DETAILED ACTION
Examiner Note
The Application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/596,296. However, the provisional application does not appear to support the limitations of “(i) a request for a long option or a short option for each of the one or more specified QoE attributes” (see claims 3, 10, and 17) or “receiving an available QoE attributes request from the client;” (see claims 5, 12, and 19). (For the second limitation above, the provisional application indicates that “the AP can advertise what is available and the client can choose from the available options” but does not appear to disclose a client requesting the available KPIs/attributes.)
Therefore, the effective filing date for the subject matter in the current version of claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 is 11/5/2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In item 308 of Figure 3, “Send Availalbe QoE Attributes” should be changed to “Send Available QoE Attributes”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0015], “Fig. 10 is a block diagram of a computing device” should read “Fig. 10 is a block diagram of a communications device”;
In [0025], lines 5-6, “the associated AP 102 will provide the best possible QoE” should read “the associated AP 104 will provide the best possible QoE”;
In [0046], lines 10-11, “The window field 414 may indicate the requested period for determining QoE attributes when the QoE request and response frame 400 and…” should read “The window field 414 may indicate the requested period for determining QoE attributes when the QoE request and response frame 400 is a request and…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al (US 2022/0311523) in view of Dribinski et al (US 2016/0294639).
Regarding claim 1: Henry discloses a method comprising:
determining values for a plurality of Quality of Experience (QoE) attributes (disclosed throughout; see [0058], for example, which discloses that an AP sends a QoE support message that includes a number of values for QoE attributes (the KPIs); clearly, the AP determines the KPIs (values for QoE attributes)); and
sending the QoE (disclosed throughout; see 604 of Figure 6, for example, which discloses the client receiving a QoE support message including the KPIs (which is sent from the AP)), wherein the client is operable to use the QoE (disclosed throughout; see [0059], for example, which discloses that the client device uses the QoE support message (and the KPIs/QoE attribute values) to select an AP to connect to (determine whether to communication with the respective AP); further, see [0039], for example, which states “the client device 102 can determine whether to join the access provider 104 (e.g., roam from the service provider 106 to the access provider 104), based on the performance metrics”).
Henry does not explicitly disclose the limitations of determining a QoE indicator based on the values for the plurality of QoE attributes and the limitations of sending the QoE indicator to a client, wherein the client uses the QoE indicator to select an AP to connect to. However, Dribinski discloses using a QoE “score” based on a set of KPIs (QoE attribute values). For example, see [0083]-[0085], which discloses calculating an access point value (APV) comprising a QoE score that is determined based on KPI values. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Henry to combine the KPIs (QoE attribute values) into a “QoE score” as suggested by Dribinski. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce the quantity of the QoE related information and simplify the selection of an access point by using a single score in place of multiple KPI values.
Regarding claim 8: Henry discloses a system comprising:
a memory storage (see memory 804 of Figure 8, for example); and
a processing unit coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processing unit is operative to (see CPU 802 of Figure 8, for example):
determine values for a plurality of Quality of Experience (QoE) attributes (disclosed throughout; see [0058], for example, which discloses that an AP sends a QoE support message that includes a number of values for QoE attributes (the KPIs); clearly, the AP determines the KPIs (values for QoE attributes)); and
send the QoE (disclosed throughout; see 604 of Figure 6, for example, which discloses the client receiving a QoE support message including the KPIs (which is sent from the AP)), wherein the client is operable to use the QoE indicator to select an Access Point (AP) to connect to (disclosed throughout; see [0059], for example, which discloses that the client device uses the QoE support message (and the KPIs/QoE attribute values) to select an AP to connect to (determine whether to communication with the respective AP); further, see [0039], for example, which states “the client device 102 can determine whether to join the access provider 104 (e.g., roam from the service provider 106 to the access provider 104), based on the performance metrics”).
Henry does not explicitly disclose the limitations of determining a QoE indicator based on the values for the plurality of QoE attributes and the limitations of sending the QoE indicator to a client, wherein the client uses the QoE indicator to select an AP to connect to. However, Dribinski discloses using a QoE “score” based on a set of KPIs (QoE attribute values). For example, see [0083]-[0085], which discloses calculating an access point value (APV) comprising a QoE score that is determined based on KPI values. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Henry to combine the KPIs (QoE attribute values) into a “QoE score” as suggested by Dribinski. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce the quantity of the QoE related information and simplify the selection of an access point by using a single score in place of multiple KPI values.
Regarding claim 15: Henry discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions comprising (see memory 804 and CPU 802 of Figure 8, as well as [0065], for example):
determining values for a plurality of Quality of Experience (QoE) attributes (disclosed throughout; see [0058], for example, which discloses that an AP sends a QoE support message that includes a number of values for QoE attributes (the KPIs); clearly, the AP determines the KPIs (values for QoE attributes)); and
sending the QoE (disclosed throughout; see 604 of Figure 6, for example, which discloses the client receiving a QoE support message including the KPIs (which is sent from the AP)), wherein the client is operable to use the QoE indicator to select an Access Point (AP) to connect to (disclosed throughout; see [0059], for example, which discloses that the client device uses the QoE support message (and the KPIs/QoE attribute values) to select an AP to connect to (determine whether to communication with the respective AP); further, see [0039], for example, which states “the client device 102 can determine whether to join the access provider 104 (e.g., roam from the service provider 106 to the access provider 104), based on the performance metrics”).
Henry does not explicitly disclose the limitations of determining a QoE indicator based on the values for the plurality of QoE attributes and the limitations of sending the QoE indicator to a client, wherein the client uses the QoE indicator to select an AP to connect to. However, Dribinski discloses using a QoE “score” based on a set of KPIs (QoE attribute values). For example, see [0083]-[0085], which discloses calculating an access point value (APV) comprising a QoE score that is determined based on KPI values. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Henry to combine the KPIs (QoE attribute values) into a “QoE score” as suggested by Dribinski. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce the quantity of the QoE related information and simplify the selection of an access point by using a single score in place of multiple KPI values.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16: Henry, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1, 8, and 15 as indicated above. Henry further discloses the limitations of: receiving a QoE report request from the client, the QoE report request comprising one or more specified QoE attributes (disclosed throughout; see step 602 of Figure 6, for example, which indicates a query transmitted from a client to an AP (and thus received by the AP); as indicated in [0035], “the client device 102 sends a QoE support query 304 to the access network provider 104. The QoE support query 304 can query (or request or ask) whether the access provider 104 supports providing one or more performance metrics (e.g., KPIs) indicative of QoE provided by the access provider 104. In some embodiments, the QoE support query 304 includes one or more parameters 306”); creating a QoE report comprising the one or more specified QoE attributes (see the QoE support message 604 in Figure 6, for example; see also [0037], for example, which states “The QoE support message 308 includes parameters 310. The parameters 310 can include a QoE support flag ("yes"/ "no") indicating whether the access provider 104 supports providing performance metrics indicative of QoE. When the QoE support flag is set to "yes," the parameters 310 can also include the performance metrics.”); and sending the QoE report to the client, wherein the client is operable to use the QoE report to select the AP to connect to (disclosed throughout; see [0037], for example, which states “The access provider 104 sends a QoE support message 308 in response to the QoE support query 304”; this is a response to the QoE support query by the client which implies the QoE report (QoE support message) is sent to the client; further, see [0039], for example, which states “the client device 102 can determine whether to join the access provider 104 (e.g., roam from the service provider 106 to the access provider 104), based on the performance metrics”).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18: Henry, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 2, 9, and 16 as indicated above. Henry further discloses the limitations of: the QoE report request is an Access Network Query Protocol (ANQP) message; and sending the QoE report to the client comprises sending a second ANQP message comprising the QoE report (see [0019], for example, which states “embodiments can augment 802.11u access network query protocol (ANQP) to allow for QoE capability signaling.”).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19: Henry, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 2, 9, and 17 as indicated above. Henry further discloses the limitations of: receiving an available QoE attributes request from the client (see [0035], for example, which states “the client device 102 sends a QoE support query 304 to the access network provider. The QoE support query 304 can query (or request or ask) whether the access provider 104 supports providing one or more performance metrics (e.g., KPIs) indicative of QoE provided by the access provider 104.”); determining one or more available QoE attributes (see [0037], for example, which states “The parameters 310 can include a QoE support flag ("yes"/ "no”) indicating whether the access provider 104 supports providing performance metrics indicative of QoE.”); and sending an available QoE attributes response to the client, wherein the client is operable to select the one or more specified QoE attributes from the one or more available QoE attributes (see [0037], for example, which states “The access provider 104 sends a QoE support message 308 in response to the QoE support query 304. The QoE support message 308 includes parameters 310.” This is a response to the QoE support query by the client which implies the available QoE attributes response (QoE support message including parameters such as the QoE support flag) is sent to the client. See further in [0037], for example, which states “When the QoE support flag is set to "yes," the parameters 310 can also include the performance metrics.”).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20: Henry, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1, 8, and 15 as indicated above. Henry does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 6, 13, and 20 of assigning weights to the plurality of QoE attributes, wherein determining the QoE indicator is further based on the weights. However, Dribinski discloses that the QoE indicator (QoE score) is determined based on weights assigned to the plurality of QoE attributes (KPI values). For example, see [0085], which “a ‘privileged’ QoS/QoE score can be calculated as a ratio between … individual KPIs/KQIs weighed by respective priority values…”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Henry, modified, to assign weights to the KPIs/QoE attributes and to use the weights to determine the QoE score/QoE indicator. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable certain KPIs to be emphasized in the determination of access points to connect to via the score and prioritization weights.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al (US 2022/0311523) in view of Dribinski et al (US 2016/0294639) in view of Park et al (US 2025/0133464).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17: Henry, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 2, 9, and 16 as indicated above. Henry does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 3, 10, and 17 that the QoE report request comprises any one of (i) a request for a long option or a short option for each of the one or more specified QoE attributes, (ii) a selection of bands for QoE information, (iii) one or more periods to determine the one or more specified QoE attributes, or (iv) any combination of (i)-(iii). However, Park (see at least [0289} discloses a “QoE information request message” that includes “the service, service type, etc., for which QoE information is requested” (similar to the contents of the QoE support query including SLA types, etc. in [0035] of Henry), as well as “the cell, frequency, etc., for which QoE information is requested”. The frequency is interpreted as at least a selection of bands for QoE information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the QoE support query of Henry to include information specifying the bands or frequency for the QoE information as suggested by Park. The rationale for doing so would have been to ensure that the QoE information requested and later received matches the information required by the client to determine the AP to select.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al (US 2022/0311523) in view of Dribinski et al (US 2016/0294639) in view of Colban et al (US 2015/0131483).
Regarding claims 7 and 14: Henry, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 8 as indicated above. Henry does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 7 and 14 that sending the QoE indicator to the client comprises sending the QoE indicator in any one of (i) a beacon, (ii) a probe response, (iii) an action frame, (iv) a Reduced Neighbor Report (RNR), (v) an Unsolicited Probe Response (UPR), (vi) a Fast Initial Link Setup (FILS) transmission, or (vii) any combination of (i)-(vi). However, Colban discloses a system for a station to select an access point (see abstract, for example). Further, see [0060], for example, which indicates “The wireless interface 314 is used by the recommender system 300 to collect information about APs within access range of the UE 108. The wireless interface 314 is used, for example, to read AP beacon frames, and to send or receive Probe requests and responses”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Henry, modified, to utilize a beacon and/or a probe response to send the QoE indicator in a manner similar to the AP information collected by the UE in Colban. The rationale for doing so would have been to utilize existing messaging (such as a beacon and/or probe response) to communicate the QoE indicator and thus minimize the cost of implementation of a QoE indicator in a system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gupta et al (US 10,945,266) discloses a method for multiband communication including selecting a band for communication with an access point.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights