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
The amendments filed on 8/13/2026 have been entered.
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 14-15, 18-19 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but not persuasive.
Applicant 1st argument
here is no RRC message in Eklof that includes a measurement report with both the QoE of the service and area information associated with the QoE of the service.
Paragraph [0203] describes a message from the NM to the DM, which is then forwarded to the eNB, which includes an "area scope." However, this message is not an RRC message, does not include a measurement report, and does not include the QoE of the service. So, the message(s) described in paragraph [0203] cannot anticipate "sending, to a second base station, an RRC message comprising a measurement report comprising: the QoE of the service; and area information associated with the QoE of the service," as recited in claim 1.
Paragraph [0204] describes a message from eNB to the UE that is an RRC message and includes the area scope, but this message is from the eNB (not to the eNB), does not include a measurement report, and does not include the QoE of the service. Thus, the message described in paragraph [0204] cannot anticipate "sending, to a second base station, an RRC message comprising a measurement report comprising: the QoE of the service; and area information associated with the QoE of the service," as recited in claim 1.
Paragraphs [0272] to [0289], describing FIGS. 21 and 22 of Eklof, mention measurement
reports that are received by base stations. However, these messages are not described as including the area information. The only RRC message mentioned in this section is a message sent to the UE. Thus, the messages described in paragraphs [0272] to [0289] cannot anticipate "sending, to a second base station, an RRC message comprising a measurement report comprising: the QoE of the service; and area information associated with the QoE of the service," as recited in claim 1.
Paragraph [0219] describes that the UE completes QoE measurement collection. Paragraph [0226] explains that the UE sends this report and a QoE reference ID to the eNB in an RRC message. However, neither paragraph indicates that the RRC message and/or report includes the area information. Thus, paragraphs [0219] and [0226] cannot anticipate "sending, to a second base station, an RRC message comprising a measurement report comprising: the QoE of the service; and area information associated with the QoE of the service," as recited in claim 1.
Applicant respectfully submits that, for at least these reasons, Eklof fails to anticipate "sending, to a second base station, an RRC message comprising a measurement report comprising: the QoE of the service; and area information associated with the QoE of the service," as recited in claim 1. For at least this reason, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Additionally, while Eklof mentions RRC idle at paragraphs [0009] to [0011] and [0016], and RRC inactive in paragraph [0016], Eklof fails to disclose or suggest, "communicating, by a wireless device in a radio resource control (RRC) idle state or an RRC inactive state and with a first base station, packets associated with a service," and "determining a quality-of-experience (QoE) of the service based on the communicating the packets." The Office Action cited paragraphs [0009] to [0011], which mention RRC idle state. Those paragraphs, however, do not indicate that the wireless device communicates packets of a service with the first base station, while in that idle state, nor that the quality of experience of such idle state communication of the service is determined or reported. Thus, Eklof also fails to anticipate, "communicating, by a wireless device in a radio resource control (RRC) idle state or an RRC inactive state and with a first base station, packets associated with a service," and "determining a quality-of-experience (QoE) of the service based on the communicating the packets." For at least this further independent reason, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner response to 1st argument:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that Eklof does not teach that the prior art teaches RRC message” without providing additional details in the claim, however as presented here ElKOF teaches RRC connection between entities ([0009-0011] After a UE is powered ON it will be in the RRC_IDLE state until an RRC connection is established with the network,)([0015] RRC signaling is used to configure application layer measurements in UEs,)([0130] the MN sends an RRCConnectionReconfiguration message to the UE including the SN RRC configuration message,).
Furthermore, the applicant argues that ELKOF does not teach “communicating, by a wireless device in a radio resource control (RRC) idle state or an RRC inactive state” without providing additional details in the claim, however ELKOF teaches this subject matter ([0009-0011] After a UE is powered ON it will be in the RRC_IDLE state until an RRC connection is established with the network,)([0015] RRC signaling is used to configure application layer measurements in UEs,)([0130] the MN sends an RRCConnectionReconfiguration message to the UE including the SN RRC configuration message,) and with a first base station, packets associated with a service ([0083][0272-0289] Figs. 21, UE communication with base stations, first RNN, second RNN, wherein RNN is a base station or eNB, gNB, CU, DU, sending to a UE connection to the first RNN a QoE measurement configuration for one or more services provided by UE)([0014, 0171] QoE measurements for streaming services)(Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10[0180, 0203]);
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. Thus, the Office does not interpret claims in the same manner as the courts. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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)(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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by EKLÖF et al. (“EKLÖF”, US 20230284058 A1) hereinafter EKLÖF.
