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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 21-32 filed on 01/20/2026 have been considered and regarding the feature of “sending respective requests to the distributed units to provide information regarding respective connections of the distributed units to ones of the CU-Ups, and updating the topology connections of the network topology based on respective responses comprising the information from the distributed units” are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Bedekar in view of Lu et al. (US 20240259776).
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 1-4, 7-8, 21-24, and 27-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedekar (WIPO Publication No. WO 2019/083522 A1, hereinafter “Bedekar”) in view of Lu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240259776, hereinafter “Lu”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Bedekar unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claims 1, 21, and 28:
Regarding claim 1, Bedekar teaches A system, comprising:
a processor (Page 3, lines 3-4; an apparatus comprises at least one processor); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause performance of operations (Page 3, lines 4-6; at least one memory including computer program code. The at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform …), comprising:
routinely updating a data structure comprising a network topology of a communication network (Page 5, lines 4-9; a "CU-UP selector" functional entity updates mapping for instances within the CU-CP, at appropriate instants of time, for example, periodically, or based on events, such as UE connection requests, the "CU-UP selector" functional entity 20 updates its mappings at 36 (i) by sending to a suitable server, such as lookup server 22, a query 32 providing an identifier of DU 18 or gNB), wherein the network topology comprises topology connections between nodes of the communication network, wherein the nodes comprise a central unit control plane, central unit user planes (CU-UPs), and distributed units (Page 1, lines 22-28; CU- UP 12, 14 instances being placed topologically at different locations relative to CU-CP 16 instances. For example, CU-CP 16 may be in a centralized data center, while CU-UP 12, 14 may be in an edge cloud data center. Further, CU-UP 12, 14 instances may be placed at topologically different locations relative to different DUs 18, the DUs 18 being analogous to base stations or gNBs.)(Page 2, lines 12-14; the system architecture may include a diverse collection of CU-CP 16 and CU-UP 12, 14 instances and DUs 18 in which: (1) different instances of CU-UP 12, 14 are placed at different topological locations relative to CU-CP 12 and DUs 18;), and wherein the updating comprises:
(The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Lu.)
determining a request from a user equipment (UE) for network access (Page 2, line 29-31; receiving a connection request from a user equipment (UE)/flow connecting to a distributed unit (DU)); and
selecting a CU-UP from the CU-UPs to assign the UE based on a known aspect of the network topology of a communication network comprising the CU UP (Page 2, line 31-Page 3, line 2; using one or more mappings of one or more identifiers of network or service characteristics to a list of central unit-user plane (CU-UP) instance identifiers suitable for each of the network or service characteristics to select one or more suitable CU-UP instances for a connection; providing said identifiers for said one or more suitable CU-UP instances to a central unit-control plane (CU-CP); and establishing the UE/flow context in one of said one or more suitable CU-UP instances to complete said connection).
It is noted that while disclosing the routinely updating a data structure comprising a network topology of a communication network, Bedekar does not specifically teach about the “sending respective requests to the distributed units to provide information regarding respective connections of the distributed units to ones of the CU-Ups, and updating the topology connections of the network topology based on respective responses comprising the information from the distributed units” as recited in claim 1.
It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Lu. Lu is directed to a process of updating network topology. As shown in FIG. 4 of Lu, the IAB-DU of the IAB node as a network side connects to the IAB-MTs of the descendant nodes, and the IAB-MT of the IAB node as a terminal side connects to the IAB-DUs of the parent nodes. FIG. 5 of Lu is a schematic diagram of an F1 user plane (F1-U) protocol stack between the IAB-DU and the IAB-Donor CU. FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram of an F1 control plane (F1-C) protocol stack between the IAB-DU and the IAB-Donor CU. As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6 of Lu, the F1-U and the F1-C are established on a transmission (IP) layer between the IAB-DU and the IAB-Donor-CU.
Lu teaches the above missing features as follows:
sending respective requests to the distributed units to provide information regarding respective connections of the distributed units to ones of the CU-Ups (para [0110] of Lu: the donor-CU transmits a TNL (‘a transport network layer (TNL)’) tunnel transmission update or release request to the target donor-DU; the TNL tunnel transmission update or release request includes an endpoint TNL address of a TNL tunnel at a source donor-DU side; moreover, the TNL tunnel transmission update or release request may further include a source TNL address of the uplink F1 user plane (interpreted as “information regarding respective connections of the distributed units to ones of the CU-UPs”) needing to deactivate the tunnel transmission, a source TNL address of the uplink F1 control plane needing to deactivate the tunnel transmission, a source TNL address of the uplink non-F1 data needing to deactivate the tunnel transmission. F1 here includes an F1 connection of the migrated IAB-node and its descendant node.), and
updating the topology connections of the network topology based on respective responses comprising the information from the distributed units (see paragraphs [0111-0117] of Lu) (para [0111] of Lu: a second donor distributed unit transmits a TNL tunnel transmission update or release response (interpreted as “information from the distributed units”) to a donor centralized unit, the TNL tunnel transmission update or release response including an endpoint TNL address of a TNL tunnel of the second donor distributed unit.) (para [0112] of Lu: In some embodiments, the TNL tunnel transmission update or release response further includes at least one of the following: a source TNL address of an uplink F1 user plane successfully deactivating the TNL tunnel transmission, a source TNL address of an uplink F1 control plane successfully deactivating the TNL tunnel transmission, a source TNL address of uplink non-F1 data successfully deactivating the TNL tunnel transmission, or a source TNL address failing in being deactivated.) … (para [0117] of Lu: In addition, in the target donor-DU, the donor-CU further needs to reconfigure service mapping information for downlink data that is configured with an TNL address allocated by the target donor-DU, including configuring a BAP target address and a path identifier corresponding to a new TNL address of the downlink data and DSCP, and an identifier of a backhaul RLC channel between the target donor-DU and a next hop of IAB-node, to which the TNL address of the downlink data and the DSCP are mapped. And, the donor-CU needs to further remove previous service mapping information.).
Bedekar and Lu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of network topology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Bedekar's method by using the feature of Lu in order to have more effective method such that updating the topology connections of the network topology based on respective responses from the distributed units. The rationale for doing so would have been to achieve better analysis of network topology by using a update request and a response.
Regarding claim 21, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the claim 1, except limitations “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution, cause a processor to perform operations” (Page 3, lines 23-26; a computer-program product comprises a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium bearing computer program code embodied therein for use with a computer. The computer program code comprises code for performing at least the following) (Page 3, lines 3-4; an apparatus comprises at least one processor) and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, it is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding Claim 2, Bedekar and Lu teach The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: Bedekar further teaches,
detecting a subset of the topology connections of the network topology that comprise the known aspect (Page 5, lines 4-15; a "CU-UP selector" functional entity updates mapping for instances within the CU-CP, at appropriate instants of time, for example, periodically, or based on events, such as UE connection requests, … by receiving a response 34 from the server containing a list of CU-UP instance identifiers suitable for the provided DU/gNB identifier (interpreted as “detecting a subset of the topology connections of the network topology that comprise the known aspect”), supporting the slice identifiers provided in the query, and satisfying the desired latency of CU-UP instances relative to the provided DUs/gNBs)(see para [0059] of the Publication of the Instant Application describing the “detecting…” similar to the above citations in Bedekar.).
Regarding Claim 3, Bedekar and Lu teach The system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: Bedekar further teaches,
comparing CU-UPs of the network topology, comprising the CU-UP, based on the subset of the topology connections (Page 5, lines 4-15; a "CU-UP selector" functional entity updates mapping for instances within the CU-CP, at appropriate instants of time, for example, periodically, or based on events, such as UE connection requests, … by … satisfying the desired latency of CU-UP instances relative to the provided DUs/gNBs)(Examiner’s note: the terms “updates” discussed in Bedekar is interpreted as “comparing …” because the term “update” means to change by comparison.).
Regarding Claim 4, Bedekar and Lu teach The system of claim 1, wherein the selecting of the CU-UP comprises: Bedekar further teaches,
iteratively, until the CU-UP is identified to be selected that satisfies a defined criterion associated with the known aspect of the network topology, analyzing respective CU-UPs of a group of CU-UPs of the network topology that are initially determined as comprising a connection to a distributed unit having received the request (Page 5, lines 4-15; a "CU-UP selector" functional entity updates mapping for instances within the CU-CP, at appropriate instants of time, for example, periodically, or based on events, such as UE connection requests, … by receiving a response 34 from the server containing a list of CU-UP instance identifiers suitable for the provided DU/gNB identifier, … satisfying the desired latency of CU-UP instances relative to the provided DUs(“distributed units”)/gNBs)(Examiner’s note: the ‘updates mapping … by receiving by receiving a response 34 from the server containing a list of CU-UP instance identifiers suitable for the provided DU/gNB identifier, supporting the slice identifiers provided in the query, and satisfying the desired latency of CU-UP instances relative to the provided DUs/gNBs’ is interpreted as “iteratively, until the CU-UP is identified to be selected that satisfies a defined criterion associated with the known aspect of the network topology, analyzing respective CU-UPs of a group of CU-UPs of the network topology…”)(Examiner’s note: the list of CU-UP instance identifiers suitable for the provided DU is interpreted as “a group of CU-UPs of the network topology that are initially determined”).
Regarding Claim 7, Bedekar and Lu teach The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: Bedekar further teaches,
making the request for the network access by the UE to the CU-UP (Page 3, lines 6-13; receive a connection request from a user equipment (UE)/flow connecting to a distributed unit (DU); use one or more mappings of one or more identifiers of network or service characteristics to a list of central unit-user plane (CU-UP) instance identifiers suitable for each of the network or service characteristics to select one or more suitable CU-UP instances for a connection …).
Regarding Claim 8, Bedekar and Lu teach The system of claim 1, wherein Bedekar further teaches,
the network topology is enabled using an open radio access network protocol or at least a fifth generation (5G) communication network protocol(page 4, lines 17-20; the CU-CP 16 includes a "CU- UP selector" functional entity 20, as shown in Figure 2, a schematic representation of a 5G radio access network (RAN) architecture).
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 2.
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 23, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 3.
Regarding Claim 24, Claim 24, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 4, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 4.
Regarding Claim 27, Claim 27, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 7, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 7.
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 29, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 2.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 3.
Regarding Claim 31, Claim 31, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 4, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 4.
Claims 5, 25, and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedekar in view of Lu, and further in view of Parker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200195495, hereinafter “Parker”).
Regarding Claim 5, Bedekar and Lu teach The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: Bedekar teaches
analyzing, using an artificial intelligence model, the topology connections of the network topology wherein the selecting of the CU-UP comprises selecting the CU-UP based on a result of the analyzing. (Page 5, lines 4-15; a "CU-UP selector" functional entity updates mapping for instances within the CU-CP, at appropriate instants of time, for example, periodically, or based on events, such as UE connection requests, … by receiving a response 34 from the server containing a list of CU-UP instance identifiers suitable for the provided DU/gNB identifier, … satisfying the desired latency of CU-UP instances relative to the provided DUs(“distributed units”)/gNBs).
Bedekar and Lu fail to teach the “analyzing, using an artificial intelligence model,”.
However, Parker teaches the analyzing, using an artificial intelligence model (para [0037] of Parker; AI-based network inferencing functions may be used to dynamically monitor and predict network resource utilization as well as detect changes in SLAs used in connection with 5G network slice instance management to trigger initial resource allocation as well as re-allocation of the network resources within a specific network slice instance or among a group of network slice instances.).
Bedekar, Lu and Parker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of network topology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the combination of Bedekar and Lu by using the AI-Based features of Parker in order to have more effective method such that the system analyzes, using an artificial intelligence model, known topology connections of the network topology. The rationale for doing so would have been to achieve better analysis of network topology by using a AI model.
Regarding Claim 25, Claim 25, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 5, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 5.
Regarding Claim 32, Claim 32, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 5, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedekar in view of Lu, and further in view of Kita et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240283717, hereinafter “Kita”).
Regarding Claim 6, Bedekar and Lu teach The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: Bedekar and Lu fail to teach,
analyzing a response from the CU-UP for an unknown aspect associated with one or more of the topology connection of the network topology; and updating the data structure with the unknown aspect.
Kita teaches the analyzing a response from the CU-UP for an unknown aspect associated with one or more of the topology connection of the network topology (para [0233] of Kita; it is assumed that the scale-out has been executed, to thereby add the CU-UP 54 under the control of the gNB 56)(Examiner’s note: the added CU-UP is interpreted as “one or more of the topology connections”); and updating the data structure with the unknown aspect (para [0233] of Kita; update the topology data (interpreted as “data structure”) illustrated in FIG. 11 to topology data illustrated in FIG. 13 . In the topology data illustrated in FIG. 13 , a node 1300 having an identifier of “CU-UP #101” has been added.).
Bedekar, Lu and Kita are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of network topology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the combination of Bedekar and Lu by using the features of Kita in order to have more effective method such that the system analyzes a response from added CU-UP and updates the topology data to add the added CU-UP. The rationale for doing so would have been to achieve better update of network topology when the scale-out has been executed.
Regarding Claim 26, Claim 26, has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 6, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights