurement configuration, and wherein the indication of the one or more network configuration parameters is output based at least in part on the link condition measurement configuration (paras. [0018]-[0027], [0073], [0077]-[0086], and [0089]-[0095]; Tables 1 and 3, and Fig. 2; and —the VAL Server can transmit a subscription request/configuration including link condition parameters, i.e., spatial or temporal conditions associated quality, etc., to a VAL client for corresponding measurement reporting, and a network configuration parameter associated with latency, packet-loss, etc., can be measured/and reported, i.e., outputted, based at least in part on corresponding link quality and scheduling requirements being satisfied).
With respect to claim 6, Xu teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to:
obtain an indication of a quality of experience threshold for the UE, wherein the one or more network configuration parameters, the one or more source configuration parameters, or both, are based at least in part on the quality of experience threshold (paras. [0021]-[0027], [0089]; and Table 4 —a VAL Server can acquire a service NW quality guarantee policy relating to triggering a quality guarantee action when an event is detected corresponding to a measurement quality threshold, i.e., packet delay/loss, being breached —this QoS/QoE criteria can be indicated as a reporting criteria/service policy IE parameter, i.e., as depicted in Table 4 —the Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure recites that “as used herein, QoE and QoS may be used interchangeably and techniques herein referring to or based on QoS may refer to or be based on QoE additionally, or in the alternative,” at para. [0028] —as a such, a QoS threshold can likewise be interpreted to correspond to a QoE threshold, as described within Applicant’s own disclosure).
With respect to claim 7, Xu teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein one or more of obtaining the source encoding information, obtaining the link condition information, outputting the indication of the one or more network configuration parameters, and outputting the indication of the one or more source configuration parameters are periodic communications associated with a respective periodicity (paras. [0021], [0027], [0080]-[0082], and [0104]-[0105]; and Tables 1 and 4 —an indication of source configuration parameters can be output by a VAL server as part of a subscription request having parameters corresponding to reporting periodicity with a period window parameter setting configuration, etc. —the alternative term “one or more of,” only requires examination on the merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Limitations section).
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 14 is directed to a method claim type, as opposed to an apparatus. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Xu, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Xu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Xu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Xu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Xu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Xu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors (paras. [0237]-[0238] and [0243]-[0245]; non-transitory CRM 1202/CRM 1402 and memory 1403 of Figs. 12/14). As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Xu, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of ETSI TS 123.288: 5G/Architecture Enhancements for 5GS to Support NWDAS (V18.6.0) (July 2024) (hereinafter “NPL-U”).
With respect to claim 8, Xu teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Xu does not explicitly teach:
obtaining, from a network exposure function, forwarded source encoding parameters based at least in part on a source server associated with the source encoding information being an untrusted source server.
NPL-U does teach:
obtaining, from a network exposure function, forwarded source encoding parameters based at least in part on a source server associated with the source encoding information being an untrusted source server (§6.4.1, p. 166 —the NWDAF can collect network data via the NEF in order to provide statistics/predictions of an observed QoE to a consumer NR or OAM; §6.4.2, pp. 167-168; and Table 6.4.2-2 —the NWDAF can invoke the NAF_EventExposure_Subscribe service for a particular Application ID, either directly for a trusted AF, or indirectly (via NEF) for an untrusted AF —In this context, the QoS flow Bit Rate parameter, i.e., a source encoding parameter, associated with a particular Application ID can be acquired indirectly via NAF subscription).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu’s obtaining of source encoding parameters with similar obtainment being from an intermediary subscription entity such as a NEF for an untrusted AF, as taught by NPL-U.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly require NWDA implementation via NEF intermediary parameter acquisition, as recognized by NPL-U (§6.4.1, p. 166; §6.4.2, pp. 167-168; and Table 6.4.2-2).
With respect to claim 10, Xu teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the instructions to obtain the link condition information are executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to obtain an indication of a packet delay measurement associated with the UE (paras. [0021]-[0022], [0077], [0089], and [0093] —the subscription request from the VAL server can include instructions causing obtainment of latency/DL packet delay as measured by a VAL client UE.).
However, Xu does not explicitly teach:
causing the apparatus to also obtain an indication of a channel quality index associated with the UE, a signal to interference plus noise ration associated with the UE, or a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment or not-acknowledgement associated with the UE.
NPL-U does teach:
causing an apparatus to obtain an indication of a channel/link condition information associated with UE measurements, such as a signal to interference plus noise ratio associated with the UE (§6.4.2, pp. 168-169; and Table 6.4.2-3 —the NWDAF can collect channel associated with a UE, i.e., via the OAM, including RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, Packet Delay, Packet Loss, Throughput, etc. by subscription therewith).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu’s obtaining of source link condition parameters associated with a UE, such as packet delay, to further include SINR and other common link condition information, as taught by NPL-U.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable NWDA obtainment of other common link condition parameters associated with a UE, as recognized by NPL-U (§6.4.2, pp. 168-169; and Table 6.4.2-3).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of US PG Pub. 2024/0223832 A1, Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”)
With respect to claim 9, Xu teaches the apparatus of claim 1
However, Xu does not explicitly teach:
wherein the indication of the one or more source configuration parameters is output to a media transcoding module that is configured to transcode the communications for the UE based at least in part on the one or more source configuration parameters.
