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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Claims 20-23 have been canceled.
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 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by ZHANG et al. Pub. No.: US 20240323750 A1 (Hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (see paragraph [0251]), comprising:
at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions (see paragraphs [0251-0252]); and
one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to (see paragraphs [0251-0252]):
receive, from a network entity, a configuration configuring the UE to report quality of experience (QoE) measurements and a configuration configuring UE to report logged minimization of drive tests (MDT), and indicating that the QoE reporting and logged MDT reporting are to be aligned (see abstract, paragraphs [0040, 0095]); and
perform one or more actions, based on the indication, to align QoE reporting with logged MDT reporting (see abstract, paragraphs [0040, 0095]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the UE is configured with at least one QoE configuration and a logged MDT configuration; and the UE is indicated that the QoE and logged MDT reporting are to be aligned via a flag in at least one of the QoE configuration or the logged MDT configuration (see paragraphs [0044, 0111-0120, 0143-0152, 0158-0162]).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to notify a UE application layer when logged MDT is configured at the UE, and the indicating that the QoE reporting and logged MDT reporting are to be aligned (see paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to receive, from the UE APP layer, at least one of a START indication or a STOP indication, in response to the notification (see paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the START indication indicates that the UE is to start logging MDT measurements (see paragraph [0108]) and the STOP indication indicates that the UE is to stop logging MDT measurements (see paragraph [0120]).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein
the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to log, in a logged MDT report, at least one parameter value upon receiving the START indication or the STOP indication (see paragraph [0120]).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to transmit, to the network entity, a QoE report that includes a logged MDT trace reference and a trace recording session reference (see paragraphs [0040, 0052,0137]).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the logged MDT trace reference and the trace recording session reference enable correlating the logged MDT report and the QoE report (see paragraphs [0040, 0052,0137]).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: determine, based on the flag, that the logged MDT report has relevance for QoE (see abstract, paragraphs [0040, 0095]).; and indicate logged MDT availability to the network entity, based on the determination (see abstract, paragraphs [0040, 0095]).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 6, wherein
the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: switch from an RRC_CONNECTED state to one of an RRC_IDLE state or an RRC_INACTIVE state (see paragraph [0221]); and provide QoE session information indicating that a QoE session is ongoing during the switch (see paragraphs [0185, 0189, 0221]).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein
the QoE configuration indicates one or more nodes, from a set of nodes, to which the START indication or the STOP indication should be sent in a Multi-Radio Dual connectivity (MR-DC) scenario (see paragraphs [0185, 0189, 0221]).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 12, wherein
the set of nodes comprises a master node (MN) and a secondary node (SN) (see paragraphs [0185, 0189, 0221]).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to transmit at least one of the START indication or the STOP indication to one or more nodes, from the set of nodes, based on an identifier value from a set of identifier values (see paragraphs [0185, 0189, 0221]).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang discloses apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity (see paragraph [0251]), comprising: at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to (see paragraphs [0251-0152]):
transmit a configuration configuring a user equipment (UE) to report quality of experience (QoE) measurements, a configuration configuring the UE to report logged minimization of drive tests (MDT), and an indication that the QoE reporting and logged MDT reporting are to be aligned (see abstract, paragraphs [0040, 0095]); and
receive aligned QoE reporting and logged MDT reporting, in accordance with the indication (see abstract, paragraphs [0040, 0095]).
Regarding Claim 17, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein
the UE is configured with at least one of a QoE configuration or a logged MDT configuration; and the UE is indicated that the QoE and logged MDT reporting are to be aligned via a flag in at least one of the QoE configuration or the logged MDT configuration (see paragraphs [0044, 0111-0120, 0143-0152, 0158-0162]).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein
the aligned QoE reporting includes a logged MDT trace reference and a trace recording session reference (see paragraphs [0040, 0052,0137]).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein
the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to correlate the logged MDT report and the QoE report using the logged MDT trace reference and the trace recording session reference (see paragraphs [0040, 0052,0137]).
Regarding Claim 24, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) 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 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 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al. Pub. No.: US 20240323750 (Hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of LI et al. Pub. No.: US 20220225142 (Hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 6.
Zhang fails to disclose:
wherein the at least one parameter value comprises at least one of: a value of the flag or QoE measurement configuration application layer IDs.
In analogous art, Li teaches:
wherein the at least one parameter value comprises at least one of: a value of the flag or QoE measurement configuration application layer IDs (see paragraph [0161, 0170]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang with the teaching as taught by Li to improve QoE degradation that user experience in an application layer.
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang further discloses the apparatus of claim 14.
Zhang fails to disclose:
the set of identifier values comprises at least one of: a quality of service (QOS) flow ID, a data radio bearer (DRB) ID, and a protocol data unit (PDU) session ID.
In analogous art, Li teaches:
the set of identifier values comprises at least one of: a quality of service (QOS) flow ID, a data radio bearer (DRB) ID, and a protocol data unit (PDU) session ID (see paragraph [0161, 0199]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang with the teaching as taught by Li to improve QoE degradation that user experience in an application layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A. T/August 08, 2026
Prosecution Insights