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 .
Response to Amendment
Preliminary Amendment filed 10/28/2024 has been entered. The Specification contains no new matter. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14-16, 19, 21-23, 27, and 33 are amended; claims 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 24-26, 28-32, and 34 are cancelled. Claims 1-11, 14-16, 19, 21-23, 27, and 33 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11, 14-16, 19, 21-23, 27, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “negatively” in claims 1, 16, and 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “negatively” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification does not provide an objective standard by which a detected incident affecting user QoE might be deemed to do so negatively or not, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. Claims 2-11, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 27, and 33 are rejected as depending from claims 1, 16, and 23, respectively, and under the same rationale.
The term “seriously” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “seriously” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. At best, the Specification discloses that “seriously degraded” service experience is “very slow, there are high delays or service is frequently interrupted” (Specification, p. 19). However, this disclosure does not provide an objective standard for determining whether service degradation is serious or not, as the terms “very”, “high” and “frequently” are also relative terms and not defined against an objective standard in the Specification.
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 1, 3-6, 8-10, 14-16, 23, 27, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0199543), hereinafter Zhang, further in view of Abramovitz (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0083952), further in view of Bouazizi et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0151009), hereinafter Bouazizi, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2013/0045735), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang disclosed a method for a user equipment, UE, configured to report quality of experience, QoE, measurements in a radio access network, RAN (UE transmitting QoE reports in a RAN, ¶[0026]), the method comprising: monitoring performance of one or more services, of a UE application layer, that communicate with corresponding one or more application servers via the RAN (UE collecting/measuring, i.e., monitoring, QoE measurements/metrics, i.e., performance, ¶[0042], [0238]; metrics including application name/identifier, i.e., monitoring services, ¶[0044]); classifying a plurality of categories of severity (calculating simplified qualitative representations, i.e., classifying categories of severity, of QoE metrics, e.g., “Good”, “Moderate”, or “Bad”, ¶[0051]); and sending, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: a QoE incident report during a measurement period (UE sending QoE report, i.e., message/QoE incident report, ¶[0242], [0249]; UE measuring metrics for a measurement duration, i.e., measurement period, ¶[0053], [0286]).
Zhang did not disclose:
based on the monitoring, detecting one or more incidents that negatively affect user QoE; classifying each of the incidents as one of a plurality of categories of severity; and sending, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: a QoE incident report that includes at least one count of incidents during a measurement period, with each count corresponding to a different category of severity; and results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period (emphasis added).
Abramovitz disclosed:
based on the monitoring, detecting one or more incidents that negatively affect user QoE (collecting, i.e., monitoring, QoE parameters, ¶[0065]; determining whether an event, i.e., incident, impacting QoE of a user, i.e., negatively affecting user QoE, is actually occurring based on parameters, ¶[0070], [0075]); classifying each of the incidents as one of a plurality of categories of severity (classifying occurrence or non-occurrence of events, ¶[0070], [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Zhang to include, based on the monitoring, detecting one or more incidents that negatively affect user QoE, and classifying each of the incidents as one of a plurality of categories of severity as claimed, because doing so would have more accurate detected user experience issues from QoE parameters while also helping to identify the specific issue detected (Abramovitz, ¶[0068]-[0069]).
Zhang and Abramovitz did not disclose:
sending, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: a QoE incident report that includes at least one count of incidents during a measurement period, with each count corresponding to a different category of severity; and results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period (emphasis added).
Bouazizi disclosed:
sending, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following:
a QoE incident report that includes at least one count of incidents during a measurement period, with each count corresponding to a different category of severity (generating and reporting a QoE report/metrics, ¶[0030], ¶[0032]; metrics including the number, i.e., count, of individual events over a QoE reporting interval, i.e., measurement period, of a certain type, i.e., category of severity, ¶[0041], [0043], [0045], [0047], [0049], [0052], [0056], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Zhang and Abramovitz to include sending, to a RAN node, a message that includes a QoE incident report that includes at least one count of incidents during a measurement period, with each count corresponding to a different category of severity as claimed, because doing so would have been useful information for improving user experience and future quality of experience (Bouazizi, ¶[0022]).
Zhang, Abramovitz, and Bouazizi did not disclose:
sending, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period (emphasis added).
Kim disclosed:
sending, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period (UE measuring and transmitting radio channel measurements, i.e., radio measurements, in a measurement information report, i.e., message, to an eNB, i.e., RAN node, at a periodic interval, i.e., measurement period, ¶[0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Zhang, Abramovitz, and Bouazizi to include sending, to a RAN node, a message that includes results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period as claimed, because doing so would have doing so would have helped in the optimization of the radio network (Kim, ¶[0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method wherein the QoE incident report sent to the RAN node includes only non-zero counts of incidents during the measurement period (report event trigger for reporting events only when metrics are above a threshold, i.e., non-zero, Zhang, ¶[0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method wherein:
the monitoring, detecting, and classifying operations are performed by the respective services of the UE application layer (UE application layer starting QoE measurement process, Zhang, ¶[0029]); and the sending operation is performed by the UE radio layer (sending QoE measurements in UE AS layer, i.e., UE radio layer, Zhang, ¶[0280]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method further comprising: in response to each incident classified by a particular service, the particular service sending to the UE radio layer a QoE incident report that includes an identifier of the service and the category of severity of the incident (UE sending QoE report, i.e., message/QoE incident report, Zhang, ¶[0242], [0249]; metrics including application name/identifier, i.e., monitoring services, Zhang, ¶[0044]; calculating simplified qualitative representations, i.e., classifying categories of severity, of QoE metrics, e.g., “Good”, “Moderate”, or “Bad”, Zhang, ¶[0051]); and the UE radio layer incrementing a counter corresponding to category of severity indicated by incident report (metrics including the number, i.e., count, of individual events over a QoE reporting interval, i.e., measurement period, of a certain type, i.e., category of severity, Bouazizi, ¶[0041], [0043], [0045], [0047], [0049], [0052], [0056], [0059]).
The combination of references made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method wherein the at least one count of incidents in the QoE incident report comprises values of the respective counters at the end of the measurement period, limited to a predetermined maximum count (metrics including the number, i.e., count, of individual events over a QoE reporting interval, i.e., measurement period, of a certain type, i.e., category of severity, Bouazizi, ¶[0041], [0043], [0045], [0047], [0049], [0052], [0056], [0059]).
The combination of references made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method further comprising the UE radio layer resetting the respective counters at or before the beginning of each measurement period (metrics including the number, i.e., count, of individual events over a QoE reporting interval, i.e., measurement period, of a certain type, i.e., category of severity, Bouazizi, ¶[0041], [0043], [0045], [0047], [0049], [0052], [0056], [0059], inherently requiring resetting of the counters in order to reflect number of events over a measurement period).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method further comprising: in response to each incident classified by a particular service, the particular service incrementing a counter corresponding to category of severity of the incident (metrics including the number, i.e., count, of individual events over a QoE reporting interval, i.e., measurement period, of a certain type, i.e., category of severity, Bouazizi, ¶[0041], [0043], [0045], [0047], [0049], [0052], [0056], [0059]); and the respective services sending to the UE radio layer respective service QoE incident reports for the measurement period, with each service QoE incident report including an identifier of the service and values of the service's respective counters at the end of the measurement period (UE sending QoE report, i.e., message/QoE incident report, Zhang, ¶[0242], [0249]; metrics including application name/identifier, i.e., monitoring services, Zhang, ¶[0044]; calculating simplified qualitative representations, i.e., classifying categories of severity, of QoE metrics, e.g., “Good”, “Moderate”, or “Bad”, Zhang, ¶[0051]).
The combination of references made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method wherein: the one or more services include a plurality of services (metrics including application name/identifier, i.e., services, Zhang, ¶[0044]); the method further comprises, for each category of severity, the UE radio layer aggregating the values of corresponding counters in the respective service QoE incident reports for the measurement period (metrics including the number, i.e., count, of individual events over a QoE reporting interval, i.e., measurement period, of a certain type, i.e., category of severity, Bouazizi, ¶[0041], [0043], [0045], [0047], [0049], [0052], [0056], [0059]); and the QoE incident report sent to the RAN node includes the aggregated values, limited to a predetermined maximum count (UE sending QoE report, i.e., message/QoE incident report, Zhang, ¶[0242], [0249]).
The combination of references made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method wherein the message comprises a radio resource control (RRC) MeasResults information element, IE, that includes the QoE incident report and the results of the radio measurements (UE sending QoE report, i.e., message/QoE incident report, Zhang, ¶[0242], [0249]; UE measuring and transmitting radio channel measurements, i.e., radio measurements, in a measurement information report, i.e., message, to an eNB, i.e., RAN node, at a periodic interval, i.e., measurement period, Kim, ¶[0005]).
The combination of references made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method wherein: the one or more services communicate with corresponding one or more application servers via the UE's serving cell in the RAN (communicating via cellular network, i.e., service cell, Zhang, ¶[0026]); and the results of the radio measurements are for the UE's serving cell and one or more neighbor cells in the RAN (measurement information including serving and neighbor cell measurements, Kim, ¶[0017]).
The combination of references made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang disclosed a method for a network node or function, NNF (BS/network node, ¶[0026]), configured to receive user equipment, UE (UE, ¶[0026]), quality of experience, QoE, measurements in a radio access network, RAN (UE transmitting QoE reports in a RAN, ¶[0026]), the method comprising: receiving a message that includes the following: a QoE incident report during a measurement period, associated with a service of a UE application layer that includes one or more services that communicate with corresponding one or more application servers via the RAN (UE sending QoE report, i.e., message/QoE incident report, ¶[0242], [0249]; UE measuring metrics for a measurement duration, i.e., measurement period, ¶[0053], [0286]; UE collecting/measuring, i.e., monitoring, QoE measurements/metrics, i.e., performance, ¶[0042], [0238]; metrics including application name/identifier, i.e., monitoring services, ¶[0044]).
Zhang did not disclose:
a QoE incident report that include at least one count of incidents that negatively affect user QoE during a measurement period, wherein: each count corresponds to a different one of a plurality of categories of severity, and each incident is associated with a service of a UE application layer that includes one or more services that communicate with corresponding one or more application servers via the RAN; and results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period (emphasis added).
Abramovitz disclosed:
a QoE incident report that include incidents that negatively affect user QoE during a measurement period (collecting, i.e., monitoring, QoE parameters, ¶[0065]; determining whether an event, i.e., incident, impacting QoE of a user, i.e., negatively affecting user QoE, is actually occurring based on parameters, ¶[0070], [0075]), wherein: each corresponds to a different one of a plurality of categories of severity, and each incident is associated with a service of a UE application layer that includes one or more services that communicate with corresponding one or more application servers via the RAN (classifying occurrence or non-occurrence of events, ¶[0070], [0075]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Zhang and Abramovitz did not disclose:
a QoE incident report that include at least one count of incidents that negatively affect user QoE during a measurement period, wherein: each count corresponds to a different one of a plurality of categories of severity, and each incident is associated with a service of a UE application layer that includes one or more services that communicate with corresponding one or more application servers via the RAN (emphasis added).
Bouazizi disclosed:
a QoE incident report that include at least one count of incidents that negatively affect user QoE during a measurement period, wherein: each count corresponds to a different one of a plurality of categories of severity, and each incident is associated with a service of a UE application layer that includes one or more services that communicate with corresponding one or more application servers via the RAN (generating and reporting a QoE report/metrics, ¶[0030], ¶[0032]; metrics including the number, i.e., count, of individual events over a QoE reporting interval, i.e., measurement period, of a certain type, i.e., category of severity, ¶[0041], [0043], [0045], [0047], [0049], [0052], [0056], [0059]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Zhang, Abramovitz, and Bouazizi did not disclose:
results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period.
Kim disclosed:
results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period (UE measuring and transmitting radio channel measurements, i.e., radio measurements, in a measurement information report, i.e., message, to an eNB, i.e., RAN node, at a periodic interval, i.e., measurement period, ¶[0005]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 23, Zhang disclosed a user equipment, UE configured to report quality of experience, QoE, measurements in a radio access network, RAN (UE transmitting QoE reports in a RAN, ¶[0026]), the UE comprising: communication interface circuitry configured to communicate with the RAN (communication interface, ¶[0345]); and processing circuitry operatively coupled to the communication interface circuitry (processor electronics, ¶[0345]), whereby the processing circuitry and the communication interface circuitry are configured to: monitor performance of one or more services, of a UE application layer, that communicate with corresponding one or more application servers via the RAN (UE collecting/measuring, i.e., monitoring, QoE measurements/metrics, i.e., performance, ¶[0042], [0238]; metrics including application name/identifier, i.e., monitoring services, ¶[0044]); classify a plurality of categories of severity (calculating simplified qualitative representations, i.e., classifying categories of severity, of QoE metrics, e.g., “Good”, “Moderate”, or “Bad”, ¶[0051]); and send, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: a QoE incident report during a measurement period (UE sending QoE report, i.e., message/QoE incident report, ¶[0242], [0249]; UE measuring metrics for a measurement duration, i.e., measurement period, ¶[0053], [0286]). Zhang did not disclose:
based on the monitoring, detect one or more incidents that negatively affect user QoE; classify each of the incidents as one of a plurality of categories of severity; and send, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: a QoE incident report that includes at least one count of incidents during a measurement period, with each count corresponding to a different category of severity; and results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period (emphasis added).
Abramovitz disclosed:
based on the monitoring, detect one or more incidents that negatively affect user QoE (collecting, i.e., monitoring, QoE parameters, ¶[0065]; determining whether an event, i.e., incident, impacting QoE of a user, i.e., negatively affecting user QoE, is actually occurring based on parameters, ¶[0070], [0075]); classify each of the incidents as one of a plurality of categories of severity (classifying occurrence or non-occurrence of events, ¶[0070], [0075]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Zhang and Abramovitz did not disclose:
send, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: a QoE incident report that includes at least one count of incidents during a measurement period, with each count corresponding to a different category of severity; and results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period (emphasis added).
Bouazizi disclosed:
send, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: a QoE incident report that includes at least one count of incidents during a measurement period, with each count corresponding to a different category of severity (generating and reporting a QoE report/metrics, ¶[0030], ¶[0032]; metrics including the number, i.e., count, of individual events over a QoE reporting interval, i.e., measurement period, of a certain type, i.e., category of severity, ¶[0041], [0043], [0045], [0047], [0049], [0052], [0056], [0059]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Zhang, Abramovitz, and Bouazizi did not disclose:
send, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period (emphasis added).
Kim disclosed:
send, to a RAN node, a message that includes the following: results of radio measurements performed by a UE radio layer during the measurement period (UE measuring and transmitting radio channel measurements, i.e., radio measurements, in a measurement information report, i.e., message, to an eNB, i.e., RAN node, at a periodic interval, i.e., measurement period, ¶[0005]).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 27, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry of a user equipment, UE configured to report quality of experience, QoE, measurements in a radio access network, RAN, configure the UE to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 1 (computer-readable medium including computer-executable instructions, Zhang, ¶[0346]; see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 33, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry of a network node or function, NNF configured to receive user equipment, UE quality of experience, QoE, measurements in a radio access network, RAN, configure the NNF to perform operations corresponding to the method of claim 16 (computer-readable medium including computer-executable instructions, Zhang, ¶[0346]; see claim 16 above).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0199543), Abramovitz (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0083952), Bouazizi (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0151009), and Kim (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2013/0045735), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bardhan et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2014/0358626), hereinafter Bardhan.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method as detailed above, wherein the plurality of categories of severity include the following: a first category of critical problems; a second category of major problems; and a third category of medium problems (calculating simplified qualitative representations, i.e., classifying categories of severity, of QoE metrics, e.g., “Good”, “Moderate”, or “Bad”, , i.e., first, second, and third category, Zhang, ¶[0051]).
Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim did not disclose the method wherein the plurality of categories of severity include the following: a first category of critical problems, such that the corresponding service cannot be used; a second category of major problems, such that the corresponding service is usable but user QoE is seriously degraded; and a third category of medium problems, such that user QoE for the corresponding service is degraded but less than for a major problem (emphasis added).
Bardhan disclosed:
a first category of critical problems, such that the corresponding service cannot be used (severity levels for the impact of an incident, including severity level between 1 and 5, where 1 can be the most severe, i.e., first category of critical problems, that cause an outage for the customer’s service i.e., the corresponding service cannot be used, ¶[0046]); a second category of major problems, such that the corresponding service is usable but user QoE is seriously degraded (severity levels for the impact of an incident, including severity level between 1 and 5, where 3, i.e., second category of major problems, will not cause an outage or have actual/financial impact, i.e., corresponding service is usable, ¶[0046]); and a third category of medium problems, such that user QoE for the corresponding service is degraded but less than for a major problem (severity levels for the impact of an incident, including severity level between 1 and 5, where 5, i.e., third category of medium problems, can be the least severe, i.e., less than major problem, ¶[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the categories of severity of Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim wherein the plurality of categories of severity include a first category of critical problems, such that the corresponding service cannot be used, a second category of major problems, such that the corresponding service is usable but user QoE is seriously degraded, and a third category of medium problems, such that user QoE for the corresponding service is degraded but less than for a major problem as claimed, because doing so would have provided an accurate analysis of incidents and allowed for more effective remedial activities (Bardhan, ¶[0015]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0199543), Abramovitz (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0083952), Bouazizi (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0151009), and Kim (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2013/0045735), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yin et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2016/0105856), hereinafter Yin.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method as detailed above. Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim did not disclose the method wherein the at least one count of incidents in the QoE incident report excludes categories of severity whose corresponding counters are zero at the end of the measurement period.
Yin disclosed disabling, i.e., excluding, measurement reporting by a UE if a counter is set to zero (¶[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim wherein the at least one count of incidents in the QoE incident report excludes categories of severity whose corresponding counters are zero at the end of the measurement period as claimed, because doing so would have prevented erroneous reporting of network incidents that might result in network failures (Yin, ¶[0032]-[0034]).
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0199543), Abramovitz (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0083952), Bouazizi (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0151009), and Kim (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2013/0045735), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kunz et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2025/0203402), hereinafter Kunz.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method wherein: the NNF is a RAN node and the message is received from the UE (UE transmitting reports to BS/network node/RAN node, Zhang, ¶[0025]-[0026]). Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim did not disclose the method wherein:
the method further comprises sending the QoE incident report and the results of the radio measurements to one or more of the following: a network data analytics function, NWDAF, of a core network coupled to the RAN; and a management data analytics function, MDAF, of an operations administration maintenance, OAM, system coupled to the RAN.
Kunz disclosed the forwarding of a Monitoring Result Report by a UE to an NWDAF (¶[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim to include sending the QoE incident report and the results of the radio measurements to a network data analytics function, NWDAF, of a core network coupled to the RAN as claimed, because doing so would have provided secure reporting of measurements by a UE (Kunz, ¶[0160]).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim disclosed the method as detailed above. Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim did not disclose the method wherein:
the NNF is one of the following:
a network data analytics function, NWDAF, of a core network coupled to the RAN; and
a management data analytics function, MDAF, of an operations administration maintenance, OAM, system coupled to the RAN, the message is received from a RAN node that serves the UE.
Kunz disclosed the forwarding of a Monitoring Result Report by a UE to an NWDAF, i.e., NNF, (¶[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, and Kim wherein the NNF is a network data analytics function, NWDAF, of a core network coupled to the RAN as claimed, because doing so would have provided secure reporting of measurements by a UE (Kunz, ¶[0160]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2023/0199543), Abramovitz (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0083952), Bouazizi (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2012/0151009), Kim (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2013/0045735), and Kunz (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2025/0203402), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0326447), hereinafter Yoon.
Regarding claim 22, Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, Kim, and Kunz disclosed the method as detailed above. Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, Kim, and Kunz did not disclose the method further comprising one or more of the following: computing one or more QoE key performance indicators, KPIs, based on the QoE incident report; detecting one or more radio-related problems in the RAN based on the QoE incident report and the results of the radio measurements; and detecting one or more problems in a core network coupled to the RAN, based on the QoE incident report and the results of the radio measurements.
Yoon disclosed:
computing one or more QoE key performance indicators, KPIs, based on the QoE incident report (determining, i.e., computing, KPIs based on device reports collected by client device QoE module, ¶[0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Zhang, Abramovitz, Bouazizi, Kim, and Kunz to include computing one or more QoE key performance indicators, KPIs, based on the QoE incident report as claimed, because doing so would have helped to identify network optimization opportunities (Yoon, ¶[0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441