DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Amendment filed on August 6, 2026 has been reviewed.
Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 are amended in the amendment.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 6, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2023-0104343, filed on August 9, 2023
.The effective priority date for the subject matter in the pending claims in this application is August 9, 2023..
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 14, 2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
As per claims 1, 11, 15 and 20, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (as explained in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II).
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1, 11, 15 and 20, at least in part, recites “…wherein the determined QoE bottleneck factor is one of an unbalance of distribution of traffic coming into a radio access network (RAN), an overflow of traffic coming into the RAN, or underflow of traffic coming into the RAN,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 requires one of “…an unbalance of distribution of traffic coming into a radio access network (RAN),” OR “an overflow of traffic coming into the RAN” OR “underflow of traffic coming into the RAN”.
For examination purposes, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation described above, the Examiner elects “…wherein the determined QoE bottleneck factor is an overflow of traffic coming into the RAN ….” Therefore, the Examiner is not required to address/examine any limitations (i.e., wherein the determined QoE bottleneck factor is one of an unbalance of distribution of traffic coming into a radio access network (RAN), or underflow of traffic coming into the RAN,) or dependent claims (i.e., claims 8 and 10) that depend from the non-elected limitations (i.e., wherein the determined QoE bottleneck factor is one of an unbalance of distribution of traffic coming into a radio access network (RAN), or underflow of traffic coming into the RAN,) because these limitations and dependent claims do not provide any patentable weight to the claimed invention. However, for examination and compact prosecution purposes, the Examiner will also provide an additional rejection for all of the required claims limitations/elements and the optional claim limitations/elections as indicated above.
If the Applicant believes, for any reason, that personal communication will expedite prosecution of this application, the Applicant is invited to schedule an interview with the Examiner using the number provided below.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2025/0062973 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang, in view of Sivaraj et al. (US 2021/0377804 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0045583 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
With respect to claim 1, Zhang teaches A centralized unit (CU) (centralized unit (CU), para. 0038) for controlling quality of experience (QoE) in a wireless communication system which supports dual connectivity (for radio access network (RAN) visible quality of experience (QoE) measurement in dual connectivity architecture, para. 0040; two RAN nodes in a dual connectivity (DC) are a master node (MN) and aa secondary node (SN), para. 0039), the CU comprising:
at least one transceiver (base station (BS) transceiver 210, para. 0032; fig. 2); and
at least one processor (processor 214, para. 0031; fig. 2) communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver, and
at least one memory, communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, storing instructions executable by that at least one processor (memory module 216 for storing instructions to be executed by the processor modules, para. 0031; fig. 2) to cause the CU to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE), QoE measurement information (the UE send the RAN visible QoE report(s) to the MN, para. 0047),
Zhang does not explicitly teach
determine a QoE bottleneck factor based on the
However, Sivaraj teaches
determine a QoE bottleneck factor based on the (the near-RT RIC 320 includes various example components such as 3.sup.rd party xApp 321, dual connectivity management xApp 322, para. 0058; fig. 3; network controller device 600 include a dual connectivity management application 610 that include a performance indicator calculator 614 and a network traffic adjuster 616, para. 0143; fig. 6; the performance indicator calculator 614 can predict a buffer growth rate of, e.g., first radio access network node device. In some embodiments, predicting the buffer growth rate can comprise determining a performance indicator based on the communications 552, and using the performance indicator to predict the buffer growth rate, para. 0151; congestion at the gNB (with 10% buffer occupancy, indicating overflow) at time t+30 can also be predicted, para. 0132), wherein the coming into the RAN (the xAPP can decide on the optimal traffic split across time, which avoids buffer overflows or heavy queuing due to congestion in the RAN; this is because buffer management is critical to QoE of an eMBB traffic, since larger queues in the buffers increase RAN latency and adversely impact RAN throughput; thus, at time t+20, the DC xAPP can instruct the RAN to change the traffic split ratio such that 100% of PDCP traffic goes over the LTE eNB, while nothing goes over the NR gNB; at time t+30, the DC xAPP can again change the traffic split such that 40% of PDCP traffic goes over LTE, and the remaining 60% goes over the NR interface, para. 0131) in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035), and
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sivaraj to the CU of Zhang in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
Zhang in view of Sivaraj does not explicitly teach
transmit, to a distributed unit (DU), a request message for additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor,
receive, from the DU, a message including the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor,
perform QoE control based on the
However, Kim teaches
transmit, to a distributed unit (DU), a request message for additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a resource status request message to the gNB-DU 1250 through the F1 interface, at step S1500, when needed, the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a message for requesting load information of the gNB-DU 1250, para. 0204; fig. 15);
receive, from the DU, a message including the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the resource status request message is received, the gNB-DU 1250 transmit a resource status response message to the gNB-CU 1220; the resource status response message transmitted through the F1 interface, and the resource status response message include a distributed unit load information parameter indicating the load information of the gNB-DU, para. 0205; fig. 15; the distributed unit load information parameter include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, the distributed unit load information parameter may include a value indicating one of a normal status, an overload status and an underload status, para. 0206; fig. 15),
perform QoE control based on the (a central unit 2100 for managing a load of a distributed unit include i) a receiver 2130 receiving a distributed unit status indication message from the distributed unit through an F1 interface and ii) a controller 2110 determining whether to apply an action for reducing a load of the distributed unit based on a value of a distributed unit load information parameter included in the distributed unit status indication message, para. 0273; fig. 21) in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kim to the CU of Zhang in view of Sivaraj in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
With respect to claim 2, Zhang teaches The CU of claim 1, wherein the CU or the DU is associated with a master node (MN) or a secondary node (SN) (in a dual connectivity (DC), the UE can be connected to two RAN nodes. One of the RAN nodes may act as a master node (MN), and another one of the RAN nodes may act as a secondary node (SN), para. 0039).
With respect to claim 3, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The CU of claim 1 as described above,
Further, Kim teaches
wherein the request message for the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor specifies at least one additional information for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a resource status request message to the gNB-DU 1250 through the F1 interface, at step S1500, when needed, the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a message for requesting load information of the gNB-DU 1250, para. 0204; fig. 15), and
wherein the instructions executable by the at least one processor to further cause the CU to
receive a message including the specified at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor, from the DU, in response to the request message for additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the resource status request message is received, the gNB-DU 1250 transmit a resource status response message to the gNB-CU 1220; the resource status response message transmitted through the F1 interface, and the resource status response message include a distributed unit load information parameter indicating the load information of the gNB-DU, para. 0205; fig. 15; the distributed unit load information parameter include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, the distributed unit load information parameter may include a value indicating one of a normal status, an overload status and an underload status, para. 0206; fig. 15) in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kim to the CU of Zhang in view of Sivaraj in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
With respect to claim 4, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The CU of claim 1 as described above,
Further, Kim teaches
wherein the request message for the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor indicates to activate or deactivate at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the overload reduction action is determined to be triggered, the master base station may keep applying the overload reduction action for the secondary base station until a secondary base station status indication message including the value indicating the non-overload is received; the master base station stops the overload reduction action when the secondary base station status indication message set to the value indicating the none-overload is received, para. 0094), and
wherein, in case that the request message for the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor indicates to activate the at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the overload reduction action is determined to be triggered, the central unit keep applying the overload reduction action for the distributed unit until a distributed unit status indication message including the value indicating the non-overload is received, para. 0197), the instructions executable by the at least one processor to further cause the CU to
periodically receive, from the DU, a message including the activated at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the DU updates the CU on the load status and information through the resource status update message; the update performed according to a specific event or periodically, a period of update is set, para. 0231) in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kim to the CU of Zhang in view of Sivaraj in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
With respect to claim 8, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The CU of claim 1 as described above,
Further, Sivaraj teaches wherein the instructions executable by the at least one processor to further cause the CU to(the xAPP can decide on the optimal traffic split across time, which avoids buffer overflows or heavy queuing due to congestion in the RAN; this is because buffer management is critical to QoE of an eMBB traffic, since larger queues in the buffers increase RAN latency and adversely impact RAN throughput; thus, at time t+20, the DC xAPP can instruct the RAN to change the traffic split ratio such that 100% of PDCP traffic goes over the LTE eNB, while nothing goes over the NR gNB; at time t+30, the DC xAPP can again change the traffic split such that 40% of PDCP traffic goes over LTE, and the remaining 60% goes over the NR interface, para. 0131) in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sivaraj to the CU of Zhang in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
With respect to claim 9, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The CU of claim 1 as described above,
Further, Sivaraj teaches wherein the instructions executable by the at least one processor to further cause the CU to(the xAPP can decide on the optimal traffic split across time, which avoids buffer overflows or heavy queuing due to congestion in the RAN; this is because buffer management is critical to QoE of an eMBB traffic, since larger queues in the buffers increase RAN latency and adversely impact RAN throughput; thus, at time t+20, the DC xAPP can instruct the RAN to change the traffic split ratio such that 100% of PDCP traffic goes over the LTE eNB, while nothing goes over the NR gNB; at time t+30, the DC xAPP can again change the traffic split such that 40% of PDCP traffic goes over LTE, and the remaining 60% goes over the NR interface, para. 0131) in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sivaraj to the CU of Zhang in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
With respect to claim 10, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The CU of claim 1 as described above,
Further, Sivaraj teaches wherein the instructions executable by the at least one processor to further cause the CU to(the xAPP can decide on the optimal traffic split across time, which avoids buffer overflows or heavy queuing due to congestion in the RAN; this is because buffer management is critical to QoE of an eMBB traffic, since larger queues in the buffers increase RAN latency and adversely impact RAN throughput; thus, at time t+20, the DC xAPP can instruct the RAN to change the traffic split ratio such that 100% of PDCP traffic goes over the LTE eNB, while nothing goes over the NR gNB; at time t+30, the DC xAPP can again change the traffic split such that 40% of PDCP traffic goes over LTE, and the remaining 60% goes over the NR interface, para. 0131) in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sivaraj to the CU of Zhang in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
With respect to claim 11, Zhang teaches A method of operating a centralized unit (CU) (centralized unit (CU), para. 0038) for controlling quality of experience (QoE) in a wireless communication system which supports dual connectivity (for radio access network (RAN) visible quality of experience (QoE) measurement in dual connectivity architecture, para. 0040; two RAN nodes in a dual connectivity (DC) are a master node (MN) and aa secondary node (SN), para. 0039), the method comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), QoE measurement information (the UE send the RAN visible QoE report(s) to the MN, para. 0047),
Zhang does not explicitly teach
determining a QoE bottleneck factor based on the additional information
However, Sivaraj teaches
determining a QoE bottleneck factor based on the additional information (the near-RT RIC 320 includes various example components such as 3.sup.rd party xApp 321, dual connectivity management xApp 322, para. 0058; fig. 3; network controller device 600 include a dual connectivity management application 610 that include a performance indicator calculator 614 and a network traffic adjuster 616, para. 0143; fig. 6; the performance indicator calculator 614 can predict a buffer growth rate of, e.g., first radio access network node device. In some embodiments, predicting the buffer growth rate can comprise determining a performance indicator based on the communications 552, and using the performance indicator to predict the buffer growth rate, para. 0151; congestion at the gNB (with 10% buffer occupancy, indicating overflow) at time t+30 can also be predicted, para. 0132), wherein the (the xAPP can decide on the optimal traffic split across time, which avoids buffer overflows or heavy queuing due to congestion in the RAN; this is because buffer management is critical to QoE of an eMBB traffic, since larger queues in the buffers increase RAN latency and adversely impact RAN throughput; thus, at time t+20, the DC xAPP can instruct the RAN to change the traffic split ratio such that 100% of PDCP traffic goes over the LTE eNB, while nothing goes over the NR gNB; at time t+30, the DC xAPP can again change the traffic split such that 40% of PDCP traffic goes over LTE, and the remaining 60% goes over the NR interface, para. 0131) in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035); and
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sivaraj to the method of Zhang in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
Zhang in view of Sivaraj does not explicitly teach
transmitting, to a distributed unit (DU), a message for additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor;
receiving, from the DU, a message including the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor;
performing QoE control based on the
However, Kim teaches
transmitting, to a distributed unit (DU), a message for additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a resource status request message to the gNB-DU 1250 through the F1 interface, at step S1500, when needed, the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a message for requesting load information of the gNB-DU 1250, para. 0204; fig. 15);
receiving, from the DU, a message including the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the resource status request message is received, the gNB-DU 1250 transmit a resource status response message to the gNB-CU 1220; the resource status response message transmitted through the F1 interface, and the resource status response message include a distributed unit load information parameter indicating the load information of the gNB-DU, para. 0205; fig. 15; the distributed unit load information parameter include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, the distributed unit load information parameter may include a value indicating one of a normal status, an overload status and an underload status, para. 0206; fig. 15);
performing QoE control based on the (a central unit 2100 for managing a load of a distributed unit include i) a receiver 2130 receiving a distributed unit status indication message from the distributed unit through an F1 interface and ii) a controller 2110 determining whether to apply an action for reducing a load of the distributed unit based on a value of a distributed unit load information parameter included in the distributed unit status indication message, para. 0273; fig. 21) in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kim to the method of Zhang in view of Sivaraj in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
With respect to claim 12, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 11 as described above,
Further, Kim teaches
wherein the message for additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor specifies at least one additional information for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a resource status request message to the gNB-DU 1250 through the F1 interface, at step S1500, when needed, the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a message for requesting load information of the gNB-DU 1250, para. 0204; fig. 15), and
wherein the receiving of the message including the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor comprises:
receiving a message including the specified at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor, from the DU, in response to the request message for the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the resource status request message is received, the gNB-DU 1250 transmit a resource status response message to the gNB-CU 1220; the resource status response message transmitted through the F1 interface, and the resource status response message include a distributed unit load information parameter indicating the load information of the gNB-DU, para. 0205; fig. 15; the distributed unit load information parameter include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, the distributed unit load information parameter may include a value indicating one of a normal status, an overload status and an underload status, para. 0206; fig. 15) in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kim to the method of Zhang in view of Sivaraj in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
With respect to claim 13, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 11 as described above,
Further, Kim teaches
wherein the request message including the specified at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor indicates to activate or deactivate at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the overload reduction action is determined to be triggered, the master base station may keep applying the overload reduction action for the secondary base station until a secondary base station status indication message including the value indicating the non-overload is received; the master base station stops the overload reduction action when the secondary base station status indication message set to the value indicating the none-overload is received, para. 0094),
wherein, in case that the request message for the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor indicates to activate the at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the overload reduction action is determined to be triggered, the central unit keep applying the overload reduction action for the distributed unit until a distributed unit status indication message including the value indicating the non-overload is received, para. 0197), and
wherein the receiving of the message including the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor comprises:
periodically receiving, from the DU, a message including the activated at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the DU updates the CU on the load status and information through the resource status update message; the update performed according to a specific event or periodically, a period of update is set, para. 0231) in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kim to the method of Zhang in view of Sivaraj in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
Claims 5, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2025/0062973 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang, in view of Sivaraj et al. (US 2021/0377804 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sivaraj, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0045583 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim, and furthermore in view of Khirallah et al. (US 2020/0280871 A1), hereinafter referred to as Khirallah.
With respect to claim 5, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The CU of claim 1 as described above,
Further, Sivaraj teaches
wherein the instructions executable by the at least one processor to further cause the CU to
determine the QoE bottleneck factor, based on the the QoE bottleneck factor and the additional information for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the near-RT RIC 320 includes various example components such as 3.sup.rd party xApp 321, dual connectivity management xApp 322, para. 0058; fig. 3; network controller device 600 include a dual connectivity management application 610 that include a performance indicator calculator 614 and a network traffic adjuster 616, para. 0143; fig. 6; the performance indicator calculator 614 can predict a buffer growth rate of, e.g., first radio access network node device. In some embodiments, predicting the buffer growth rate can comprise determining a performance indicator based on the communications 552, and using the performance indicator to predict the buffer growth rate, para. 0151; congestion at the gNB (with 10% buffer occupancy, indicating overflow) at time t+30 can also be predicted, para. 0132) in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sivaraj to the CU of Zhang in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim does not explicitly teach
wherein the policy related to determination of the QoE bottleneck factor is received from a core network; and
However, Khirallah teaches
wherein the policy related to determination of the QoE bottleneck factor is received from a core network (a distributed base station having a central unit (CU) and the base station 5 is connected into the cellular telecommunications network via an associated core network 7 that implement at least one Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF), para. 0049-0050; the base station 5 has a QoS measurement and reporting module 65, para. 0086; the base station 5 provides, at S1308, the QoS information for the QoS flow(s) exhibiting an unacceptably degraded QoE, in association with the corresponding QFI(s), to the core network 7; the PCRF 7-3 in the core network 7 receives this information and adjusts, at S1310, the QoS profile for the UE service(s) corresponding for the affected QoS flow(s) to improve the perceived QoE at the UE; the PCRF adjust the GFBR and MFBR, for GBR QoS flows, to improve the UE perceived QoE for streaming applications, para. 0138) in order to improve the perceived QoE at the UE as taught by Khirallah (para. 0138); and
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, further in view of Kim, and furthermore in view of Khirallah, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Khirallah to the CU of Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim in order to improve the perceived QoE at the UE as taught by Khirallah (para. 0138).
With respect to claim 7, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The CU of claim 1 as described above,
Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim does not explicitly teach
wherein the instructions executable by the at least one processor to further cause the CU to
receive a policy related to QoE evaluation,
evaluate QoE based on the
wherein, the request message for the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor is transmitted when QoE degradation is detected based on the policy related to QoE evaluation and the
Further, Khirallah teaches
wherein the instructions executable by the at least one processor to further cause the CU to
receive a policy related to QoE evaluation (the UE 3 only report the QoE information (and/or any QoS measurement results) when the QoE has degraded beyond acceptable limits for one or more QoS flows 9 (e.g. (3) and (4)). If the UE 3 is also aware of the QoS performance, the UE 3 only report the QoE information and/or QoS measurement results when either the QoE or the QoS have degraded beyond acceptable limits for one or more QoS flows, para. 0066),
evaluate QoE based on the (the UE 3 only report the QoE information (and/or any QoS measurement results) when the QoE has degraded beyond acceptable limits for one or more QoS flows 9 (e.g. (3) and (4)); if the UE 3 is also aware of the QoS performance, the UE 3 only report the QoE information and/or QoS measurement results when either the QoE or the QoS have degraded beyond acceptable limits for one or more QoS flows, para. 0066), and
wherein, the request message for the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor is transmitted when QoE degradation is detected based on the policy related to QoE evaluation and the (the UE 3 only report the QoE information (and/or any QoS measurement results) when the QoE has degraded beyond acceptable limits for one or more QoS flows 9 (e.g. (3) and (4)); if the UE 3 is also aware of the QoS performance, the UE 3 may only report the QoE information and/or QoS measurement results when either the QoE or the QoS have degraded beyond acceptable limits for one or more QoS flows, para. 0066) in order to improve the perceived QoE at the UE as taught by Khirallah (para. 0138).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, further in view of Kim, and furthermore in view of Khirallah, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Khirallah to the CU of Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim in order to improve the perceived QoE at the UE as taught by Khirallah (para. 0138).
With respect to claim 14, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 11 as described above,
Further, Sivaraj teaches
wherein the method further comprises:
determining the QoE bottleneck factor, based on the factor (the near-RT RIC 320 includes various example components such as 3.sup.rd party xApp 321, dual connectivity management xApp 322, para. 0058; fig. 3; network controller device 600 include a dual connectivity management application 610 that include a performance indicator calculator 614 and a network traffic adjuster 616, para. 0143; fig. 6; the performance indicator calculator 614 can predict a buffer growth rate of, e.g., first radio access network node device. In some embodiments, predicting the buffer growth rate can comprise determining a performance indicator based on the communications 552, and using the performance indicator to predict the buffer growth rate, para. 0151; congestion at the gNB (with 10% buffer occupancy, indicating overflow) at time t+30 can also be predicted, para. 0132) in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sivaraj to the method of Zhang in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim does not explicitly teach
wherein the policy related to determination of the QoE bottleneck factor is received from a core network; and
However, Khirallah teaches
wherein the policy related to determination of the QoE bottleneck factor is received from a core network (a distributed base station having a central unit (CU) and the base station 5 is connected into the cellular telecommunications network via an associated core network 7 that implement at least one Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF), para. 0049-0050; the base station 5 has a QoS measurement and reporting module 65, para. 0086; the base station 5 provides, at S1308, the QoS information for the QoS flow(s) exhibiting an unacceptably degraded QoE, in association with the corresponding QFI(s), to the core network 7; the PCRF 7-3 in the core network 7 receives this information and adjusts, at S1310, the QoS profile for the UE service(s) corresponding for the affected QoS flow(s) to improve the perceived QoE at the UE; the PCRF adjust the GFBR and MFBR, for GBR QoS flows, to improve the UE perceived QoE for streaming applications, para. 0138) in order to improve the perceived QoE at the UE as taught by Khirallah (para. 0138); and
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, further in view of Kim, and furthermore in view of Khirallah, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Khirallah to the method of Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim in order to improve the perceived QoE at the UE as taught by Khirallah (para. 0138).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2025/0062973 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang, in view of Sivaraj et al. (US 2021/0377804 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sivaraj, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0045583 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim, and furthermore in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0145873 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park.
With respect to claim 6, Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim teaches The CU of claim 1 as described above,
Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the information for determination of QoE bottleneck factor comprises at least one of:
radio link control (RLC) buffer occupancy (BO) ,
transport block size (TBS),
scheduling probability (SP), or
queueing delay.
However, Park teaches wherein the information for determination of QoE bottleneck factor comprises at least one of:
radio link control (RLC) buffer occupancy (BO) (the CU process a PDCP layer 210 according to function split; the DU process an RLC layer 220, para. 0047; the DU report a current state of a queue length to the CU, para. 0070; when a queue length exceeds the maximum value, that congestion occurs; when a queue length is less than or equal to the minimum value that a congestion situation is removed, the thresholds (e.g., a maximum value and a minimum value) determined on the basis of a delay between the CU and the DU of a notification message, para. 0080; the DU may periodically report a congestion state to the CU, para. 0087) in order to improve traffic efficiency as taught by Park (para. 0086),
transport block size (TBS),
scheduling probability (SP), or
queueing delay.
Therefore, based on Zhang in view of Sivaraj, further in view of Kim, and furthermore in view of Park, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Park to the unit of Zhang in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Kim in order to improve traffic efficiency as taught by Park (para. 0086).
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0045583 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim, in view of Sivaraj et al. (US 2021/0377804 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sivaraj.
With respect to claim 15, Kim teaches A distributed unit (DU) (gNB-DU 1250, para. 0204) for controlling quality of experience (QoE) in a wireless communication system which supports dual connectivity (the master base station 2000 includes i) a controller 2010 establishing dual connectivity with a secondary base station and ii) a receiver 2030 receiving a secondary base station status indication message from the secondary base station through an X2 interface, para. 0259; fig. 20), the DU comprising:
at least one (a transmitter 2120 and the receiver 2130, para. 0280); and
at least one processor (processor, para. 0284) communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver, and
at least one memory, communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, storing instructions executable by the at least one processor (the memory located inside or outside of the processor, and transmit data to the processor or receive data from the processor by various well-known means, para. 0284) to cause the DU to:
receive, from a centralized unit (CU), a request message for additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a resource status request message to the gNB-DU 1250 through the F1 interface, at step S1500, when needed, the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a message for requesting load information of the gNB-DU 1250, para. 0204; fig. 5; the distributed unit load information parameter may include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, para. 0192),
transmit, to the CU, a message including the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the resource status request message is received, the gNB-DU 1250 transmit a resource status response message to the gNB-CU 1220, at step S1510; the resource status response message transmitted through the F1 interface, and the resource status response message include a message-type parameter, a transaction identification parameter and a distributed unit load information parameter indicating the load information of the gNB-DU, para. 0205; the distributed unit load information parameter may include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, para. 0192),
receive, from the CU, information about data or changed quality of service (QoS) as a result of performing QoE control based on the QoE bottleneck factor (the gNB-DU 1250 receive a resource status update message from the gNB-CU 1220 through the F1 interface, at step S1910; the resource status update message include a message-type parameter, a transaction identification parameter and a central unit load information parameter indicating load information of the gNB-CU 1220, para. 0216; the distributed unit load information parameter may include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, para. 0192).
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein
However, Sivaraj teaches
wherein (the xAPP can decide on the optimal traffic split across time, which avoids buffer overflows or heavy queuing due to congestion in the RAN; this is because buffer management is critical to QoE of an eMBB traffic, since larger queues in the buffers increase RAN latency and adversely impact RAN throughput; thus, at time t+20, the DC xAPP can instruct the RAN to change the traffic split ratio such that 100% of PDCP traffic goes over the LTE eNB, while nothing goes over the NR gNB; at time t+30, the DC xAPP can again change the traffic split such that 40% of PDCP traffic goes over LTE, and the remaining 60% goes over the NR interface, para. 0131) in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035), or underflow of traffic coming into the RAN, and
Therefore, based on Kim in view of Sivaraj, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sivaraj to the DU of Kim in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
With respect to claim 16, Kim teaches The DU of claim 15, wherein the CU or the DU is associated with a master node (MN) or a secondary node (SN) (the master base station 2000 includes i) a controller 2010 establishing dual connectivity with a secondary base station and ii) a receiver 2030 receiving a secondary base station status indication message from the secondary base station through an X2 interface, para. 0259; fig. 20).
With respect to claim 17, Kim teaches The DU of claim 15,
wherein the request message for the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor specifies at least one additional information for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a resource status request message to the gNB-DU 1250 through the F1 interface, at step S1500, when needed, the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a message for requesting load information of the gNB-DU 1250, para. 0204; fig. 15), and
wherein the instructions executable by the at least one processor further cause the DU to
transmit a message including the specified at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor, to the CU, in response to the message for the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the resource status request message is received, the gNB-DU 1250 transmit a resource status response message to the gNB-CU 1220; the resource status response message transmitted through the F1 interface, and the resource status response message include a distributed unit load information parameter indicating the load information of the gNB-DU, para. 0205; fig. 15; the distributed unit load information parameter include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, the distributed unit load information parameter may include a value indicating one of a normal status, an overload status and an underload status, para. 0206; fig. 15) in order to improve the performance through appropriate load distribution as taught by Kim (para. 0185).
With respect to claim 18, Kim teaches The DU of claim 15,
wherein the request message including the specified at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor indicates to activate or deactivate at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the overload reduction action is determined to be triggered, the master base station may keep applying the overload reduction action for the secondary base station until a secondary base station status indication message including the value indicating the non-overload is received; the master base station stops the overload reduction action when the secondary base station status indication message set to the value indicating the none-overload is received, para. 0094),
wherein, in case that the request message for the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor indicates to activate the at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the overload reduction action is determined to be triggered, the central unit keep applying the overload reduction action for the distributed unit until a distributed unit status indication message including the value indicating the non-overload is received, para. 0197), the instructions executable by the at least one processor further cause the DU
periodically receive, from the DU, a message including the activated at least one additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the DU updates the CU on the load status and information through the resource status update message; the update performed according to a specific event or periodically, a period of update is set, para. 0231).
With respect to claim 20, Kim teaches A method of operating a distributed unit (DU) (gNB-DU 1250, para. 0204) for controlling quality of experience (QoE) in a wireless communication system which supports dual connectivity (the master base station 2000 includes i) a controller 2010 establishing dual connectivity with a secondary base station and ii) a receiver 2030 receiving a secondary base station status indication message from the secondary base station through an X2 interface, para. 0259; fig. 20), the method comprising:
receiving, from a centralized unit (CU), a message for additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a resource status request message to the gNB-DU 1250 through the F1 interface, at step S1500, when needed, the gNB-CU 1220 transmit a message for requesting load information of the gNB-DU 1250, para. 0204; fig. 5; the distributed unit load information parameter may include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, para. 0192);
transmitting, to the CU, a message including the additional information to be used for determination of QoE bottleneck factor (when the resource status request message is received, the gNB-DU 1250 transmit a resource status response message to the gNB-CU 1220, at step S1510; the resource status response message transmitted through the F1 interface, and the resource status response message include a message-type parameter, a transaction identification parameter and a distributed unit load information parameter indicating the load information of the gNB-DU, para. 0205; the distributed unit load information parameter may include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, para. 0192),
receiving, from the CU, information about data or changed quality of service (QoS) as a result of performing QoE control based on the QoE bottleneck factor (the gNB-DU 1250 receive a resource status update message from the gNB-CU 1220 through the F1 interface, at step S1910; the resource status update message include a message-type parameter, a transaction identification parameter and a central unit load information parameter indicating load information of the gNB-CU 1220, para. 0216; the distributed unit load information parameter may include either a value indicating an overload or a value indicating a non-overload, para. 0192).
Kim does not explicitly teach
wherein the QoE bottleneck factor is one of an unbalance of distribution of traffic coming into a radio access network (RAN), an overflow of traffic coming into the RAN, or underflow of traffic coming into the RAN, and
However, Sivaraj teaches
wherein the QoE bottleneck factor is one of an unbalance of distribution of traffic coming into a radio access network (RAN), an overflow of traffic coming into the RAN, or underflow of traffic coming into the RAN (the xAPP can decide on the optimal traffic split across time, which avoids buffer overflows or heavy queuing due to congestion in the RAN; this is because buffer management is critical to QoE of an eMBB traffic, since larger queues in the buffers increase RAN latency and adversely impact RAN throughput; thus, at time t+20, the DC xAPP can instruct the RAN to change the traffic split ratio such that 100% of PDCP traffic goes over the LTE eNB, while nothing goes over the NR gNB; at time t+30, the DC xAPP can again change the traffic split such that 40% of PDCP traffic goes over LTE, and the remaining 60% goes over the NR interface, para. 0131) in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035), or underflow of traffic coming into the RAN, and
Therefore, based on Kim in view of Sivaraj, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Sivaraj to the method of Kim in order to improve coverage, enhanced signaling efficiency; reduced latency compared to LTE as taught by Sivaraj (para. 0035).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0045583 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim, in view of Sivaraj et al. (US 2021/0377804 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sivaraj, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0145873 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park.
With respect to claim 19, Kim in view of Sivaraj teaches The DU of claim 15 as described above,
Kim in view of Sivaraj does not explicitly teach wherein the information for determination of QoE bottleneck factor comprises at least one of:
radio link control (RLC) buffer occupancy (BO) ,
transport block size (TBS),
scheduling probability (SP), or
queueing delay.
However, Park teaches wherein the information for determination of QoE bottleneck factor comprises at least one of:
radio link control (RLC) buffer occupancy (BO) (the CU process a PDCP layer 210 according to function split; the DU process an RLC layer 220, para. 0047; the DU report a current state of a queue length to the CU, para. 0070; when a queue length exceeds the maximum value, that congestion occurs; when a queue length is less than or equal to the minimum value that a congestion situation is removed, the thresholds (e.g., a maximum value and a minimum value) determined on the basis of a delay between the CU and the DU of a notification message, para. 0080; the DU may periodically report a congestion state to the CU, para. 0087) in order to improve traffic efficiency as taught by Park (para. 0086),
transport block size (TBS),
scheduling probability (SP), or
queueing delay.
Therefore, based on Kim in view of Sivaraj, and further in view of Park, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Park to the DU of Kim in view of Sivaraj in order to improve traffic efficiency as taught by Park (para. 0086).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO HONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2666. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joon H. Hwang can be reached on (571)272-40364036. 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.
/H.H.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2447
October 7, 2026
/JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights