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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments presented in the Remarks of record (01/02/2026) are fully considered but are not considered persuasive in view of a new ground of rejection. Specifically, the arguments are directed to the amendments of the intelligence layer is deployed in a public cloud where the different respective DUs are deployed. A new reference is concorporated to address the limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwok et al. (US 2024/0121855) in view of Paladugu et al (US 2019/0387561) and in view of Song et al. (US 2023/0276465).
As to claim 1:
Kwok discloses:
A method comprising electronically determining, by a network intelligence layer of a wireless cellular telecommunication network, for each user equipment device (UE) of a plurality of user UEs to which the wireless cellular telecommunication network provides services, whether using carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located using dual connectivity for the cells is preferable;
(¶0050, 0057, 0010, server 304 comprising a selection component that logically (i.e. network intelligence layer) configured to select between NR DC and NR CA based at least in part on one or more network conditions detected by the specific UE, i.e. the selection is per UE’s basis for each and every respective UEs served)
and triggering, by the network intelligence layer, for each UE of the plurality of user UEs, an assignment dynamically to the UE to use one or more of the carrier aggregation and the dual connectivity based on the determination. (See ¶0054-0057, triggering the chosen assignment (i.e. DC vs. CA) dynamically upon the selection based on the criteria for the specific UE)
Kwok, however does not explicitly disclose other details regarding the context of the cellular network, specifically “cells that are each managed by different respective distributed units (DUs) of a plurality of DUs in the wireless cellular telecommunication network”
Paladugu, in a related field of endeavor discloses a network supportive of dual connectivity and carrier aggregation (¶0126), wherein cells are each managed by different respective distributed units (DUs) of a plurality of DUs in the wireless cellular telecommunication network in at least Abstract, 0133.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system/method in Kwok wherein cells are each managed by different respective distributed DUs of the plurality of Dus in the network. Both Kwok and Paladugu concern with networks offering multi-connectivity and carrier aggregation involving multi cells/cell groups, which might involve higher traffic of overheads by design. Distributed DU architecture advantageously allows enhanced load scaling/distribution as Dus offload lower layer processing from CU (¶0133 of Paladugu). Furthermore, placing DUs at their respective cells allow for less control signaling and latency (i.e. less traffic to central core network elements).
None of the cited references discloses:
wherein the intelligence layer is deployed in a public cloud where the different respective DUs are deployed.
Song, in a related field of network controlling for wireless communication, discloses a network arrangement wherein DUs and network controlling layer (RIC) can be implemented in a public cloud (See ¶0081, intelligence layer RIC, DU all embodied in an open Cloud platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the network controlling layer, DUs of Kwok, Paladugu to be embodied in a open Cloud platform. This implementation provides an advantageous flexibility layer to network design, for example for the purpose of distribution in a crowded city area with plenty fronhaul capacity that allows for a BBU function pooled in the central location and with low latency that is low enough to satisfy an O-DU standby time requirement (¶0081 of Song). And furthermore, by having the key functions to be located in same cloud platform, this significantly simplifies inter-function communications and overheads as signals do not have to travel over a long-distance backhaul, aside from the bonus of saving in infrastructure and storage space.
As to claim 2:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 1 wherein, for each UE of the plurality of UEs, the determination whether using the carrier aggregation or using the dual connectivity is preferable is based on feedback from Radio Access Network (RAN) functions of the wireless cellular telecommunication network. (See at least Kwok, ¶0011, 0038, 0056, feedback from RAN/UE)
As to claim 3:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 1 wherein, for each UE of the plurality of UEs, the determination whether using the carrier aggregation or using the dual connectivity is preferable is based on one or more of: UE communication characteristics of the UE and inter-distributed unit (inter-DU) communication characteristics of communication between the different respective DUs. (Kwok, ¶0038, “a gNB connected to the UE 106 can monitor PHRs received from the UE 106. The gNb may use data from the PHRs to determine when to switch from/to NR DC and/or pass this data to one or more other nodes to determine when to switch from/to NR DC”. See also ¶0012, 0013, 0056)
As to claim 4:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 3 wherein, for each UE of the plurality of UEs, the determination whether using the carrier aggregation or using the dual connectivity is preferable includes: the intelligence layer working with a centralized unit (CU) of the wireless cellular telecommunication network and the plurality of DUs to receive information regarding one or more of: the UE communication characteristics and the inter-DU communication characteristics. (Kwok, ¶0038, “use data from the PHRs to determine when to switch from/to NR DC and/or pass this data to one or more other nodes to determine when to switch from/to NR DC”. Also Paladugu, ¶0059, 0060, 0063, “determining, at a CU of the base station and based on information received from the UE and associated DUs of the base station”, i.e. decisions are made at CU)
As to claim 5:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 1 wherein the intelligence layer is deployed at a far edge location within the wireless cellular telecommunication network where a centralized unit (CU) of the wireless cellular telecommunication network is deployed or where one or more DUs of the plurality of DUs is deployed. (Kwok, ¶0040, the server with the selection function can be within access network 102, i.e. at base station per Fig. 1, See ¶0089, 0067 of Paladugu, CU/Dus are located also in access network 102, i.e. at base station)
