DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the measured value" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, 13-14, 16-19, 21-22, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant’s submission of prior art Kumar et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0217560 (hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 22, Kumar discloses a first device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor [inherent features of a user equipment] cause the first device at least to: receive, from a second device, information related to a threshold value associated with a configuration of an application layer measurement performed by the first device [paragraphs 0123, 0125]; perform, during a Radio Resource Control, RRC, idle or inactive state, the application layer measurement based on the configuration [paragraph 0127]; and in accordance with a determination that a measured value satisfies the threshold value, initiate a process for entering an RRC connected state [paragraphs 0129-0130].
Regarding independent claims 13 and 34, Kumar discloses a second device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor [inherent features of a base station], cause the second device at least to: generate information related to a threshold value associated with a configuration of an application layer measurement performed by a first device; and transmit information to the first device [paragraphs 0123-0125, 0146].
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Kumar discloses wherein the application layer measurement comprises a Quality of Experience, QoE, measurement or a radio access network visible QoE measurement [paragraph 0084].
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Kumar discloses wherein the first device is caused to receive the information before the first device enters the RRC idle state or the RRC inactive state [paragraphs 0123-0126].
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Kumar discloses wherein the first device is caused to receive the information via an RRC release process or an RRC reconfiguration process [paragraphs 0123-0126].
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Kumar discloses wherein the first device is caused to receive the information via a system information block or a broadcast control channel signaling [paragraph 0057].
Regarding claim 7, Kumar discloses wherein the first device is caused to: in accordance with a determination that an RRC layer of the first device determines that the measured value satisfies the threshold value, cause a request for entering the RRC connected state to be transmitted by the first device [paragraphs 0127-0129].
Regarding claim 8, Kumar discloses wherein the first device is caused to: in accordance with a determination that an application layer of the first device determines that the measured value satisfies the threshold value and an indication of the satisfaction is transmitted from the application layer to an RRC layer of the first device, cause a request for entering the RRC connected state to be transmitted by the first device[paragraphs 0127-0129].
Regarding claim 9, Kumar discloses wherein the request is transmitted to one of: the second device for resuming the RRC connected state with the second device, or a third device for establishing the RRC connected state with the third device [paragraph 0129].
Regarding claim 10, Kumar discloses wherein the request comprises the indication that the measured value satisfies the threshold value [paragraphs 0125, 0127].
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Kumar discloses wherein the first device comprises a terminal device and the second device comprises a network device [paragraph 0123].
Regarding claim 19, Kumar discloses wherein the second device is caused to: in accordance with a determination that a request for entering an RRC connected state is received from the first device, resume the RRC connected state between the first and the second devices [paragraphs 0127-0129].
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.
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Applicant’s submission of prior art, Hu et al., WO 2022/082727 (hereinafter Hu). The Hu reference will be cited from EP 4221308, provided by Applicant, which is the English translation equivalent of WO 2022/082727.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Kumar does not specifically disclose wherein the threshold value is associated with at least one of the following: a buffer level for an application of the first device, an average throughput, or a playout delay. However, Hu teaches this limitation [paragraph 0118]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar to include the teaching of Hu. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Kumar does not specifically disclose wherein a third device comprises a network device. However, Hu teaches this limitation [paragraphs 0186, 0202-0203, fig 7]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar to include the teaching of Hu. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuo et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2026/0059357, disclose reporting of application layer measurements in RRC-Inactive/Idle modes.
Xu et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2026/0019350, disclose an apparatus and method for QoE measurement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/EAW/
September 14, 2026
/ERIKA A WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights