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, see page 6, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to claims 54-55, 60, 65-66, 69 and 72 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 54-55, 60, 65-66, 69 and 72 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 53, 64 and 72, applicant argues that “In this regard, independent claims 53, 64 and 72 recite that: ... the bearer context setup request message comprises at least one of a list of preemption candidates or a preemption criteria; .... The Examiner contends that the suggested combination teaches all features of the claims, including features noted above. However, even if the cited art could be combined as suggested (which is not conceded by the Applicant), the suggested combination would lack at least the features noted above. More specifically, Kim is not cited for the above noted features - but is cited for purported disclosure of processor, memory (or non-transitory computer readable medium) and/or code features. The Examiner asserts that TS 37.483 teaches the above noted features. At best, it is submitted that TS 37.483 might relate to pre-emption but fails to disclose the claimed features of: the bearer context setup request message comprises at least one of a list of preemption candidates or a preemption criteria. More specifically, the Examiner contends, among other things, that TS 37.483 defines "relative importance of a QOS flow compared to other QOS flows" by including "Priority Level", "Pre-emption Capability" (which relates to whether or not the E-RAB can or not pre-empt other E-RABs) and "Pre-emption Vulnerability" (which relates to whether or not the E-RAB can be pre-empted by other E-RABs). According to the Examiner, this purportedly teaches the above noted features. However, the Examiner has not fairly established that TS 37.483 discloses a list of pre-emption candidates or a preemption criteria, as disclosed and claimed. The Examiner's reference to general concepts of "relative importance" is merely an exercise in hindsight reasoning in his attempt to construct a combination to try to make a case to render the claims obvious. Hindsight reasoning in this context, though, is impermissible. Accordingly, the suggested combination has missing elements of the claimed systems. For at least these reasons, the claims are not rendered obvious by the suggested combination. The rejections should be removed” in pages 7-8.
In response to the applicant’s argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
The claims recites “the bearer context setup request message comprises at least one of a list of preemption candidates or a preemption criteria” which requires either a) “preemption candidates” or b) “preemption criteria”.
TS 37.483 clearly discloses wherein the bearer context setup request message comprises a preemption criteria [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1-8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.1: Bearer Context Setup request from gNB-CU-CP to gNB-CU-UP on the E71 interface, see clauses 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.29 and 9.3.1.51: E-UTRAN and NR Allocation and Retention Policy, which defines the "relative importance of a QOS flow compared to other QoS flows" by including "Priority Level", "Pre-emption Capability” and Pre-emption Vulnerability", see clause 9.3.1.17: The Allocation and Retention Policy in "E-UTRAN QoS", see clause 9.3.3.1: The IE "DRB To Setup List E-UTRAN" in the "Bearer context setup request" contains the "E-UTRAN QoS"].
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In view of the above response, the combined system of TS 37.483 and Kim teaches each and every elements of claims 53-72.
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.
Claims 55, 57, 60-62, 66, and 69 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the one or more bearers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 57 recites “identifying that a bearer allocation for a user device associated with the bearer context setup request message will cause an available capacity to exceed a threshold capacity” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether or not “identifying that a bearer allocation for a user device associated with the bearer context setup request message causes an available capacity to exceed a threshold capacity”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 60 recites “wherein the at least one preemption candidate represents at least one of the following: at least one bearer or at least one user device that has been or will be released due to a preemption” in lines 1-3. It is unclear whether or not “wherein the at least one preemption candidate represents at least one of the following: at least one bearer or at least one user device that has been or is released due to a preemption”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 61 recites “identify, by the central unit user plane function, that a bearer allocation for a user equipment associated with the bearer context setup request message will cause available capacity to exceed a threshold capacity at the central unit user plane function” in lines 2-4. It is unclear whether or not “identify, by the central unit user plane function, that a bearer allocation for a user equipment associated with the bearer context setup request message causes available capacity to exceed a threshold capacity at the central unit user plane function”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 66 recites the limitation "the one or more bearers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 66 recites the limitation "the one or more user device identifiers" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 69 recites “wherein the at least one preemption candidate represents at least one of the following: at least one bearer or at least one user device that has been or will be released due to a preemption” in lines 2-4. It is unclear whether or not “wherein the at least one preemption candidate represents at least one of the following: at least one bearer or at least one user device that has been or is released due to a preemption”. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 62 is also rejected since it is depended on the rejected claim 61 set forth 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 53-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ("3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; E1 Application Protocol (E1AP) (Release 17)", 3GPP TS 37.483, V17.0.0, April 2022, pp. 1-309, hereinafter “TS 37.483”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0187887 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 53, TS 37.483 discloses a radio network node [see clauses 8.3.1-8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.1; a radio network node (gNB)] configured to:
receive, by a central unit user plane function of the radio network node, a bearer context setup request message from a central unit control plane function of the radio network node, wherein the bearer context setup request message comprises a preemption criteria [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1-8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.1: Bearer Context Setup request from gNB-CU-CP to gNB-CU-UP on the E71 interface, see clauses 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.29 and 9.3.1.51: E-UTRAN and NR Allocation and Retention Policy, which defines the "relative importance of a QOS flow compared to other QoS flows" by including "Priority Level", "Pre-emption Capability” and Pre-emption Vulnerability", see clause 9.3.1.17: The Allocation and Retention Policy in "E-UTRAN QoS", see clause 9.3.3.1: The IE "DRB To Setup List E-UTRAN" in the "Bearer context setup request" contains the "E-UTRAN QoS"]; and
select, by the central unit user plane function at least one preemption candidate based on the bearer context setup request message [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.2: in response to the bearer context setup request, the gNB-CU-UP sends a bearer context setup response with IEs "DRB Failed List" and "PDU session Resource Failed List", see clauses 9.3.1.45: "Flow Failed List" indicates a list of QoS flows to be released, with cause value, see clauses 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6: "DRB Failed List E- UTRAN"+"PDU Session Resource Failed List" with DRB ID lists/PDU session ID lists and cause for failed flows, with failure cause, see clause 9.3.1.2: "Cause": "Release due to Pre-Emption", i.e. "Release is initiated due to pre-emption", hence the gNB-CU-UP uses its pre-emption information/criteria from the bearer context setup request to select at least one preemption candidate and signals the selected preemption candidates in the bearer context setup response message].
TS 37.483 does not explicitly disclose the radio network node comprising “at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code”.
However, Kim teaches a radio network node comprising a processor and a memory including computer program code executed by the processor [see Fig. 1-2, para. 42, 74-75, 423; a base station comprising processor 202 and memory 204 storing software code 205 executed by the processor].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a radio network node comprising a processor and a memory including computer program code executed by the processor”, as taught by Kim, into the system of TS 37.483 so that it would prevent unnecessary waste of resources [see Kim, 8].
Regarding claim 54, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the list of preemption candidates indicates one or more bearer identifiers and/or one or more identifiers for one or more user devices [see clauses 8.3.1.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, 9.3.1.17, 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.1.29, 9.3.1.45, 9.3.1.51, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6; the list of preemption candidates indicates one or more DRB ID, PDU session ID, UE ID].
Regarding claim 55, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the list of preemption candidates is ranked in accordance with a priority of the one or more bearers and/or the one or more user device identifiers [see clauses 8.3.1.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, 9.3.1.17, 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.1.29, 9.3.1.45, 9.3.1.51, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6; ranked lists of preemption candidates in accordance with a priority of the one or more bearers and/or the UE IDs].
Regarding claim 56, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the bearer context setup request message is received in response to a bearer context setup causing resources to exceed an available capacity at the central unit user plane function [see clauses 8.2.9-8.2.9.2, 9.2.1.19, 9.2.1.22. 9.3.1.72, 9.3.1.73; the bearer context setup request message is received in response to a bearer context setup causing resources to exceed an available capacity at the gNB-CU-UP; also see clauses 8.3.1.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, 9.3.1.17, 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.1.29, 9.3.1.45, 9.3.1.51, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6; release due to pre-emption according to priority lists of QoS flows and pre-emption settings when not available resources available in the gNB-CU-UP].
Regarding claim 57, TS 37.483 discloses wherein in response to the central unit user plane function identifying that a bearer allocation for a user device associated with the bearer context setup request message will cause an available capacity to exceed a threshold capacity at the central unit user plane function, the central unit user plane function selects the at least one preemption candidate for release [see clauses 8.3.1.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, 9.3.1.17, 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.1.29, 9.3.1.45, 9.3.1.51, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6; release due to pre-emption according to priority lists of QoS flows and pre-emption settings when not available resources available in the gNB-CU-UP; also see 8.2.9-8.2.9.2, 9.2.1.19, 9.2.1.22. 9.3.1.72, 9.3.1.73].
Regarding claim 58, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the at least one preemption candidate is selected from the list of preemption candidates [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.2: in response to the bearer context setup request, the gNB-CU-UP sends a bearer context setup response with IEs "DRB Failed List" and "PDU session Resource Failed List", see clauses 9.3.1.45: "Flow Failed List" indicates a list of QoS flows to be released, with cause value, see clauses 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6: "DRB Failed List E- UTRAN"+"PDU Session Resource Failed List" with DRB ID lists/PDU session ID lists and cause for failed flows, with failure cause, see clause 9.3.1.2: "Cause": "Release due to Pre-Emption", i.e. "Release is initiated due to pre-emption", hence the gNB-CU-UP uses its pre-emption information/criteria from the bearer context setup request to select at least one preemption candidate and signals the selected preemption candidates in the bearer context setup response message].
Regarding claim 59, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the radio network node is caused to: send, by the central unit user plane function, a bearer context setup response message indicating the at least one preemption candidate was selected using the bearer context setup request message [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.2: in response to the bearer context setup request, the gNB-CU-UP sends a bearer context setup response with IEs "DRB Failed List" and "PDU session Resource Failed List", see clauses 9.3.1.45: "Flow Failed List" indicates a list of QoS flows to be released, with cause value, see clauses 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6 "DRB Failed List E- UTRAN"+"PDU Session Resource Failed List" with DRB ID lists/PDU session ID lists and cause for failed flows, with failure cause, see clause 9.3.1.2: "Cause": "Release due to Pre-Emption", i.e. "Release is initiated due to pre-emption", hence the gNB-CU-UP uses its pre-emption information/criteria from the bearer context setup request to select at least one preemption candidate and signals the selected preemption candidates in the bearer context setup response message].
Regarding claim 60, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the at least one preemption candidate represents at least one bearer and/or at least one user device that has been or will be released due to a preemption [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.2: in response to the bearer context setup request, the gNB-CU-UP sends a bearer context setup response with IEs "DRB Failed List" and "PDU session Resource Failed List", see clauses 9.3.1.45: "Flow Failed List" indicates a list of QoS flows to be released, with cause value, see clauses 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6 "DRB Failed List E- UTRAN"+"PDU Session Resource Failed List" with DRB ID lists/PDU session ID lists and cause for failed flows, with failure cause, see clause 9.3.1.2: "Cause": "Release due to Pre-Emption", i.e. "Release is initiated due to pre-emption", hence the gNB-CU-UP uses its pre-emption information/criteria from the bearer context setup request to select at least one preemption candidate and signals the selected preemption candidates in the bearer context setup response message].
Regarding claim 61, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the radio network node is caused to: identify, by the central unit user plane function, that a bearer allocation for a user equipment associated with the bearer context setup request message will cause available capacity to exceed a threshold capacity at the central unit user plane function [see clauses 8.3.1.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, 9.3.1.17, 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.1.29, 9.3.1.45, 9.3.1.51, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6; release due to pre-emption according to priority lists of QoS flows and pre-emption settings when not available resources available in the gNB-CU-UP; also see 8.2.9-8.2.9.2, 9.2.1.19, 9.2.1.22. 9.3.1.72, 9.3.1.73].
Regarding claim 62, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the radio network node is caused to: release, by the central unit user plane function, the at least one preemption candidate selected by the central unit user plane function from at least the list of preemption candidates [see clauses 8.3.1.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, 9.3.1.17, 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.1.29, 9.3.1.45, 9.3.1.51, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6; release due to pre-emption according to priority lists of QoS flows and pre-emption settings when not available resources available in the gNB-CU-UP].
Regarding claim 63, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the radio network node comprises or is comprised in a distributed architecture base station [see clauses 8.3.1-8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.1; the radio network node comprises gNB].
Regarding claim 64, TS 37.483 discloses a radio network node [see clauses 8.3.1-8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.1; a radio network node (gNB)] configured to:
send, by a central unit control plane function of the radio network node, a bearer context setup request message to a central unit user plane function of the radio network node, wherein the bearer context setup request message comprises a preemption criteria [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1-8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.1: Bearer Context Setup request from gNB-CU-CP to gNB-CU-UP on the E71 interface, see clauses 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.29 and 9.3.1.51: E-UTRAN and NR Allocation and Retention Policy, which defines the "relative importance of a QOS flow compared to other QoS flows" by including "Priority Level", "Pre-emption Capability” and Pre-emption Vulnerability", see clause 9.3.1.17: The Allocation and Retention Policy in "E-UTRAN QoS", see clause 9.3.3.1: The IE "DRB To Setup List E-UTRAN" in the "Bearer context setup request" contains the "E-UTRAN QoS"]; and
receive, by the central unit control plane function, at least one preemption candidate that is selected at least in part from the list of preemption candidates or the preemption criteria based on the bearer context setup request message [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.2: in response to the bearer context setup request, the gNB-CU-UP sends a bearer context setup response with IEs "DRB Failed List" and "PDU session Resource Failed List", see clauses 9.3.1.45: "Flow Failed List" indicates a list of QoS flows to be released, with cause value, see clauses 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6: "DRB Failed List E- UTRAN"+"PDU Session Resource Failed List" with DRB ID lists/PDU session ID lists and cause for failed flows, with failure cause, see clause 9.3.1.2: "Cause": "Release due to Pre-Emption", i.e. "Release is initiated due to pre-emption", hence the gNB-CU-UP uses its pre-emption information/criteria from the bearer context setup request to select at least one preemption candidate and signals the selected preemption candidates in the bearer context setup response message].
TS 37.483 does not explicitly disclose the radio network node comprising “at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code”.
However, Kim teaches a radio network node comprising a processor and a memory including computer program code executed by the processor [see Fig. 1-2, para. 42, 74-75, 423; a base station comprising processor 202 and memory 204 storing software code 205 executed by the processor].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a radio network node comprising a processor and a memory including computer program code executed by the processor”, as taught by Kim, into the system of TS 37.483 so that it would prevent unnecessary waste of resources [see Kim, 8].
Regarding claim 65, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the list of preemption candidates indicates one or more bearer identifiers and/or one or more identifiers for one or more user devices [see clauses 8.3.1.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, 9.3.1.17, 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.1.29, 9.3.1.45, 9.3.1.51, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6; the list of preemption candidates indicates one or more DRB ID, PDU session ID, UE ID].
Regarding claim 66, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the list of preemption candidates is ranked in accordance with a priority of the one or more bearers and/or the one or more user device identifiers [see clauses 8.3.1.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, 9.3.1.17, 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.1.29, 9.3.1.45, 9.3.1.51, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6; ranked lists of preemption candidates in accordance with a priority of the one or more bearers and/or the UE IDs].
Regarding claim 67, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the at least one preemption candidate is received subsequent to a bearer context setup causing resources to exceed an available capacity at the central unit user plane function [see clauses 8.2.9-8.2.9.2, 9.2.1.19, 9.2.1.22. 9.3.1.72, 9.3.1.73; the bearer context setup request message is received in response to a bearer context setup causing resources to exceed an available capacity at the gNB-CU-UP; also see clauses 8.3.1.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, 9.3.1.17, 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.1.29, 9.3.1.45, 9.3.1.51, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6; release due to pre-emption according to priority lists of QoS flows and pre-emption settings when not available resources available in the gNB-CU-UP].
Regarding claim 68, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the at least one preemption candidate is selected from the list of preemption candidates [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.2: in response to the bearer context setup request, the gNB-CU-UP sends a bearer context setup response with IEs "DRB Failed List" and "PDU session Resource Failed List", see clauses 9.3.1.45: "Flow Failed List" indicates a list of QoS flows to be released, with cause value, see clauses 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6: "DRB Failed List E- UTRAN"+"PDU Session Resource Failed List" with DRB ID lists/PDU session ID lists and cause for failed flows, with failure cause, see clause 9.3.1.2: "Cause": "Release due to Pre-Emption", i.e. "Release is initiated due to pre-emption", hence the gNB-CU-UP uses its pre-emption information/criteria from the bearer context setup request to select at least one preemption candidate and signals the selected preemption candidates in the bearer context setup response message].
Regarding claim 69, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the at least one preemption candidate represents at least one bearer and/or at least one user device that has been or will be released due to a preemption [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.2: in response to the bearer context setup request, the gNB-CU-UP sends a bearer context setup response with IEs "DRB Failed List" and "PDU session Resource Failed List", see clauses 9.3.1.45: "Flow Failed List" indicates a list of QoS flows to be released, with cause value, see clauses 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6 "DRB Failed List E- UTRAN"+"PDU Session Resource Failed List" with DRB ID lists/PDU session ID lists and cause for failed flows, with failure cause, see clause 9.3.1.2: "Cause": "Release due to Pre-Emption", i.e. "Release is initiated due to pre-emption", hence the gNB-CU-UP uses its pre-emption information/criteria from the bearer context setup request to select at least one preemption candidate and signals the selected preemption candidates in the bearer context setup response message].
Regarding claim 70, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the radio network node is caused to: release, by the central unit control plane function, the at least one preemption candidate selected by the central unit user plane function from at least the list of preemption candidates [see clauses 8.3.1.2, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, 9.3.1.17, 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.2, 9.3.1.29, 9.3.1.45, 9.3.1.51, 9.3.3.1, 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6; release due to pre-emption according to priority lists of QoS flows and pre-emption settings when not available resources available in the gNB-CU-UP].
Regarding claim 71, TS 37.483 discloses wherein the radio network node comprises or is comprised in a distributed architecture base station [see clauses 8.3.1-8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.1; the radio network node comprises gNB].
Regarding claim 72, TS 37.483 discloses operations comprising:
receiving, by a central unit user plane function of the radio network node, a bearer context setup request message from a central unit control plane function of the radio network node, wherein the bearer context setup request message comprises a preemption criteria [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1-8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.1: Bearer Context Setup request from gNB-CU-CP to gNB-CU-UP on the E71 interface, see clauses 9.3.1.18, 9.3.1.29 and 9.3.1.51: E-UTRAN and NR Allocation and Retention Policy, which defines the "relative importance of a QOS flow compared to other QoS flows" by including "Priority Level", "Pre-emption Capability” and Pre-emption Vulnerability", see clause 9.3.1.17: The Allocation and Retention Policy in "E-UTRAN QoS", see clause 9.3.3.1: The IE "DRB To Setup List E-UTRAN" in the "Bearer context setup request" contains the "E-UTRAN QoS"]; and
selecting, by the central unit user plane function at least one preemption candidate based on the bearer context set\up request message [see page 35, Fig. 8.3.1.2-1, clauses 8.3.1.2 and 9.2.2.2: in response to the bearer context setup request, the gNB-CU-UP sends a bearer context setup response with IEs "DRB Failed List" and "PDU session Resource Failed List", see clauses 9.3.1.45: "Flow Failed List" indicates a list of QoS flows to be released, with cause value, see clauses 9.3.3.4 and 9.3.3.6: "DRB Failed List E- UTRAN"+"PDU Session Resource Failed List" with DRB ID lists/PDU session ID lists and cause for failed flows, with failure cause, see clause 9.3.1.2: "Cause": "Release due to Pre-Emption", i.e. "Release is initiated due to pre-emption", hence the gNB-CU-UP uses its pre-emption information/criteria from the bearer context setup request to select at least one preemption candidate and signals the selected preemption candidates in the bearer context setup response message].
TS 37.483 does not explicitly disclose “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including program code which when executed by at least one processor causes” the operations.
However, Kim teaches a memory including computer program code executed by a processor [see Fig. 1-2, para. 42, 74-75, 423; memory 204 storing software code 205 executed by processor 202].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a radio network node comprising a processor and a memory including computer program code executed by the processor”, as taught by Kim, into the system of TS 37.483 so that it would prevent unnecessary waste of resources [see Kim, 8].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights