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 .
Applicant’s RCE filed 11/4/25 is acknowledged.
Claim 1, 8, 9, 14-15, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 5/2/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/4/25 has been entered.
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.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “special” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “special” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes the term “special” has been construed to be “hardware”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6-7 of the remarks, in regard to claim 1, 9, and 15, the Applicant disagrees with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadge et al. US 20190334775 (hereinafter “Ghadge”) in view of Xu et al. US 20210068183 (hereinafter “Xu”).
Specifically, the Applicant remarks:
Xu is silent regarding a subscriber
Xu is silent regarding “the characteristics including at least one of the list of: physical location, network location, network latency, load capacity, redundancy type, and network throughput” and “associating a CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs with a type of subscriber suitable for the determined characteristics”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In [0011-0013], Xu mentions acquiring ‘information” related to the load of at least one CU-UP and this information is used to determine whether the CU-UP is selectable for a UE. Regarding (1), UE maps to “subscriber”; therefore, Xu teaches “associating a CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs with a type of subscriber”. Regarding (2), load information is used to determine whether at least one CU-UP is selectable for a UE/subscriber as mentioned in [0012-0013] (“In an example, the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU may further comprise at least one of a load of the at least one CU-UP, a load of a transport layer between the DU and the at least one CU-UP, and information on whether an interface between the DU and the at least one CU-UP is available. In an example, acquiring, by the CU-CP, the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU from the DU may comprise: receiving, by the CU-CP, an F1 access protocol (AP) message from the DU, wherein the F1 AP message comprises the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU or information of at least one CU-UP selectable for the UE, which comprises at least one of an identity of the at least one CU-UP, an IP address of the at least one CU-UP, and a name of the at least one CU-UP.”); therefore, Xu teaches “the characteristics including at least one of the list of: physical location, network location, network latency, load capacity, redundancy type, and network throughput” and “associating a CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs with a type of subscriber suitable for the determined characteristics”
On page 7 of the remarks, in regard to the dependent claims, the Applicant states that the claims are allowable at least due to the deficiencies of the ground of rejection applied to the independent claims.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner kindly refer the Applicant to the reasoning pertaining to the independent claims, detailed above.
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) 1, 2, 5-7, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadge et al. US 20190334775 (hereinafter “Ghadge”) in view of Xu et al. US 20210068183 (hereinafter “Xu”)
As to claim 1 and 15 (claim 1 is the method claim for the non-transitory computer-readable medium in claim 15):
Ghadge discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for managing Centralized Unit (CU) - User Plane (UP) in CU- Control Plane (CP) (“the memory 504 or the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of the memory 504 stores the following programs, modules and data structures, or a subset thereof including an optional operating system 506, a CP module 507, a UP module 508”, Ghadge [0039])
A method of managing Centralized Unit (CU) - User Plane (UP) in CU- Control Plane (CP) (“the CP 120 may manage hundreds of UPs in a same data center, while in some other embodiments, the CP 120 and the UPs 140a, 140b, and 140c may be geographically far apart and spread out.”, Ghadge [0022]), the method comprising: determining characteristics associated with a plurality of CU-UPs, the characteristics known or predicted at determination time, the characteristics including at least one of the list of physical location, network location, network latency, load capacity, redundancy type, and network throughput; grouping the plurality of CU-UPs into at least one pool based on the determined characteristics, thereby configuring a pool of CU-UPs (“Various embodiments disclosed herein enable a network operator to detect a plurality of User Planes (UPs) and group a first subset of the UPs into a first UP group, in which each UP in the first UP group is associated with a first set of features. Disclosed system of UP group selection further allocates the first UP group to a first network service (such as VoLTE and Internet). This is performed based on the first set of features associated with the first UP group and a first set of requirements of the first network service. For example, VoLTE has a low latency requirement, therefore the first UP group is allocated to an Access Point Name (APN) for VoLTE if the first UP group can satisfy the low latency requirement.”, Ghadge [0016]) (“The UP group is a group of UPs. Each APN is associated with one or more UP groups. The APN is served by the UP groups associated with that APN. The UPs are selected in round robin manner from all the UP groups associated with that APN. Phase 2, DNS based selection: This is based on the way 3GPP suggests the UP selection using DNS based selection. With this the network operator can create an APN or Location of Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN), which is then resolved to select a UP. Phase 3, Dynamic UP selection: In this phase, the UP selection is done based on either one or combination of the following parameters: APN name, Location, Load, UP capabilities such as SPI/DPI support or Platform type, Slice ID, and RAT type. In various embodiments, dynamic UP selection may make use of NSS (Node and Slice Selection) function, on the lines of Network Repository Function (NRF) node in 5G SA architecture.”, Ghadge [0049]);
Ghadge as described above does not explicitly teach:
associating a CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs with a type of subscriber suitable for the determined characteristics; and selecting a CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs pool based on the characteristics associated with the pool of CU-UPs.
However, Xu further teaches associating and selecting a CU UP which includes:
associating a CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs with a type of subscriber suitable for the determined characteristics; (“setup request message comprises the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU, which comprises at least one of an identity of the at least one CU-UP, an Internet protocol (IP) address of the at least one CU-UP, and a name of the at least one CU-UP. In an example, the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU may further comprise at least one of a load of the at least one CU-UP, a load of a transport layer between the DU and the at least one CU-UP, and information on whether an interface between the DU and the at least one CU-UP is available. In an example, acquiring, by the CU-CP, the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU from the DU may comprise: receiving, by the CU-CP, an F1 access protocol (AP) message from the DU, wherein the F1 AP message comprises the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU or information of at least one CU-UP selectable for the UE, which comprises at least one of an identity of the at least one CU-UP, an IP address of the at least one CU-UP, and a name of the at least one CU-UP.”, Xu [0011-0013]) and selecting a CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs pool based on the characteristics associated with the pool of CU-UPs. (“selecting, by the CU-CP, a CU-UP, among the at least one CU-UP, suitable for an access of a user equipment, according to the information regarding the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU”, Xu [0008])
Xu and Ghadge are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associating and selecting a CU UP as described in Xu into Ghadge. By modifying the method to include associating and selecting a CU UP as taught by Xu, the benefits of improved user experience (Xu [0024]) and improved efficiency (Ghadge [0044]) are achieved.
As to claim 2:
Ghadge discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the configuring a pool of CU-UPs in a CU-CP includes grouping CU-UPs with at least one same characteristic for a particular type of traffic or subscribers. (“Various embodiments disclosed herein enable a network operator to detect a plurality of User Planes (UPs) and group a first subset of the UPs into a first UP group, in which each UP in the first UP group is associated with a first set of features. Disclosed system of UP group selection further allocates the first UP group to a first network service (such as VoLTE and Internet). This is performed based on the first set of features associated with the first UP group and a first set of requirements of the first network service. For example, VoLTE has a low latency requirement, therefore the first UP group is allocated to an Access Point Name (APN) for VoLTE if the first UP group can satisfy the low latency requirement.”, Ghadge [0016])
As to claim 5:
Ghadge as described above does not explicitly teach: The method of claim 1 wherein a CU-CP selects a CU-UP pool based on characteristics including location, type of CU-UP, load capacity, 5G support, and CU-UP redundancy type.
However, Xu further teaches selecting at least one CU-UP based on certain characteristics which includes:
The method of claim 1 wherein a CU-CP selects a CU-UP pool based on characteristics (“CU-CP selects a CU-UP suitable for a UE's access from the at least one CU-UP according to the acquired information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU”, Xu [0042]) including location (”IP address of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0013]), type of CU-UP (”identity of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0013]), load capacity (“load of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0012]), 5G support (“FIG. 1 illustrates an architectural diagram of a 5th generation (5G) system”, Xu [0025]), and CU-UP redundancy type. (“identity of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0011])
Xu and Ghadge are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include selecting at least one CU-UP based on certain characteristics as described in Xu into Ghadge. By modifying the method to include selecting at least one CU-UP based on certain characteristics as taught by Xu, the benefits of improved user experience (Xu [0024]) and improved efficiency (Ghadge [0044]) are achieved.
As to claim 6:
Ghadge discloses:
The method of claim 5 wherein a type of CU-UP includes a type for high speed 5G/4G traffic. (“The present disclosure generally relates to user planes, and in particular, to grouping user planes in 4G/5G packet cores in order to simplify user plane discovery and/or registration.”, Ghadge [0002])
As to claim 7:
Ghadge discloses:
The method of claim 5 wherein a type of CU-UP includes a type for low latency. (“For example, VoLTE has a low latency requirement, therefore the first UP group is allocated to an Access Point Name (APN) for VoLTE if the first UP group can satisfy the low latency requirement.”, Ghadge [0016])
As to claim 16:
Ghadge discloses:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 wherein the instructions for configuring a pool of CU-UPs in a CU-CP includes instructions for grouping CU-UPs with similar at least one same characteristic for a particular type of traffic or subscribers. (“Various embodiments disclosed herein enable a network operator to detect a plurality of User Planes (UPs) and group a first subset of the UPs into a first UP group, in which each UP in the first UP group is associated with a first set of features. Disclosed system of UP group selection further allocates the first UP group to a first network service (such as VoLTE and Internet). This is performed based on the first set of features associated with the first UP group and a first set of requirements of the first network service. For example, VoLTE has a low latency requirement, therefore the first UP group is allocated to an Access Point Name (APN) for VoLTE if the first UP group can satisfy the low latency requirement.”, Ghadge [0016]) (“For example, if a network operator has one group of UPs for IMS and another one for Internet to keep IMS and Internet traffic separate, then the network operator can configure 1:1 redundancy for UPs in IMS UP group for better resiliency, while configuring redundancy type as N:M for the Internet UP group.”, Ghadge [0019])
As to claim 19:
Ghadge as described above does not explicitly teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 further comprising instructions wherein a CU-CP selects a CU-UP pool based on characteristics including location, type of CU-UP, load capacity, SG support, and CU-UP redundancy type.
However, Xu further teaches selecting at least one CU-UP based on certain characteristics which includes:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 further comprising instructions wherein a CU-CP selects a CU-UP pool based on characteristics (“CU-CP selects a CU-UP suitable for a UE's access from the at least one CU-UP according to the acquired information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU”, Xu [0042]) including location (”IP address of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0013]), type of CU-UP (”identity of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0013]), load capacity (“load of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0012]), 5G support (“FIG. 1 illustrates an architectural diagram of a 5th generation (5G) system”, Xu [0025]), and CU-UP redundancy type. (“identity of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0011])
Xu and Ghadge are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include selecting at least one CU-UP based on certain characteristics as described in Xu into Ghadge. By modifying the method to include selecting at least one CU-UP based on certain characteristics as taught by Xu, the benefits of improved user experience (Xu [0024]) and improved efficiency (Ghadge [0044]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakarmi et al. US 20230362635 (hereinafter “Nakarmi”) in view of Xu et al. US 20210068183 (hereinafter “Xu”)
As to claim 9:
Nakarmi discloses:
A system managing Centralized Unit (CU) - User Plane (UP) in CU- Control Plane (CP), (“The disaggregated radio network node 14 is disaggregated also via separation between the user plane (UP) and the control plane (CP). As shown, for instance, the disaggregated radio network node 14 includes one or more CU-CP(s) 14-CP and multiple CU-UPs 14-1UP, where the multiple CU-UPs 14-1UP handle or serve the same wireless device 12.”, Nakarmi [0065]) the system comprising: an Open RAN CU-CP configured to determine characteristics associated with a plurality of CU-UPs, the characteristics known or predicted at determination time (“The method comprises transmitting and/or receiving user plane traffic for the wireless device via multiple data radio bearers served by multiple respective central unit user planes, CU-UPs, of a disaggregated radio network node, and performing, based on user plane security keys that are different for the different data radio bearers and/or for the different CU-UPs, security processing of the user plane traffic that is transmitted and/or received.”, Nakarmi [0013]) the characteristics including at least one of the list of: physical location, network location, network latency, load capacity, redundancy type, and network throughput (“In some embodiments, the method further comprises making a decision to perform configuring multiple CU-UPs. In this case, the decision is made based on at least one of any one or more of a load on the wireless communication network or on the disaggregated radio network node, a type of the user plane traffic, a time of day, and an amount of the user plane traffic.”, Nakarmi [0007]);
Nakarmi as described above does not explicitly teach:
a configured pool of CU-UPs in communication with the Open RAN CU-CP; wherein the CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs is associated with a type of subscriber suitable for the determined characteristics; and wherein a CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs is selected based on characteristics associated with the CU-UP.
However, Xu teaches configuring a pool of CU-UPs based on certain characteristics and associating a CU-UP with a subscriber which includes:
a configured pool of CU-UPs in communication with the Open RAN CU-CP; (“a CU-CP in the base station acquires information of at least one CU-UP connected to a DU in the base station. In step 5302, the CU-CP selects a CU-UP suitable for a UE's access from the at least one CU-UP according to the acquired information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU.”, Xu [0042]) wherein the CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs is associated with a type of subscriber suitable for the determined characteristics (“setup request message comprises the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU, which comprises at least one of an identity of the at least one CU-UP, an Internet protocol (IP) address of the at least one CU-UP, and a name of the at least one CU-UP. In an example, the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU may further comprise at least one of a load of the at least one CU-UP, a load of a transport layer between the DU and the at least one CU-UP, and information on whether an interface between the DU and the at least one CU-UP is available. In an example, acquiring, by the CU-CP, the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU from the DU may comprise: receiving, by the CU-CP, an F1 access protocol (AP) message from the DU, wherein the F1 AP message comprises the information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU or information of at least one CU-UP selectable for the UE, which comprises at least one of an identity of the at least one CU-UP, an IP address of the at least one CU-UP, and a name of the at least one CU-UP.”, Xu [0011-0013]); and wherein a CU-UP of the pool of CU-UPs is selected based on characteristics associated with the CU-UP. (“selecting, by the CU-CP, a CU-UP, among the at least one CU-UP, suitable for an access of a user equipment, according to the information regarding the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU”, Xu [0008])
Xu and Nakarmi are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include configuring a pool of CU-UPs based on certain characteristics and associating a CU-UP with a subscribe as described in Xu into Nakarmi. By modifying the method to include configuring a pool of CU-UPs based on certain characteristics and associating a CU-UP with a subscribe as taught by Xu, the benefits of improved performance (Nakarmi [0323]) and improved user experience (Xu [0024]) are achieved.
As to claim 11:
Nakarmi discloses:
The system of claim 9 wherein the configuring of a pool of CU-UPs occurs in the CU-CP. (“FIG. 1 shows that configuring the multiple CU-UPs 14-1UP in this way may be performed by a network node 20. This network node 20 in some embodiments is or implements a CU-CP 14-1CP of the disaggregated radio network node 14”, Nakarmi [0072])
As to claim 12:
Nakarmi discloses:
The system of claim 9 further comprising associating, by the CU-CP (“CU-CP”, Nakarmi [0213]), a CU-UP pool with a particular type of subscribers.(“the method further comprises making a decision to perform configuring multiple CU-UPs 14-1UP. In this case, the decision is made based on at least one of any one or more of a load on the wireless communication network 10 or on the disaggregated radio network node 12, a type of the user plane traffic”, Nakarmi [0220])
As to claim 13:
Nakarmi as described above does not explicitly teach:
The system of claim 9 wherein a CU-CP selects a CU-UP pool based on characteristics including location, type of CU-UP, load capacity, SG support, and CU-UP redundancy type.
However, Xu teaches configuring a pool of CU-UPs based on certain characteristics which includes:
The system of claim 9 wherein a CU-CP selects a CU-UP pool based on characteristics (“CU-CP selects a CU-UP suitable for a UE's access from the at least one CU-UP according to the acquired information of the at least one CU-UP connected to the DU”, Xu [0042]) including location (”IP address of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0013]), type of CU-UP (”identity of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0013]), load capacity (“load of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0012]), 5G support (“FIG. 1 illustrates an architectural diagram of a 5th generation (5G) system”, Xu [0025]), and CU-UP redundancy type. (“identity of the at least one CU-UP”, Xu [0011])
Xu and Nakarmi are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include configuring a pool of CU-UPs based on certain characteristics as described in Xu into Nakarmi. By modifying the method to include configuring a pool of CU-UPs based on certain characteristics as taught by Xu, the benefits of improved performance (Nakarmi [0323]) and improved user experience (Xu [0024]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadge et al. US 20190334775 (hereinafter “Ghadge”) in view of Xu et al. US 20210068183 (hereinafter “Xu”) and in further view of Nakarmi et al. US 20230362635 (hereinafter “Nakarmi”)
As to claim 3:
The combination of Xu and Ghadge as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1 wherein the configuring of a pool of CU-UPs occurs in the CU-CP.
However, Nakarmi teaches configuring CU-UPs in the CU-CP which includes:
The method of claim 1 wherein the configuring a pool of CU-UPs occurs in the CU-CP. (“FIG. 1 shows that configuring the multiple CU-UPs 14-1UP in this way may be performed by a network node 20. This network node 20 in some embodiments is or implements a CU-CP 14-1CP of the disaggregated radio network node 14”, Nakarmi [0072])
Xu, Nakarmi, and Ghadge are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include configuring CU-UPs in the CU-CP as described in Nakarmi into Ghadge as modified by Xu. By modifying the CU-UP configuration process of Ghadge to include configuring CU-UPs in the CU-CP as taught by Nakarmi, the benefits of improved performance (Nakarmi [0323]), improved efficiency (Ghadge [0044]), and improved user experience (Xu [0024]) are achieved.
As to claim 4:
The combination of Xu and Ghadge as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1 further comprising associating, by the CU-CP, a CU-UP pool with a particular type of subscribers.
However, Nakarmi teaches associating a CU-UP group with a particular type of subscribers which includes:
The method of claim 1 further comprising associating, by the CU-CP (“CU-CP”, Nakarmi [0213]), a CU-UP pool with a particular type of subscribers. (“the method further comprises making a decision to perform configuring multiple CU-UPs 14-1UP. In this case, the decision is made based on at least one of any one or more of a load on the wireless communication network 10 or on the disaggregated radio network node 12, a type of the user plane traffic”, Nakarmi [0220])
Xu, Nakarmi, and Ghadge are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associating a CU-UP group with a particular type of subscribers as described in Nakarmi into Ghadge as modified by Xu. By modifying the CU-UP configuration process of Ghadge to include associating a CU-UP group with a particular type of subscribers as taught by Nakarmi, the benefits of improved performance (Nakarmi [0323]), improved efficiency (Ghadge [0044]), and improved user experience (Xu [0024]) are achieved.
As to claim 10:
Ghadge discloses:
The system of claim 9 wherein the configuring a pool of CU-UPs in a CU-CP includes grouping CU-UPs with similar at least one same characteristic for a particular type of traffic or subscribers. (“Various embodiments disclosed herein enable a network operator to detect a plurality of User Planes (UPs) and group a first subset of the UPs into a first UP group, in which each UP in the first UP group is associated with a first set of features. Disclosed system of UP group selection further allocates the first UP group to a first network service (such as VoLTE and Internet). This is performed based on the first set of features associated with the first UP group and a first set of requirements of the first network service. For example, VoLTE has a low latency requirement, therefore the first UP group is allocated to an Access Point Name (APN) for VoLTE if the first UP group can satisfy the low latency requirement.”, Ghadge [0016])
As to claim 17:
The combination of Xu and Ghadge as described above does not explicitly teach:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 further comprising instructions wherein the configuring a pool of CU-UPs occurs in the CU-CP.
However, Nakarmi teaches configuring CU-UPs in the CU-CP which includes:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 further comprising instructions wherein the configuring a pool of CU-UPs occurs in the CU-CP. (“FIG. 1 shows that configuring the multiple CU-UPs 14-1UP in this way may be performed by a network node 20. This network node 20 in some embodiments is or implements a CU-CP 14-1CP of the disaggregated radio network node 14”, Nakarmi [0072])
Xu, Nakarmi, and Ghadge are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include configuring CU-UPs in the CU-CP as described in Nakarmi into Ghadge as modified by Xu. By modifying the CU-UP configuration process of Ghadge to include configuring CU-UPs in the CU-CP as taught by Nakarmi, the benefits of improved performance (Nakarmi [0323]), improved efficiency (Ghadge [0044]), and improved user experience (Xu [0024]) are achieved.
As to claim 18:
Xu as described above does not explicitly teach:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 further comprising instructions for associating, by the CU-CP, a CU-UP pool with a particular type of subscribers.
However, Nakarmi teaches associating a CU-UP group with a particular type of subscribers which includes:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 further comprising instructions for associating, by the CU-CP (“CU-CP”, Nakarmi [0213]), a CU-UP pool with a particular type of subscribers. (“the method further comprises making a decision to perform configuring multiple CU-UPs 14-1UP. In this case, the decision is made based on at least one of any one or more of a load on the wireless communication network 10 or on the disaggregated radio network node 12, a type of the user plane traffic”, Nakarmi [0220])
Xu, Nakarmi, and Ghadge are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associating a CU-UP group with a particular type of subscribers as described in Nakarmi into Ghadge as modified by Xu. By modifying the CU-UP configuration process of Ghadge to include associating a CU-UP group with a particular type of subscribers as taught by Nakarmi, the benefits of improved performance (Nakarmi [0323]), improved efficiency (Ghadge [0044]), and improved user experience (Xu [0024]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 20190334775 (hereinafter “Ghadge”)in view of Xu et al. US 20210068183 (hereinafter “Xu”) and in further view of Pedersen et al. US 20240267823 (hereinafter “Pedersen”)
As to claim 8:
The combination of Xu and Ghadge as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 5 wherein a type of CU-UP includes a type for accelerators capability.
However, Pedersen teaches hardware accelerators which includes:
The method of claim 5 wherein a type of CU-UP (“The CU may further comprise a user plane (CU-UP)”, Pederson [0046]) includes a type for accelerators capability. (“graphics processing units (GPUs)”, Pedersen [0097])
Xu, Pedersen, and Ghadge are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include hardware accelerators as described in Pederson into Ghadge as modified by Xu. By modifying the type of CU-UP of Ghadge to include hardware accelerators as taught by Pedersen, the benefits of improved performance (Pedersen [0049]), improved efficiency (Ghadge [0044]), and improved user experience (Xu [0024]) are achieved.
As to claim 20:
The combination of Xu and Ghadge as described above does not explicitly teach:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 further comprising instructions wherein a type of CU-UP includes one of a type for high speed SG/4G traffic, for low latency, or for special accelerators capability.
However, Pedersen teaches hardware accelerators which includes:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 further comprising instructions wherein a type of CU-UP includes one of a type for high speed SG/4G traffic, for low latency, or for special accelerators capability. (“graphics processing units (GPUs)”, Pedersen [0097])
Xu, Pedersen, and Ghadge are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include hardware accelerators as described in Pederson into Ghadge as modified by Xu. By modifying the type of CU-UP of Ghadge to include hardware accelerators as taught by Pedersen, the benefits of improved performance (Pedersen [0049]), improved efficiency (Ghadge [0044]), and improved user experience (Xu [0024]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakarmi et al. US 20230362635 (hereinafter “Nakarmi”) in view of Xu et al. US 20210068183 (hereinafter “Xu”) and in further view of Pedersen et al. US 20240267823 (hereinafter “Pedersen”)
As to claim 14:
The combination of Xu and Nakarmi as described above does not explicitly teach:
The system of claim 13 wherein a type of CU-UP includes a type for one of high speed SG/4G traffic, for low latency, or accelerators capability.
However, Pedersen teaches hardware accelerators which includes:
The system of claim 13 wherein a type of CU-UP (“The CU may further comprise a user plane (CU-UP)”, Pederson [0046]) includes a type for one of high speed SG/4G traffic, for low latency, or accelerators capability.(“graphics processing units (GPUs)”, Pedersen [0097])
Xu, Pedersen, and Nakarmi are analogous because they pertain to managing user planes connected to control planes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include hardware accelerators as described in Pederson into Nakarmi as modified by Xu. By modifying the type of CU-UP of Nakarmi to include hardware accelerators as taught by Pedersen, the benefits of improved performance (Pedersen [0049]), improved performance (Nakarmi [0323]), and improved user experience (Xu [0024]) are achieved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471