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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/073017 filed on 1/20/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application No. CHINA 202110128112.5 filed on 1/29/2021 and CHINA 202110579063.7 filed on 5/26/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 7/2/2024 and 1/14/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 24, 25, 30, and 34-36 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, it is suggested to add parenthesis “(“ and “)“ to read “… a 5th generation mobile communication technology core (5GC)-control plane (CP) device …” (in lines 2-3) for its first use of the acronym and for clarity, and to add a comma (,) “… delivering, by the 5GC-CP device, a user entry …” (in line 5) for clarity.
In claim 30, it is suggested to add parenthesis “(“ and “)“ to read “… a 5th generation mobile communication technology core (5GC)-control plane (CP) device …” (in line 2) and “… a user equipment (UE) …” (in line 4) for its first use of the acronym and for clarity.
In claims 24 and 34, it is suggested to add parenthesis “(“ and “)“ to read “… a broadband network gateway (BNG) device …” (in line 2) for its first use of the acronym and for clarity.
In claim 25, it is suggested to add parenthesis “(“ and “)“ to read “… a broadband network gateway user plane (BNG-UP) device …” (in line 2) for its first use of the acronym and for clarity.
In claim 35, it is suggested to add parenthesis “(“ and “)“ to read “… a broadband network gateway user plane (BNG-UP) device …” (in line 2) for its first use of the acronym and for clarity, and to add a comma (,) “… deliver, to a BNG-CP device, the user entry …” (in line 4) for clarity.
In claim 36, it is suggested to add parenthesis “(“ and “)“ to read “… a 5GC-user plane (UP) device …” (in lines 4-5) for its first use of the acronym and for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (US 2018/0242227 A1, hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 20:
Zhao teaches a communication method (see, Zhao: para. [0114], “an RNM for coordination of multi-RAT resources is used for receiving a service request from user equipment 110 and determining the transmission mode of the control plane downlink signaling of the user equipment.”, wherein RNM stands for Radio Node Management of 5G. Also, see para. [0007-0008]), wherein the method comprises:
determining, by a 5th generation mobile communication technology core 5GC-control plane (CP) device (see, Zhao: Fig. 7, RNM (multi-RAT control plane signaling process)), whether a user equipment (UE) (see, Zhao: Fig. 7, UE 110) is of a first type (see, Zhao: Fig. 7 and para. [0116], “In step 301, User Equipment (UE) 110 establishes an air interface (hereinafter referred to as AI) connection on a 5G macro base station with a network side, and delivers information to the network side. The information includes: type information of the user equipment 110”, wherein the network side (i.e., RNM (multi-RAT control plane signaling process)) of Zhao is equivalent to the 5GC-CP of the instant application.); and
in response to a determination that the UE is of the first type (see, Zhao: Fig. 7 and para. [0119], “In step 304, after receiving the service request from the user equipment 110, the network side determines to transmit the control plane downlink signaling of the user by using a multi-RAT diversity transmission (i.e., to transmit the same control plane downlink signaling by different RATs) according to type information of the user equipment 110”), delivering, by the 5GC-CP device a user entry corresponding to the UE (e.g., user control plane downlink signaling) to a first fixed network device, wherein the first fixed network device is a fixed network device corresponding to a first base station (see, Zhao: Fig. 7, AI (5G macro base station) 120, wherein AI stands for Air Interface) accessed by the UE (see, Zhao: Fig. 7 and para. [0122], “In step 307, the RNM for processing the multi-RAT control plane signaling sends the same control plane downlink signaling to bearers of different RATs at the same time according to a strategy.”).
Regarding claim 29:
Claim 29 is directed towards a network device (see, Zhao: Fig. 7, RNM (multi-RAT control plane signaling process), wherein RNM stands for Radio Node Management of 5G. Also, see para. [0007-0008])) comprising: one or more memories (see, Zhao: para. [0137], “memory”, and claims 38 and 42) configured to store instructions; and one or more processors (see, Zhao: para. [0137], “processor”, and claims 38 and 42) coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions to enable the network device to: perform the method of claim 20. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 30:
Claim 30 is directed towards a communication system (see, Zhao: Fig. 7), comprising: a 5th generation mobile communication technology core 5GC-control plane CP device (see, Zhao: Fig. 7, RNM (multi-RAT control plane signaling process)) configured to: perform the method of claim 20; and the first fixed network device (see, Zhao: Fig. 7, AI (5G macro base station) 120, wherein AI stands for Air Interface) configured to: receive the user entry (see, Zhao: para. [0116], “In step 301, User Equipment (UE) 110 establishes an air interface (hereinafter referred to as AI) connection on a 5G macro base station with a network side, and delivers information to the network side. The information includes: type information of the user equipment 110”), and forward a packet related to the UE (e.g., control plane downlink signaling) based on the user entry corresponding to the UE (see, Zhao: Fig. 7, UE 110) (see, Zhao: para. [0123], “In step 308, the AIs of different RATs send the same control plane downlink signaling to the user equipment 110 at substantially the same time.”). Therefore, claim 29 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 20 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 24, 26-28, 34, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of TR-470 (Broadband Forum; Technical Report; TR-470; “5G Wireless Wireline Convergence Architecture”, Issue: 1, August 2020, hereinafter TR-470).
Regarding claim 24:
As discussed above, Zhao teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Zhao does not explicitly teach wherein the first fixed network device comprises a broadband network gateway BNG device or a metropolitan area network edge device.
In the same field of endeavor, TR-470 teaches wherein the first fixed network device comprises a broadband network gateway BNG device or a metropolitan area network edge device (see, TR-470: Fig. 1 wherein the fixed network device comprises broadband network gateway (BNG).).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zhao in combination of the teachings of TR-470 in order to integrate a BNG into a 5G Core network (see, TR-470: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26:
As discussed above, Zhao teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Zhao further teaches wherein determining, by the 5GC-CP device, that the UE is of a second type (see, Zhao: Fig. 7 and para. [0119], “In step 304, after receiving the service request from the user equipment 110, the network side determines to transmit the control plane downlink signaling of the user … according to type information of the user equipment 110”).
Zhao does not explicitly teach wherein in response to a determination that the UE is of the second type, delivering, by the 5GC-CP device to a 5GC-user plane (UP) device, the user entry corresponding to the UE.
In the same field of endeavor, TR-470 in view of Zhao teaches wherein in response to a determination that the UE is of the second type (e.g., End System (ES) of TR-470 connected to 5G-RG, in this case the type of the UE (i.e., ES) is different from the type of UE of claim 1 (i.e., UE).), delivering, by the 5GC-CP device to a 5GC-user plane (UP) device, the user entry corresponding to the UE (see, TR-470: Fig. 1, N4 interface between SMF (5GC control plane function) and UPF (5GC user plane function).).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zhao in combination of the teachings of TR-470 in order to support both class of CPE types that supports 3GPP procedure and different class of CPE types that do not support 3GPP procedure to adopt wireline access onto the 5G core (see, TR-470: Fig. 1 and Section 4.).
Regarding claim 27:
As discussed above, Zhao in view of TR-470 teaches all limitations in claim 20.
TR-470 further teaches wherein the UE of the second type corresponds to a UE that communicates with a destination network via the 5GC-UP device (see, TR-470: Fig. 1, End System (ES), connected to 5G-RG, that communicates with the Data Network (DN) via the User Plan Function (UPF).).
Regarding claim 28:
As discussed above, Zhao teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Zhao does not explicitly teach wherein the UE of the first type corresponds to a UE that communicates with a destination network via the first fixed network device.
In the same field of endeavor, TR-470 teaches wherein the UE of the first type (e.g., UE, PC, STB, etc.) corresponds to a UE that communicates with a destination network (e.g., Data Network) via the first fixed network device (e.g., 5G RAN) (see, TR-470: Fig. 3 and Section 4.1 wherein various types of Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) (e.g., UE, PE, STB, etc.) are connected to 5G-RG (Residential Gateway) and 5G RAN to communicated with the Data Network.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zhao in combination of the teachings of TR-470 in order to offer fixed broadband service over 5G wireless with the data network (see, TR-470: Section 4.1 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 34:
Claim 34 is directed towards the system according to claim 30 that is further limited to similar features to claim 24. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 24 above.
Regarding claim 36:
Claim 36 is directed towards the system according to claim 30 that is further limited to similar features to claim 26. Therefore, claim 36 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 37:
Claim 37 is directed towards the system according to claim 36 that is further limited to similar features to claim 27. Therefore, claim 37 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 27 above.
Regarding claim 38:
Claim 38 is directed towards the system according to claim 30 that is further limited to similar features to claim 28. Therefore, claim 38 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 28 above.
Claims 21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of TR-470 further in view of Youn et al. (EP 3557905 A1, hereinafter Youn).
Regarding claim 21:
As discussed above, Zhao in view of TR-470 teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Zhao in view of TR-470 does not explicitly teach wherein in response to the 5GC-CP device detecting that a base station accessed by the UE is switched from the first base station to a second base station, determining, by the 5GC-CP device, a second fixed network device corresponding to the second base station; and delivering, by the 5GC-CP device to the second fixed network device, the user entry corresponding to the UE.
In the same field of endeavor, Youn teaches wherein in response to the 5GC-CP (e.g., AMF & SMF) device detecting that a base station (e.g., Source gNB) accessed by the UE (e.g., UE) is switched from the first base station to a second base station (e.g., Target gNB), determining, by the 5GC-CP device, a second fixed network device (e.g., Target gNB) corresponding to the second base station; and delivering, by the 5GC-CP device to the second fixed network device, the user entry corresponding to the UE (e.g., modified PDU list) (see, Youn: Fig. 25 discloses wherein in response to the 5GC-CP (i.e., AMF & SMF) detecting a handover in Step 3, wherein the AMF and the SMF determines the target gNB when a handover required message received from the source gNB based on the measurement report received from the UE in Step 1 and Step 2, and delivers a PDU list to the target gNB in Step 11.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zhao in view of TR-470 in combination of the teachings of Youn in order to support a handover of a UE from a source base station to a target base station (see, Youn: Abstract; Fig. 25; para. [0221-0232]).
Regarding claim 31:
Claim 31 is directed towards the system according to claim 30 that is further limited to similar features to claim 21. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 21 above.
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of TR-470 further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0270715 A1, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 22:
As discussed above, Zhao in view of TR-470 teaches all limitations in claim 20.
Zhao in view of TR-470 does not explicitly teach wherein receiving, by the 5GC-CP device, a user entry obtaining request sent by a second fixed network device, wherein the second fixed network device is a fixed network device corresponding to a second base station to which the UE is handed over from the accessed first base station; and sending, by the 5GC-CP device based on the user entry obtaining request, the user entry corresponding to the UE to the second fixed network device.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein receiving, by the 5GC-CP device (e.g., AMF & SMF), a user entry obtaining request (e.g., N2 Path Switch Request) sent by a second fixed network device (e.g., Target RAN), wherein the second fixed network device is a fixed network device corresponding to a second base station to which the UE (e.g., UE) is handed over from the accessed first base station (e.g., Source RAN); and sending, by the 5GC-CP device based on the user entry obtaining request, the user entry corresponding to the UE (e.g., N2 Path Switch Request Ack) to the second fixed network device (see, Lee: Fig. 8 and para. [0057] discloses wherein after executing handover between the base stations is completed, a target base station transmits N2 path switch request signaling to an AMF in step 1 and the AMF transmits ACK for the path switch request to the target base station in step 6.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zhao in view of TR-470 in combination of the teachings of Lee in order to relocate PDU session anchor after executing handover between base stations is completed (see, Lee: Fig. 8 and para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 32:
Claim 32 is directed towards the system according to claim 30 that is further limited to similar features to claim 22. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 22 above.
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of TR-470 further in view of Dao et al. (US 2019/0191330 A1, hereinafter Dao).
Regarding claim 23:
As discussed above, Zhao in view of TR-470 teaches all limitations in claim 24.
Zhao in view of TR-470 does not explicitly teach wherein sending, by the 5GC-CP device, control information to the first fixed network device; receiving, by the 5GC-CP device, traffic statistics information returned by the first fixed network device based on the control information; and performing traffic management based on the traffic statistics information.
In the same field of endeavor, Dao teaches wherein sending, by the 5GC-CP device (e.g., AMF and SMF), control information to the first fixed network device (e.g., (R)AN) (see, Dao: Fig. 12 and para. [273], “Step 4a: The AMF 90 forwards the N2 SM Information 1205 to the (R)AN.”); receiving, by the 5GC-CP device, traffic statistics information returned by the first fixed network device based on the control information (see, Dao: Fig. 12 and para. [0275], “Step 4b: The (R)AN 84 sends N2 Message Response (N2 SM Aggregated Tunnel Establishment Response) 1207 to the AMF 90. The N2 SM Aggregated Tunnel Establishment Response may include the (R)AN N3 Tunnel Information (e.g. (R)AN Address (such as IP Address), and DL TEID).”; para. [0276], “Step 5: The AMF 90 forwards the N2 SM Aggregated Tunnel Establishment Response 1209 to the SMF 92.”; para. [0267], “The NWDAF may send traffic statistics of a UE Group to the SMF; The traffic statistics may be traffic volume, such as the number of bytes, or the number of octets, or number of packets, of a UE Group sent between a (R)AN node and a UPF in a certain period, the packet rate (number of packets per second).”); and performing traffic management based on the traffic statistics information (see, Dao: para. [0297], “The SMF may decide to release the aggregated tunnel because, for example the traffic from the UE group is insignificant.”; para. [0298], “The SMF may decide to select another UPF to serve the UE Group. The SMF shall decide to release the aggregated tunnel in the current UPF and establish a new aggregated tunnel in the new UPF.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zhao in view of TR-470 in combination of the teachings of Dao in order for the SMF (session management function) of the 5GC-CP to perform traffic routing management (see, Dao: para. [0297]).
Regarding claim 33:
Claim 33 is directed towards the system according to claim 30 that is further limited to similar features to claim 23. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 23 above.
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of TR-470 further in view of TR-459 (Broadband Forum; Technical Report; TR-459; “Control and User Plane Separation for a disaggregated BNG”, Issue: 1, June 2020, hereinafter TR-459).
Regarding claim 25:
As discussed above, Zhao in view of TR-470 teaches all limitations in claim 24.
Zhao in view of TR-470 does not explicitly teach wherein: the first fixed network device comprises a broadband network gateway user plane BNG-UP device; and delivering, by the 5GC-CP device, the user entry corresponding to the UE to the first fixed network device comprises: delivering, by the 5GC-CP device to a BNG-CP device, the user entry corresponding to the UE, and sending, by using the BNG-CP device, the user entry corresponding to the UE to the BNG-UP device.
In the same field of endeavor, TR-459 in view of TR-470 teaches wherein: the first fixed network device comprises a broadband network gateway user plane BNG-UP device (see, TR-459: Fig. 13, Locally Distributed DBNG-CP and DBNG-UP; Fig. 3; Section 4.2.2, “Once the DBNG-CP completes authentication and address assignment, the DBNG-UP creates state related to forwarding for the subscriber session.”; Section 4.2.3.1., “The DBNG-CP will manage its associated DBNG-UPs and is responsible for pushing configurations and retrieving operational state and status to and from the DBNG-UPs.”); and delivering, by the 5GC-CP device (e.g. 5GC AMF and/or SMF; see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of TR-470), the user entry corresponding to the UE to the first fixed network device comprises: delivering, by the 5GC-CP device to a BNG-CP device, the user entry corresponding to the UE, and sending, by using the BNG-CP device, the user entry corresponding to the UE to the BNG-UP device (see, TR-459: Fig. 4 shows downstream message flow from BNG-CP to BNG-UP and further onto RG.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zhao in view of TR-470 in combination of the teachings of TR-459 in order to deliver a downstream user entry according to the hierarchical order of the 5G Wireless Wireline Convergence (WWC) architecture (i.e., 5GC-CP (AMF-SMF) > 5GC-UP (UPF) > FMIF > BNG-UP > BNG-CP > RG > UE) (see, TR-470: Fig. 1 and Fig. 2; TR-459: Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 35:
Claim 35 is directed towards the system according to claim 34 that is further limited to similar features to claim 25. Therefore, claim 35 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 25 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471