Chen does teach:
an indication of one or more source configuration parameters is outputted to a media transcoding module that is configured to transcode the communications for the UE based at least in part on the one or more source configuration parameters (paras. [0025]-[0029], and [0032]-[0042]; Figs. 3 and 5-6 —source configuration bitrate adjustment parameters can be output to a media transcoder, as depicted in Figs. 5 and 6, to transcode media communication for a UE in order to improve user QoS/QoE).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu’s outputting of an indication of source configuration parameters, i.e., bitrate, to a media transcoding module to transcode, to transcode communication for a UE, as taught by Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better facilitate media transcoding based on different media bitrate requirements, as recognized by Chen (paras. [0025]-[0029], and [0032]-[0042]; Figs. 3 and 5-6).
With respect to claim 11, Xu teaches the apparatus of claim 1
However, Xu does not explicitly teach:
causing the apparatus to obtain an indication of at least one or more estimated quality of experience values associated with an upcoming communication for the UE, each estimated quality of experience value corresponding to one or more candidate bitrates for the upcoming communication for the UE.
Chen does teach:
causing the apparatus to obtain an indication of at least one or more estimated quality of experience values associated with an upcoming communication for the UE, each estimated quality of experience value corresponding to one or more candidate bitrates for the upcoming communication for the UE (paras. [0042]-[0043], [0057], [0072]-[0074]; and Figs. 3 and 5-6 —a server provider can obtain a state/condition of the network relating to media playback QoS/QoE for various candidate/acceptable bitrates relating to playback smoothness, etc. for a media stream being transmitted to a UE).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu’s obtaining link condition information to support communications for the UE, to further include obtaining associated QoE information to better select an appropriate candidate bitrate for stream media playback to a UE, as taught by Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve media playback smoothness, i.e., better QoE, by adaptively preselecting a best candidate bitrate at a UE under changing network conditions, as recognized by Chen (paras. [0042]-[0043], [0057], [0072]-[0074]; and Figs. 3 and 5-6).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of US PG Pub. 2020/0296741 A1, Ayala Romero et al. (hereinafter “Romero”)
With respect to claim 12, Xu teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Xu does not explicitly teach:
causing the apparatus to output an indication of at least a modulation and coding scheme associated with the UE, a hybrid automatic repeat request policy associated with the UE, a resource scheduling policy associated with the UE, or any combination thereof.
Romero does teach:
causing an apparatus to output an indication of at least a modulation and coding scheme associated with a UE, a hybrid automatic repeat request policy associated with the UE, a resource scheduling policy associated with the UE, or any combination thereof (paras. [0048]-[0049] and [0063]; and policy manager 410 of Fig. 4 —a policy manager apparatus can output an indication of a scheduling policy and an associated MCS based on link condition feedback and encoding information —the alternative terminology: X, Y, Z “or any combination thereof” only requires examination on the merits of two claimed alternatives, i.e., X and Z, or X and Y, etc., for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Limitations section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu’s outputting of an indication of one or more source configuration parameters, to further include a scheduling policy including MCS selection, as taught by Romero.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly select MCS, i.e., related to bitrate, as part of a scheduling policy, as recognized by Romero (paras. [0048]-[0049] and [0063]; and policy manager 410 of Fig. 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of US PG Pub. 2026/0214055 A1, Pateromichelakis et al. (hereinafter “Pateromichelakis”)
With respect to claim 13, Xu teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions to output the indication of the one or more source configuration parameters are executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to output an indication of an encoding bitrate associated with the communications for the UE (paras. [0019]-[0021], [0027], and [0073]-[0077]; and Table 1 —as part of a subscription request a VAL server can output a configuration parameter associated with a UE traffic bitrate).
However, Xu does not explicitly teach:
causing the apparatus to output an indication of a frame type associated with the communications for the UE.
Pateromichelakis does teach:
causing an apparatus to output an indication of a frame type associated with the communications for a UE (paras. [0065], [0116]-0119], [0139]-[0144], and [0169] —an outputted XR subscription request can include a frame type, i.e., an i-frame, a p-frame, etc., associated with UE traffic type communications).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xu’s outputting of an indication of one or more source configuration parameters such as bitrate, to further include parameters such as a frame type per UE traffic type, as taught by Pateromichelakis.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly include frame type request parameterization along with bitrate as a source configuration parameter for a UE data/media stream, as recognized by Pateromichelakis (paras. [0065], [0116]-0119], [0139]-[0144], and [0169]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2026/0239075 A1, Xu: teaches VAL server subscription requests transmitted via a SEALDD server for UE Application traffic measurement and parameter adjustment.
US PG Pub 2025/0227522 A1, Rune et al.: teaches UE QoE management and subscription services for Application traffic of a UE considering measurement reporting metrics.
US PG Pub 2026/0040104 A1, Pateromichelakis et al.: teaches edge application server subscription to various analytics for application traffic being measured for a UE QoS flow.
US PG Pub 2024/0236823 A1, Suh: teaches NEF subscription for NFs including QoS parameters for UE measurement/reporting, including policy configuration and updates.
NPL-U: ETSI TS 123.288 (V18.6.0): teaches various enhancements for 5G network functions relating to support of network data analytics (NWDA) services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
