DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on December 16, 2025.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are pending in the application. Claims 20 and 21 have been canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 16, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (USPGP 2022/0345361, hereinafter “Yang”) in view of Akkipeddi et al. (USPGP 2022/0279420, hereinafter “Akkipeddi”), and further in view of Yu et al. (USPGP 2024/0107339, hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Yang discloses or suggests a system and a method comprising:
a plurality of distributed units (DUs) (see at least paragraph 35, a plurality of DUs);
a plurality of central units (CUs) (see at least paragraphs 35 and 36, a plurality of CUs including CU 16 and a virtual CU provided by an MEC device);
a server comprising a gateway (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph 35, F1 gateway), a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to configure the gateway of the server to (see at least paragraph 27, software or firmware can be stored in memories and can be executed by processors):
establish a connection with: (a) at least one DU of the plurality of Dus, and (b) at least one CU of the plurality of CUs (see at least paragraph 35, the F1 gateway is connected to the first DU, the CU, and the MEC device through an F1-C/U interface); and
perform an action to the one or more of (a) the at least one DU, and (b) at least one CU (see at least paragraphs 11, 12, 35, and 44-46, an F1-LBO VNF module is connected between the first DU and the CU and the F1-LBO VNF module is configured, according to a traffic rule, to establish a routing table defining a relationship between a first location and a second location associated with the LBO DRB).
Yang does not explicitly disclose establishing a connection with (b) the plurality of CUs, the plurality of CUs being at one or more data centers distinct from a physical location and local network of the server. However, in an analogous art, Akkipeddi discloses or suggests establishing a connection with (b) the plurality of CUs, the plurality of CUs being at one or more data centers distinct from a physical location and local network of the server (see at least Figs. 1, 2, 3A, and 3B, and paragraphs 78-85, a virtual router forwarding plane (vRouter) 206A configured with VRFs 212A-212K for respective network slices implemented with respective L3VPNs using tunnels 231A-231K connecting VRFs 212 to VRFs 210A-210K on routers 204A-204B, where each of the routers 204A-204K may be a router for a data center having one or more servers to execute any one or more of CUs 213A-213K, where the vRouter hosted in one of servers 12A-12N is located a local data center and the CU is located at a regional data center, as depicted in Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Akkipeddi in to the invention of Yang in order to implement network slicing, which enables operators to share a mobile network securely but by separating their own users from other, and different applications of a user to use different network slices that provide widely different performance characteristics (see at least paragraphs 78-80 of Akkipeddi).
Yang further discloses that, when the policy set by the non-RT RIC cannot be followed, RAN parameters need to be adjusted, such switching connection points, handovers, and the like (see at least paragraphs 33 and 34). However, Yang, as modified by Akkipeddi, does not explicitly disclose that the action performed by the gateway comprises at least one of: (a) initiating and managing a handover from a first CU to a second CU, and (b) restarting a network element.
In an analogous art, Yu discloses that O-RU data flows can be switched/routed to different O-DUs (i.e., switching connection points) and that network services provided by an O-DU device that is experiencing an outage are not available until the O-DU device is rebooted (i.e., restarted) (see at least paragraphs 37 and 38). Therefore, the combination of Yang and Yu would have resulted in the near-RT RIC adjusting the RAN by switching connection points from an O-DU that is experiencing an outage to a working O-DU and rebooting the O-DU device that is experiencing an outage.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Yu in to the invention of Yang in order to to provide O-DU service availability optimization to avoid service interruptions.
Yang further discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to configure the gateway to establish the connection with the at least one DU (see at least paragraphs 35, 36, 45, and 46, the F1 LBO VNF module establishes a connection with a DU);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to configure the gateway to perform the action by:
receiving at least one protocol data unit (PDU) from the at least one DU (see at least paragraphs 35, 36, 39, 45, and 46, the F1 gateway is connected to the first DU, the CU, and the MEC device through an F1-C/U interface, where the PDU session will pass through the RU, the first DU 13-1, and the CU 14, where data are transmitted in the PDU session in a form of data packets called PDUs);
determining, from the plurality of CUs, at least one target CU to which the at least one PDU should be transmitted (see at least paragraphs 35, 36, 39, 45, and 46, the F1 gateway is connected to the first DU, the CU, and the MEC device through an F1-C/U interface, where the PDU session will pass through the RU, the first DU 13-1, and the CU 14, where data are transmitted in the PDU session in a form of data packets called PDUs); and
transmitting the at least one PDU to the at least one target CU (see at least paragraphs 35, 36, 39, 45, and 46, the F1 gateway is connected to the first DU, the CU, and the MEC device through an F1-C/U interface, where the PDU session will pass through the RU, the first DU 13-1, and the CU 14, where data are transmitted in the PDU session in a form of data packets called PDUs);
regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to configure the gateway to establish the connection with the at least one CU (see at least paragraphs 35, 36, 45, and 46, the F1 LBO VNF module establishes a connection with a CU);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to configure the gateway to perform the action by:
receiving at least one protocol data unit (PDU) from the at least one CU (see at least paragraphs 35, 36, 39, 45, and 46, the F1 gateway is connected to the first DU, the CU, and the MEC device through an F1-C/U interface, where the PDU session will pass through the RU, the first DU 13-1, and the CU 14, where data are transmitted in the PDU session in a form of data packets called PDUs);
determining, from the plurality of DUs, at least one target DU to which the at least one PDU should be transmitted (see at least paragraphs 35, 36, 39, 45, and 46, the F1 gateway is connected to the first DU, the CU, and the MEC device through an F1-C/U interface, where the PDU session will pass through the RU, the first DU 13-1, and the CU 14, where data are transmitted in the PDU session in a form of data packets called PDUs); and
transmitting the at least one PDU to the at least one target DU (see at least paragraphs 35, 36, 39, 45, and 46, the F1 gateway is connected to the first DU, the CU, and the MEC device through an F1-C/U interface, where the PDU session will pass through the RU, the first DU 13-1, and the CU 14, where data are transmitted in the PDU session in a form of data packets called PDUs);
regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, the receiving the at least one PDU comprises receiving the at least one PDU from the at least one DU via a Radio Link Control (RLC) layer (see at least paragraph 28, the O-DU is responsible for all baseband processing, scheduling, radio link control (RLC), medium access control (MAC), and physical layer (PHY)); and wherein the at least one PDU comprises at least one PDU for a signaling radio bearer (SRB), at least one PDU for a data radio bearer (DRB), or a combination thereof (see at least paragraphs 41-44, DRB);
regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, the receiving the at least one PDU comprises receiving the at least one PDU from the at least one CU via a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) layer (see at least paragraph 28, the O-CU is responsible for the packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer); and wherein the at least one PDU comprises at least one PDU for a SRB, at least one PDU for a DRB, or a combination thereof (see at least paragraphs 41-44, DRB); and
regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, the server is a server of an edge data center (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 29-31 and 35, the F1 gateway is connected to the CU in an MSO edge cloud and therefore the F1 gateway is a gateway of the MSO edge cloud).
Regarding claim 22, Yang, as modified by Akkipeddi and Yu, discloses, teaches, or suggests all of the subject matter of the invention of claim 1, as described above. However, Yang in view of Akkipeddi does not explicitly disclose that the restarting the network element is a starting again of the network element based on a determination by the gateway to prevent or resolve a performance degradation of the network element.
In an analogous art, Yu discloses that the restarting the network element is a starting again of the network element based on a determination by the gateway to prevent or resolve a performance degradation of the network element (see at least paragraphs 37 and 38, O-RU data flows can be switched/routed to different O-DUs (i.e., switching connection points) and that network services provided by an O-DU device that is experiencing an outage are not available until the O-DU device is rebooted (i.e., starting again)). Therefore, the combination of Yang and Yu would have resulted in the near-RT RIC adjusting the RAN by switching connection points from an O-DU that is experiencing an outage to a working O-DU and rebooting the O-DU device that is experiencing an outage.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Yu in to the invention of Yang in order to to provide O-DU service availability optimization to avoid service interruptions.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Akkipeddi, and further in view of Yu, and further in view of Sharma et al. (USPGP 2025/0071736, hereinafter “Sharma”).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Yang, as modified by Akkipeddi and Yu, discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except the server being a server cluster, wherein the server cluster comprises at least one master node and a plurality of worker nodes associated with the at least one master node, and wherein the gateway is hosted in the at least one master node, the plurality of worker nodes, or a combination thereof.
However, Sharma, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses or suggests the server is a server cluster, wherein the server cluster comprises at least one master node and a plurality of worker nodes associated with the at least one master node, and wherein the gateway is hosted in the at least one master node, the plurality of worker nodes, or a combination thereof (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs 35-39, clustering a cloud master node and a plurality of cloud worker nodes together, where DU, CU-CP, and CU-UP are implemented as a software virtualized entity that is executed in a scalable cloud environment on a cloud worker node and, thus, the gateway may also be implemented on a cloud worker node).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the scalable cloud environment as taught by Sharma in to the invention of Yang, as modified by Akkipeddi and Yu, in order to improve the scalability of the communications network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 06/25/2026
Prosecution Insights