Regarding claim 1, EKLÖF teaches a method comprising:
communicating, by a wireless device in a radio resource control (RRC) idle state or an RRC inactive state ([0009-0011] After a UE is powered ON it will be in the RRC_IDLE state until an RRC connection is established with the network,)([0015] RRC signaling is used to configure application layer measurements in UEs,)([0130] the MN sends an RRCConnectionReconfiguration message to the UE including the SN RRC configuration message,) and with a first base station, packets associated with a service ([0083][0272-0289] Figs. 21, UE communication with base stations, first RNN, second RNN, wherein RNN is a base station or eNB, gNB, CU, DU, sending to a UE connection to the first RNN a QoE measurement configuration for one or more services provided by UE)([0014, 0171] QoE measurements for streaming services)(Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10[0180, 0203]);
determining a quality-of-experience (QoE) of the service based on the communicating the packets ([0272-0289] Figs. 21, receiving QoE reports from the UE in accordance to QoE configuration and measurements);
sending, to a second base station, an RRC message comprising a measurement report ([0272-0289] Figs. 21, sending QoE reports to first RNN or second RNN or both first and second RNNs) comprising:
the QoE of the service ([0272-0289] Figs. 21, sending QoE reports to first RNN or second RNN or both first and second RNNs); and
area information associated with the QoE of the service ([0218] FIG. 19, in operation 6, the UE starts an application associated with the service type and initiates measurement collection according to the received configuration and area. The UE assigns this measurement collection a recording session ID and reports this ID (in operation 7) to the UE AS using the same AT command)(Fig. 27, base stations and corresponding coverage areas) ([0203] The message includes a service type (e.g., streaming), an area scope, a measurement configuration file for the QoE measurements to be performed, and a QoE reference identifier.).
Regarding claim 2, EKLÖF teaches the method of claim 1,
EKLÖF teaches wherein the communicating the packets associated with the service comprises communicating the packets at a first area ([0203-0204] The message includes a service type (e.g., streaming), an area scope, a measurement configuration file for the QoE measurements to be performed, and a QoE reference identifier)([0218][Table 12][0337][0359, 0364, 0379]) (Fig. 27, base stations and corresponding coverage areas) ([0203] The message includes a service type (e.g., streaming), an area scope, a measurement configuration file for the QoE measurements to be performed, and a QoE reference identifier) (Table 10).
Regarding claim 3, EKLÖF teaches the method of claim 2,
EKLÖF teaches wherein the area information indicates the first area ([0203-0204] The message includes a service type (e.g., streaming), an area scope, a measurement configuration file for the QoE measurements to be performed, and a QoE reference identifier)([0218][Table 12][0337][0359, 0364, 0379]) (Fig. 27, base stations and corresponding coverage areas) ([0203] The message includes a service type (e.g., streaming), an area scope, a measurement configuration file for the QoE measurements to be performed, and a QoE reference identifier) (Table 10).
Regarding claim 4, EKLÖF teaches the method of claim 3,
wherein the area information comprises at least one of:
information of a location of the wireless device;
an identifier of a cell;
an identifier of a tracking area ([0203-0204] The message includes a service type (e.g., streaming), an area scope, a measurement configuration file for the QoE measurements to be performed, and a QoE reference identifier)([0218][Table 12][0337][0359, 0364, 0379]) (Fig. 27, base stations and corresponding coverage areas) ([0203] The message includes a service type (e.g., streaming), an area scope, a measurement configuration file for the QoE measurements to be performed, and a QoE reference identifier)(Table 10).
an identifier of a registration area;
an identifier of a Multicast/Broadcast Single Frequency Network (MBSFN) area;
information of a carrier frequency; or
anabsolute radio-frequency channel number (ARFCN) of the carrier frequency associated with the service.
Regarding claim 5, EKLÖF teaches the method of claim 1,
EKLÖF teaches wherein the measurement report further comprises time information associated with the QoE of the service (Table 10, measurement type at a time and signaling of withinArea,).
Regarding claim 6, EKLÖF teaches the method of claim 5,
wherein the time information comprises at least one of:
a time of measuring the QoE of the service (Table 10, measurement type at a time and signaling of within Area,).
a time duration of measuring the QoE of the service;
a time of using the service; or
a time duration of using the service.
Regarding claim 8, EKLÖF teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising
EKLÖF teaches receiving, by the wireless device, at least one configuration message comprising measurement configuration parameters indicating at least one of:
area information comprising at least one of:
an identifier of a cell ([0203] QoE reference identifier. In operation 3, the eNB identifies served cells matching the area scope, as well as UEs in these served cells that match other parameters in the message (e.g., service type))([0289] QoE measurement reports received from second RNN (e.g., in block 2170) or sent to the second RNN (e.g., in block 2185) includes an identifier of the UE. The parameters MNG RAN node UE XnAP ID and S NG RAN node UE XnAP ID in Table 17 are examples of an identifier of a UE)([0301]);
an identifier of a tracking area;
an identifier of a registration area;
an identifier of a Multicast/Broadcast Single Frequency Network area; or
an absolute radio-frequency channel number (ARFCN) of a carrier frequency associated with the service; and
time information comprising at least one of:
a time of measuring the QoE of the service;
a time duration of measuring the QoE of the service;
a time of using the service; or
a time duration of using the service.
Regarding claim 9, EKLÖF teaches the method of claim 1,
EKLÖF teaches wherein the service comprises at least one of:
a service type comprising at least one of:
streaming ([0014] QoE measurements for streaming services)([0171, 0174, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10]);
multimedia telephony service for internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) (MTSI);
a virtual reality (VR); or
an extended reality (XR);
a multimedia broadcast service; or
a network slice comprising at least one of:
a slice suitable for handling of 5G enhanced Mobile Broadband (EMBB);
a slice suitable for handling of ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC);
a slice suitable for handling of massive internet of things (IoT) (MIoT);
a slice suitable for handling of vehicle to everything (V2X) services; or
a slice suitable for handling of High-Performance Machine-Type Communications (HMTC).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected with the same reasoning as 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by EKLÖF et al. (“EKLÖF”, US 20230284058 A1) hereinafter EKLÖF, in view of Peng et al. (“Peng”, US 20230107244 A1) hereinafter Peng.
Regarding claim 7, EKLÖF teaches the method of claim 1,
EKLÖF does not explicitly teach, but Peng teaches
wherein the measurement report comprises at least one of:
a field indicating a reference signal received power (RSRP) of at least one cell/carrier or at least one reference signal associated with communicating the packets associated with the service ([0066-0070] DataUpload message may include at least one of: current timestamp; current TTI number; list of base stations/access points; list of active users; transmission power of each user/base station; one or more users' buffer status; one or more users' buffer status for the services with high quality of service (QoS) requirements; QoS of services for one or more users; QoS fulfillment status of each user's services; CSI report of one or more users; (reference signal receiving power) RSRP and reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ) measurements; wireless resource allocation schemes including channel allocation schemes and power allocation schemes; one or more user' mobility state; one or more user' handover requests.);
a field indicating a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) of at least one cell/carrier or at least one reference signal associated with communicating the packets associated with the service ([0066-0070] DataUpload message may include at least one of: current timestamp; current TTI number; list of base stations/access points; list of active users; transmission power of each user/base station; one or more users' buffer status; one or more users' buffer status for the services with high quality of service (QoS) requirements; QoS of services for one or more users; QoS fulfillment status of each user's services; CSI report of one or more users; (reference signal receiving power) RSRP and reference signal receiving quality (RSRQ) measurements; wireless resource allocation schemes including channel allocation schemes and power allocation schemes; one or more user' mobility state; one or more user' handover requests.);;
a field indicating a block error rate of data; or
a field indicating a block error rate of signaling.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify EKLÖF in view of Peng in order to have RSRP and RSRQ data in the reports between stations and network nodes because this data improves technology for intelligent interference management and radio resource management to solve heavy signaling overhead between base station and reduce waste radio resource greatly (Peng [0003-0004]).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by EKLÖF et al. (“EKLÖF”, US 20230284058 A1) hereinafter EKLÖF, in view of JEONG et al. (“JEONG”, US 20240196248 A1) hereinafter JEONG.
Regarding claim 10, EKLÖF teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising
sending, to the second base station, a second RRC message indicating that the measurement report associated with the QoE of the service is available ([0272-0289] Figs. 21, sending QoE reports to first RNN or second RNN or both first and second RNNs),
EKLÖF does not explicitly teach, but JEONG teaches
wherein the RRC message or the second RRC message comprises at least one of:
an RRC resume complete message ([0056-0065, 0166-0170, 0245-0246] the UE may report the QoE measurement results via messages such as RRC Setup Complete/RRC Resume Complete/RRC Reestablishment Complete.);
an RRC setup complete message ([0056-0065, 0166-0170, 0245-0246] the UE may report the QoE measurement results via messages such as RRC Setup Complete/RRC Resume Complete/RRC Reestablishment Complete.); or
an RRC reestablishment complete message ([0056-0065, 0166-0170, 0245-0246] the UE may report the QoE measurement results via messages such as RRC Setup Complete/RRC Resume Complete/RRC Reestablishment Complete.).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify EKLÖF in view of JEONG in order to have include RRC resume complete message, RRC setup complete message or RRC reestablishment complete message in the QoE reporting because it allows better and more enhanced QoE reporting between UE and base stations and allows a better user equipment to manage quality of experience in a wireless communication system (JEONG [0002-0005, 0089-0094]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights