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 .
Proposed disposition
Claims 1, 13, 15, 16, and 20: 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), Hu. Claims 2, 5–8, 10, 11, and 17–19: 35 U.S.C. 103, Hu. Claims 3, 4, 9, and 12: 35 U.S.C. 103, Hu in view of Stewart (RFC 4960). These grounds preserve the Hu-based position while expressly supplying the modifications needed for the remaining limitations.
References and eligibility
Hu: Xingxing Hu and Hongping Zhang, WO 2021/228095 A1, Communication method and communication apparatus, published November 18, 2021; PCT/CN2021/093092, filed May 11, 2021. The publication cover continuation expressly lists US among the designated states. Its PCT filing date predates the application’s reported March 10, 2022 priority date. The present ground does not require reliance on Hu’s earlier foreign priority date. Chinese publication does not prevent qualification under AIA 102(a)(2). See MPEP 2154.01(a).
Stewart: Randall Stewart, editor, RFC 4960, Stream Control Transmission Protocol, September 2007. This dated standards publication supplies the acknowledgment and retransmission teachings used under 103. ETSI TS 136 412 V16.0.0 (September 2020), §§4.1 and 4.2, corroborates the suitability of RFC 4960 SCTP for reliable S1 signaling; it is cited as implementation context, rather than as a separate missing-limitation reference.
Hu citations identify printed description pages and figure/step numbers. A claim’s ordinal names for messages or devices do not require Hu to use the same ordinal names. The claimed functions and actor relationships are mapped below.
Hu: WO 2021/228095 A1
Stewart: RFC 4960, September 2007
ETSI TS 136 412 V16.0.0, September 2020
Response to arguments and action status
Quantity versus purpose identifier
The independent request-content language is alternative. The claim 1 rejection selects the purpose-identifier branch and does not require a terminal-count finding. For claims 2, 7, and 11, the revised 103 grounds separately supply explicit quantity information with area characteristic information, addressing their further-characteristic language. The independent disjunction is therefore not used to erase a dependent limitation.
Service Type versus collection purpose
The maintained purpose construction identifies the assessment the collection serves: QoE evaluation for the selected streaming or MTSI service. Hu associates QMC with obtaining user-experience information for network optimization. The rationale relies on that disclosed function. Where configuration is forwarded, the revised 103 ground explicitly retains its purpose metadata instead of assuming the embedded container necessarily carries every outer information element.
Terminal’s own-property determination
Hu’s configured event is compared by the terminal with its own measured QoE performance. The network-side capability/consent determination does not eliminate this expressly disclosed terminal-side comparison. The received threshold supplies the characteristic criterion, satisfaction supplies matching, and conditional contribution supplies participation under the stated collection-process construction. See Hu printed pp. 24–25, step 509; printed pp. 29–30, steps 606 and 706.
Claim 15 and previous allowable subject matter
The single-property event satisfies the permitted N=M=1 case under the same construction. Reconsideration of the earlier allowability indication is explained in the claim 15 mapping; the indication is not silently carried forward after adopting a construction that reaches that claim.
Feedback and retry
Table 1 is not used as a disclosure of feedback or retry. Those limitations are supplied by Stewart under articulated 103 grounds. The successful-receipt and no-feedback alternatives are selected expressly. The revised grounds distinguish transport receipt from application acceptance and specify the relevant endpoints, request correlation, and timer interval.
Claims 1, 13, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Hu, under the constructions stated below.
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses:
A data collection request method. QoE configuration signaling initiates terminal measurement and collection of its results. See Fig. 4, steps 410–450; Fig. 5, steps 501–512.
Transmitting a first data collection request from a first network-side device to a second network-side device. Map CN/OAM/EM to the first device and the receiving access network device to the second. The transmitted QoE configuration message instructs terminal application-layer measurement. See printed pp. 16–18, Fig. 4, step 410; Fig. 5, step 501.
Information carried in the first request includes identifier information identifying a purpose of collected data. Map the request to the QoE configuration message as a whole, including Table 1 Service Type, rather than only its embedded application-layer container. The enumerated values QMC for streaming service and QMC for MTSI service identify the service-experience assessment for which collection is conducted. See printed p. 17, Table 1; printed pp. 15–16, QoE collection background.
Purpose-identifier rationale
The value identifies collection for evaluating the experience quality of the selected service. Hu explains that QoE collection enables network optimization to improve user experience; the identifier selects the assessment served by those measurements. A service-specific quality assessment is a purpose of collection under the maintained construction. The claim does not require a separate field labeled “purpose,” and its purpose-identifier alternative does not additionally require a terminal count. This construction rests on the disclosed QMC function, rather than equating every service identifier with a purpose identifier.
The two request-content alternatives are disjunctive. Satisfying the purpose-identifier branch, together with every other claim limitation, suffices for claim 1. See MPEP 2131, alternative limitations and Brown v. 3M.
MPEP 2131: anticipation and alternative limitations
Hu — claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Hu discloses:
A data collection method. The terminal measures application-layer QoE and conditionally contributes its results to the collection process. See printed p. 25, Fig. 5, steps 507–510; printed p. 30, Fig. 7, steps 705–707.
Receiving data collection configuration transmitted by a target base station. The terminal receives first and second configuration information from the access network device. The second configuration includes reporting-event criteria. See printed p. 25, Fig. 5, steps 503–506; Fig. 7, steps 703–704.
Fifth indication information indicating a terminal participating in collection. Map this functional indication to the configured criterion defining which terminal performance qualifies its data for contribution. Examples include throughput below a threshold and initial playback delay above a threshold. See printed p. 24, event-configuration discussion; printed p. 30, step 706.
Determining, by the terminal based on configuration, to participate and performing collection. Map collection to QoE measurement and participation to the terminal’s conditional contribution within the overall collection procedure. See printed p. 25, steps 507 and 509; printed p. 30, steps 705–706. These are separate functions within the disclosed procedure.
Determining that the indication matches a property of the terminal, and determining to participate. The terminal compares its own measured throughput or playback delay with the received event criterion. Matching means satisfying that criterion. See printed p. 25, step 509; printed p. 29, step 606; printed p. 30, step 706.
The indication comprises characteristic information of a participating terminal. The received performance criterion characterizes the terminal whose measurements qualify for contribution. The terminal’s measured QoE supplies its own performance property. See printed p. 24, threshold examples; printed p. 30, step 706.
Maintained rationale
The received criterion specifies the qualifying characteristic; the terminal’s own QoE measurement supplies the property; and the terminal itself determines whether the property satisfies the criterion. Conditional contribution supplies the participation determination. The claim does not expressly restrict property to location, capability, or willingness, require numerical equality, or prohibit preliminary measurements used to assess a property. Hu expressly measures before event evaluation and reporting. The rejection therefore relies on participation in the overall collection process and separately maps performing collection to measurement; it does not attribute a pre-measurement eligibility decision to Hu.
Applicant’s reliance on Hu’s earlier network-side selection based on capability or user consent does not address this additional terminal-side event comparison. The network supplies the criterion, but the terminal supplies the own-property determination.
Hu: reporting events and terminal determination, Figs. 5–7
Application: specification, including Fig. 6
MPEP 2111: claim interpretation
Hu — claims 15, 16, and 20
Regarding claim 15, Hu discloses:
The method of claim 13. The complete claim 13 mapping and construction above apply. See Fig. 5, step 509; Fig. 7, step 706.
Determining that N terminal properties match, with positive integers M ≥ N ≥ 1 and M the number of properties in the characteristic information. Select Hu’s single-property event: measured average throughput below its configured threshold. The event contains one property criterion (M=1), and satisfying that criterion establishes one matching terminal property (N=1). Hu also gives a combined throughput/delay event, illustrating N=M=2 when both conditions are satisfied. See printed p. 24, single- and multiple-metric event examples; printed p. 25, step 509.
The allowed range expressly includes N=M=1. Claim 15 does not require a stored variable named N, a separate arithmetic counting operation, M>N, or multiple distinct properties. Determining that the one configured property matches establishes the claimed permitted case under the same construction used for claim 13. The earlier allowable-subject-matter indication is therefore reconsidered; it is not retained alongside this contrary finding. This is an additional rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Hu discloses:
The method of claim 13, followed by reporting. The terminal measures and then sends its QoE measurement result to the access network device. See Fig. 5, steps 507 and 510; Fig. 7, steps 705 and 707.
A report containing data collected by the terminal, sent to a first network-side device or an associated third device. For claim 16, map the receiving access network device to the first network-side device. Claim 16 depends on claim 13, which does not establish the claim 1 CN/OAM/EM role for that label. The direct terminal-to-access-network transmission thus supplies the first-device alternative; no TCE association or direct terminal-to-TCE path is necessary. See Fig. 5, step 510; Fig. 7, step 707.
Regarding claim 20, Hu discloses:
A terminal with processor and memory storing executable program or instructions. Hu’s terminal 1600 contains processor and memory, and its software implementation executes the terminal procedures. See Fig. 16 and corresponding device description; Fig. 15 and corresponding processor/instruction implementation.
Execution implements the method of claim 13. The terminal performs QoE measurement, evaluates its own measured property against the configured event, and conditionally contributes the result. The claim 13 mapping applies in full. See Fig. 5, steps 507–510; Fig. 7, steps 705–707; Fig. 16, terminal implementation.
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 2, 5–8, 10, 11, and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hu. The specific modifications, reasons, and expected results follow. These findings do not characterize the modifications as express anticipation disclosures.
Regarding claim 6, Hu teaches:
A data collection request method. The QoE configuration and forwarding procedure supplies the method. See Fig. 4, step 410, handover implementation; Fig. 5, step 501.
Receiving a first request from a first network-side device. CN/OAM/EM transmits configuration to a source access network device. Map the source to the second network-side device. See printed pp. 16–18, step 410; Fig. 5, step 501.
Transmitting a second request to a target base station based on the first request. The source base station forwards first configuration information to the target base station in the expressly described handover implementation. See Fig. 4, step 410, source/target discussion; Table 1, configuration contents.
The second request carries purpose identifier information or quantity-related characteristic information. Use the Table 1 QMC Service Type and the claim 1 purpose construction. Hu distinguishes the embedded first-configuration container from the surrounding QoE metadata. The modification is to retain the corresponding Service Type in the forwarded QoE request, rather than assume that forwarding the container necessarily forwards that external field. See printed pp. 17–18, Table 1 and container explanation; Fig. 4, step 410.
Rationale: A skilled artisan would retain the service-type metadata associated with the forwarded configuration so that the target can identify the QoE assessment it is to continue and interpret the collection task consistently after handover. This preserves the meaning already assigned to that metadata upstream. The predictable result is the disclosed forwarding procedure carrying the same service-purpose identifier; the target’s QoE measurement function remains the one taught by Hu.
Regarding claim 8, Hu teaches:
The method of claim 6. The preceding claim 6 teachings and metadata-retention modification apply. See Fig. 4, step 410; Table 1.
Before forwarding, determining the target base station based on the first request. Hu provides request area scope through cell, tracking-area, and PLMN identifiers, and source-to-target forwarding. Select a target serving the requested terminal within that requested collection scope before routing the request. See printed p. 17, Table 1; printed pp. 16–18, handover implementation.
Rationale: Using the request’s terminal context and area scope to select a participating destination connects Hu’s scope information with its forwarding procedure. It delivers the request to a base station able to collect the requested terminal’s data within the designated scope and avoids sending it to an irrelevant collection area. The claim does not require a particular ranking algorithm. The request-based destination selection is an obvious modification, rather than a finding that ordinary handover selection is necessarily based on a collection request.
Regarding claims 2, 7, and 11,Characteristic-information modification common to these claims
Hu expressly provides QoE collection for a specific terminal through signaling-based MDT, and Table 1 provides cell/tracking-area/PLMN collection scope. To address the dependent claims’ “further comprises” language conservatively, the ground supplies quantity-related characteristic information as well as the additional area indication. It does not assume that selecting the independent claim’s purpose alternative eliminates the dependent requirement for characteristic information.
The modification is to expressly encode the participant quantity as one in the request for Hu’s selected single terminal. A quantity of one is permitted by the claims. The single-terminal collection task supplies the value; explicit encoding communicates that cardinality to the downstream device so it can preserve the intended collection scope and avoid treating the task as an unrestricted selection of additional terminals. This is a predictable representation of Hu’s disclosed single-terminal task, not an assertion that Table 1 already contains a numeric terminal-count field. See printed pp. 16–18, signaling-based MDT and specific-terminal messages; printed p. 17, Table 1.
Regarding claim 2, Hu teaches:
The method of claim 1. The claim 1 request transmission and purpose-identifier mapping apply. See Fig. 4, step 410; Table 1.
Characteristic information further includes at least one of area, capability, or willingness. Select the area alternative: the request’s cell/tracking-area/PLMN scope indicates the location criterion for the participating terminal. Supply the explicit quantity-one information described above in the same request. See Table 1, collection area scope; printed p. 18, surrounding configuration information.
Regarding claim 7, Hu teaches:
The method of claim 6. The claim 6 source-to-target request forwarding and metadata-retention modification apply. See Fig. 4, step 410; Table 1.
The additional area, capability, or willingness characteristic. Retain the collection area scope and quantity-one indication in the source-to-target request. This carries the participating terminal’s location criterion with the forwarded single-terminal task. See Table 1, area-scope entries; printed pp. 16–18, specific-terminal and forwarding discussion.
Regarding claim 11, Hu teaches:
The method of claim 10. The claim 10 mapping on the following page applies, including the target’s receipt and configuration transmission. See Fig. 4, steps 410 and 430; Fig. 5, steps 503–504.
The additional area, capability, or willingness characteristic. The request received by the target contains the retained collection area scope and explicit quantity-one indication. The same location and cardinality rationale applies. See Table 1, area scope; printed p. 18, QoE configuration contents.
For all three claims, the modification preserves both quantity information and the additional area criterion. Reliance on a single recited area alternative does not require separately establishing capability and willingness.
Regarding claim 5, Hu teaches: The method of claim 1, followed by receiving a terminal report. The complete claim 1 mapping applies. The terminal supplies QoE results to the access network device, which forwards them to a TCE. See Fig. 5, steps 510–512; Fig. 7, steps 707–708.
The first network-side device receives a report containing terminal-collected data. Retain the claim 1 first-device identity: use the OAM/EM originator. The modification is to deliver a copy of the terminal’s collected QoE report from the access network device or TCE to that requesting OAM/EM. This does not identify the separate TCE as the OAM/EM or attribute a direct terminal-to-OAM transmission to Hu. See Fig. 5, steps 501 and 512; Hu’s QoE collection/optimization discussion, printed pp. 15–16.
Rationale: Hu’s OAM/EM initiates collection and Hu explains using QoE results to optimize the network. Providing those results to that management originator enables it to assess the task it requested and use the collected data for the disclosed optimization purpose. It adds a reporting destination to an already disclosed report path with the predictable result that the requester receives the terminal-collected report. Claim 5 does not expressly require a direct terminal-to-first-device link, so forwarding the terminal’s report satisfies the proposed method.
Regarding claim 10, Hu teaches:
A data collection notification method. The access network device receives QoE configuration and configures the terminal. See Fig. 4, steps 410–450; Fig. 5, steps 501–506.
Receiving a data collection request at a target base station. Use the target base station in the handover implementation and the complete forwarded QoE request described for claim 6. See Fig. 4, step 410; Table 1.
Transmitting configuration information with a fifth indication identifying a participating terminal. The target sends first and second configuration information to its terminal. The terminal-directed measurement instruction and configured performance criterion supply the functional indication. See Fig. 5, steps 503–504; printed p. 24, reporting-event discussion.
The received request carries a quantity characteristic or purpose identifier. Retain Table 1’s QMC Service Type with the forwarded configuration, as explained for claim 6. The value identifies the service-experience assessment served by collection under the claim 1 construction. See Table 1; printed pp. 17–18, container and related metadata discussion.
Rationale: Retaining the service-purpose metadata lets the receiving target identify the collection task it must implement and send the corresponding terminal configuration. The metadata is already associated with Hu’s upstream task. Carrying it through forwarding predictably maintains that association at the target.
Regarding claim 17, Hu teaches:
A network-side device comprising processor and memory storing executable program or instructions. Hu provides programmable communication apparatus and software products executing disclosed method steps. See Fig. 15 and corresponding processor/instruction discussion; concluding software-product and storage-medium implementation discussion.
Execution implements the method of claim 1. The claim 1 CN/OAM/EM request-generation and transmission functions supply the algorithm. Implement those disclosed functions in a processor-and-memory network device. See Fig. 4, step 410; Fig. 5, step 501.
Rationale: Using Hu’s disclosed software execution architecture for its CN/OAM/EM configuration-transmission function provides automated generation and transmission of the same request. Programming the expressly disclosed function into the network actor’s processor and memory predictably performs that function. This ground does not misidentify Fig. 17’s access-network hardware as an express drawing of the CN/OAM/EM.
Regarding claim 18, Hu teaches:
A network-side device comprising processor and memory storing executable instructions. Hu’s access-network implementation includes memory 1721 and processor 1722 executing its network procedures. See Fig. 17 and corresponding device description; Fig. 15, executable-instruction implementation.
Execution implements the method of claim 6. Use the source access network device receiving and forwarding the QoE request, retaining the associated service-purpose metadata. See Fig. 4, step 410, source-to-target implementation; Table 1. All claim 6 limitations and the metadata-retention rationale above apply.
Rationale: Hu’s programmable source device executes its disclosed forwarding function with the associated metadata preserved as explained for claim 6. The result is the same predictable request-forwarding behavior implemented by the expressly disclosed processor and memory.
Regarding claim 19, Hu teaches:
A network-side device comprising processor and memory storing executable instructions. Use the target access-network implementation. See Fig. 17, memory 1721 and processor 1722; Fig. 15, executable-instruction implementation.
Execution implements the method of claim 10. The target receives the QoE request with retained service-purpose metadata and sends the terminal configuration. See Fig. 4, steps 410 and 430; Fig. 5, steps 503–504. All claim 10 limitations and its metadata-retention rationale apply.
Rationale: Executing the received-task and terminal-configuration procedures on Hu’s target processor implements the disclosed network procedure with the metadata association preserved. No additional specialized hardware or changed measurement principle is needed.
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Hu in view of Stewart, RFC 4960.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches:
The method of claim 1. The complete claim 1 request and purpose-identifier mapping applies. See Hu Fig. 4, step 410; Table 1.
After transmission, the first device receives feedback transmitted by the second device indicating successful receipt, acceptance, or rejection. Select successful receipt. In the combined method, the second-device endpoint acknowledges the request’s data and the first-device endpoint receives that correlated acknowledgment. See Stewart §§3.3.4 and 6.2. No acceptance/rejection finding is necessary for this alternative.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches:
The method of claim 6. The complete claim 6 forwarding method and service-metadata modification apply. See Hu Fig. 4, step 410; Table 1.
After forwarding, the second device receives second feedback from the target base station indicating the second request was successfully received. Select the target-feedback alternative. Apply the same receipt-feedback mechanism to the source-to-target request: source is the second-device endpoint and target base station is the receiving endpoint. See Stewart §§3.3.4 and 6.2; Hu Fig. 4, forwarding implementation. The alternative first-feedback path is not needed.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches:The method of claim 3. The claim 1 procedure and claim 3 receipt-feedback implementation above apply. A successful acknowledgment can follow recovery of an initially unacknowledged request. See Hu Fig. 4, step 410; Stewart §§6.2 and 6.3.
When feedback is not received within a third preset period after transmission, retransmitting after a first preset period measured from that transmission. Select the no-feedback alternative. Assign both the third and first periods to the initial RTO, for example three seconds. The claim does not require those periods to differ or require a further delay after the feedback period. The combined first-device endpoint starts the timer with the request transmission, waits the preset RTO without correlated feedback, and retransmits the outstanding request data when the timer expires. See Stewart §§6.3.1 C1, 6.3.2 R1, 6.3.3 E3, and 15.
Rationale: Timed retransmission recovers loss of the request or its receipt feedback and allows Hu’s intended collection to proceed. The rejected-feedback alternatives need not be established because the claim provides the complete no-feedback alternative. The finding uses the same timeout interval for both recited periods; it does not invent a second sequential wait. Retransmission of the data carrying the same request supplies re-triggered transmission under the construction that the claim is not restricted to creating a new application-layer request.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches:
The method of claim 10. The target’s request receipt and terminal configuration transmissions apply in full, including retained service-purpose metadata. See Hu Fig. 4, steps 410 and 430; Fig. 5, steps 503–504.
After receiving the request, the target base station sends feedback to the request transmitter indicating successful receipt, acceptance, or rejection. Select successful receipt. The target endpoint sends correlated receipt feedback to the endpoint that transmitted the request, using the same mechanism explained above. See Stewart §§3.3.4 and 6.2; Hu Fig. 4, target receipt in the forwarding implementation.
Rationale: The acknowledgment lets the request transmitter distinguish successful delivery from missing delivery and supports the reliable collection-task signaling described above. It supplies the claimed receipt alternative without treating a measurement report as an application-level acceptance message.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 PM..
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191.. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