As to claim 6:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 1 wherein the intelligence layer is deployed at a data center of the wireless cellular telecommunication network where a centralized unit (CU) of the wireless cellular telecommunication network is deployed or where one or more DUs of the plurality of DUs is deployed. (Kwok, ¶0040, the server with the selection function can be within access network 102, i.e. at base station per Fig. 1, Paladugu, CU/Dus are located also in access network 102, i.e. at base station)
As to claim 8:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 1 wherein the intelligence layer is deployed at a location isolated from one or more of: a centralized unit (CU) of the wireless cellular telecommunication network, the plurality of DUs, network management functions of the wireless cellular telecommunication network and other network functions of the of the wireless cellular telecommunication network. (See ¶0040 of Kwok, the server comprising the selection component can be in core network, which is a different network realm from the access network where the plurality of DUs are located in context of Paladugu)
As to claim 9:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 1 wherein the intelligence layer is a sub- function of: a network orchestrator of the wireless cellular telecommunication network, a Radio Access Network (RAN) Intelligent Controller (RIC), or another entity that provides intelligent decisions based on feedback from RAN functions. (See Kwok, ¶0050, selection component 432 is part of server 304, which is an intelligent entity that logically made decisions dynamically based on network condition)
As to claim 10:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein: the determining whether using carrier aggregation across the cells or using dual connectivity for the cells is preferable occurs continuously; and the triggering, the assignment to the UE to use one or more of the carrier aggregation and the dual connectivity occurs dynamically based on the continuous determination. (See Kwok, Fig. 5, the process is continuous loop, the determining to switch between two modes occurs continuously, as more updates of the network condition are coming in. Even after switching, the network condition reports will still be updated, and the loop continues on.)
As to claim 11:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 1 wherein the dual connectivity uses an F1 interface to split Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) packets across the different respective DUs. (See Paladugu, ¶0063, 0091, F1/W1 interface between CU and DUs)
As to claim 12:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 1 wherein the triggering, for each UE of the plurality of user UEs, the assignment dynamically to the UE to use one or more of the carrier aggregation and the dual connectivity includes the network intelligence layer sending a command to a Radio Access Network (RAN) including the different respective DUs to use the one or more of the carrier aggregation and the dual connectivity. ( Kwok, ¶0050, “server 304 can include one or more processors 328 and one or more CRM 330. The CRM 330 can be used to store processor-executable instructions of a selection component 432 which may be configured to select between NR DC and NR CA based, at least in part, on one or more network conditions (e.g., TX power) detected by UE 106”, since decision is made at the server, the signaling that carries the decision to the UE is implied. Paladugu further verifies this in ¶0046, 0060, where centralized decisions are signaled to the RANs)
As to claims 13 and 17:
Kwok discloses:
A system comprising: at least one computer processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one computer processor, wherein the memory has computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause operations to be performed, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, (See ¶0050, server comprising processors and memory/CRMs) cause operations to be performed, the operations including:
electronically determining, by a network intelligence layer of a wireless cellular telecommunication network, for each user equipment device (UE) of a plurality of user UEs to which the wireless cellular telecommunication network provides services, whether using carrier aggregation across cells in which the UE is located and that are each managed by different respective distributed units (DUs) of a plurality of DUs in the wireless cellular telecommunication network or using dual connectivity for the cells is preferable;
(¶0050, 0057, 0010, server 304 comprising a selection component that logically (i.e. network intelligence layer) configured to select between NR DC and NR CA based at least in part on one or more network conditions detected by the specific UE, i.e. the selection is per UE’s basis for each and every respective UEs served)
and triggering, by the network intelligence layer, for each UE of the plurality of user UEs, an assignment dynamically to the UE to use one or more of the carrier aggregation and the dual connectivity based on the determination. (See ¶0054-0057, triggering the chosen assignment (i.e. DC vs. CA) dynamically upon the selection based on the criteria for the specific UE)
Kwok, however does not explicitly disclose other details regarding the context of the cellular network, specifically “cells that are each managed by different respective distributed units (DUs) of a plurality of DUs in the wireless cellular telecommunication network”
Paladugu, in a related field of endeavor discloses a network supportive of dual connectivity and carrier aggregation (¶0126), wherein cells are each managed by different respective distributed units (DUs) of a plurality of DUs in the wireless cellular telecommunication network in at least Abstract, 0133.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system/method in Kwok wherein cells are each managed by different respective distributed DUs of the plurality of Dus in the network. Both Kwok and Paladugu concern with networks offering multi-connectivity and carrier aggregation involving multi cells/cell groups, which might involve higher traffic of overheads by design. Distributed DU architecture advantageously allows enhanced load scaling/distribution as Dus offload lower layer processing from CU (¶0133 of Paladugu). Furthermore, placing DUs at their respective cells allow for less control signaling and latency (i.e. less traffic to central core network elements).
None of the cited references discloses:
wherein the intelligence layer is deployed in a public cloud where the different respective DUs are deployed.
Song, in a related field of network controlling for wireless communication, discloses a network arrangement wherein DUs and network controlling layer (RIC) can be implemented in a public cloud (See ¶0081, intelligence layer RIC, DU all embodied in an open Cloud platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the network controlling layer, DUs of Kwok, Paladugu to be embodied in a open Cloud platform. This implementation provides an advantageous flexibility layer to network design, for example for the purpose of distribution in a crowded city area with plenty fronhaul capacity that allows for a BBU function pooled in the central location and with low latency that is low enough to satisfy an O-DU standby time requirement (¶0081 of Song). And furthermore, by having the key functions to be located in same cloud platform, this significantly simplifies inter-function communications and overheads as signals do not have to travel over a long-distance backhaul, aside from the bonus of saving in infrastructure and storage space.
As to claims 14, 18:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 13/17 wherein, for each UE of the plurality of UEs, the determination whether using the carrier aggregation or using the dual connectivity is preferable is based on feedback from Radio Access Network (RAN) functions of the wireless cellular telecommunication network. See at least Kwok, ¶0011, 0038, 0056, feedback from RAN/UE)
As to claims 15, 19:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 13/17 wherein, for each UE of the plurality of UEs, the determination whether using the carrier aggregation or using the dual connectivity is preferable is based on one or more of: UE communication characteristics of the UE and inter-distributed unit (inter-DU) communication characteristics of communication between the different respective DUs. (Kwok, ¶0038, “a gNB connected to the UE 106 can monitor PHRs received from the UE 106. The gNb may use data from the PHRs to determine when to switch from/to NR DC and/or pass this data to one or more other nodes to determine when to switch from/to NR DC”. See also ¶0012, 0013, 0056)
As to claim 16, 20:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 15/19 wherein, for each UE of the plurality of UEs, the determination whether using the carrier aggregation or using the dual connectivity is preferable includes: the intelligence layer working with a centralized unit (CU) of the wireless cellular telecommunication network and the plurality of DUs to receive information regarding one or more of: the UE communication characteristics and the inter-DU communication characteristics. . (Kwok, ¶0038, “use data from the PHRs to determine when to switch from/to NR DC and/or pass this data to one or more other nodes to determine when to switch from/to NR DC”. Also Paladugu, ¶0059, 0060, 0063, “determining, at a CU of the base station and based on information received from the UE and associated DUs of the base station”, i.e. decisions are made at CU)
As to claim 7:
Kwok in view of Paladugu and Song discloses all limitations of claim 1, regarding: the intelligence layer is deployed in a public cloud where: a centralized unit (CU) of the wireless cellular telecommunication network is deployed, where one or more DUs of the plurality of DUs is deployed, where network management functions of the wireless cellular telecommunication network are able to be deployed or where other network functions of the of the wireless cellular telecommunication network are able to be deployed. (See ¶0081 of Song, DUs, CUs, and RICs are hosted in a Open Cloud Platform)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2021/173339 - Certain aspects of the present disclosure provide a technique for signaling user equipment (UE) assistance information (UAI) that is specific to a particular cell group (CG) (e.g., a secondary CG (SCG)). For example, the technique may be executed to generate CG specific UAI, which may indicate a configuration parameter for the UE when operating in a multiple radio dual connectivity (MR-DC) mode. The UE may signal the UAI to a network entity along with an indication of the CG to which the UAI is to be applied.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights