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 .
Election/Restrictions
Election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 42-50 and 59-60. Claims 51-58 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Note: due to bypassed PCT application, an election is being considered based on a restriction requirement instead of the Unity of Invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“apparatus…configured to…” in claims 42-50 and 59-60 is being interpreted as “base station central unit control plane node”, Par. [0006]; “client node”, Par. [0006]; and “server” Par. [0045].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 42-45, 47-50 and 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resilience and Scalability in a Disaggregated gNB (hereinafter, R3-172551) in view of US 20210329477 A1 (Nakata et al., hereinafter Nakata).
Regarding claim 42, R3-172551 discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processing core, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core (Fig. 1, “Backup gNB-CU-CP instance”), cause the apparatus at least to:
perform as a base station central unit control plane node (Fig. 1, “Backup gNB-CU-CP instance” performs as a base station CU-CP of “Primary gNB-CU-CP instance”);
setup, into an inactive state, a protocol connection with at least one client node, wherein the apparatus does not control or actively serve the said client node while the protocol connection is in the inactive state (Section 2, “The backup gNB-CU-CP instances may maintain an updated replica of the state and the information in the primary gNB-CU-CP instance. This approach is referred to as hot-standby.” “to allow a gNB-DU to connect virtually to more than one gNB-CU-CP instances (i.e., primary and backup as in Fig. 1), the standard should allow the possibility of establishing failover signaling transport network layer (TNL) associations between a gNB-DU and a logical gNB-CU-CP. This may imply that a gNB-DU is able to switch over to the backup gNB-CU in case of failure at the primary gNB-CU, e.g., by providing back-up IP end-point addresses as probably keeping a hot-stand-by TNL (SCTP) association in evidence throughout the operation via the primary gNB-CU”);
synchronize, while the protocol connection is in the inactive state, at least one control plane user equipment context of the base station from a second base station central unit control plane node which controls the at least one client node (Section 2, “The backup gNB-CU-CP instances may maintain an updated replica of the state and the information stored in the primary gNB-CU-CP instance. This approach is referred to as hot-standby.”), and
switch the protocol connection into an active state and begin controlling the at least one client node (Section 2, “…a gNB-DU is able to switch over to the backup gNB-CU in case of failure at the primary gNB-CU…”).
R3-172551 does not specifically disclose where the switching takes place responsive to receiving an instruction from outside the apparatus.
In related art concerning radio access network architecture that splits into different layers an apparatuses to achieve redundancy, Nakata discloses where the switching takes place responsive to receiving an instruction from outside the apparatus (Fig. 10 and par. [0131], “In step S1009, when the connection with the first client (for example, the client apparatus 200); par. [0132], “In step S1011, the server apparatus 100 transmits information (State Change Event Notification) related to the connection state between the server apparatus 100 and some or all of the clients, to the second client (for example, the client apparatus 300)…”; par. [0133], “In step S1013… client apparatus 300) controls the connection between the server apparatus 100 and the second client (client apparatus 300)…the client apparatus 300) switches the connection between the server apparatus 100 and the second client (client apparatus 300) from the standby state to the active state.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Nakata’s teachings where the switching takes place responsive to receiving an instruction from outside the apparatus with the resilient disaggregated gNB disclosed by R3-172551 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that external indication of failure to a backup node would be obvious, since the failing node might not be able or have the resources to inform the backup node of the failure; therefore, network reliability is maintained.
Regarding claim 59, R3-172551 discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processing core, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core (Fig. 1, “Primary gNB-CU-CP”), cause the apparatus at least to:
determine that a first base station central unit control plane node, tasked with controlling a base station distributed unit, has developed a failure (Fig. 1, “Backup gNB-CU-CP instance” performs as a base station CU-CP of “Primary gNB-CU-CP instance”; Section 2, “In the case of a failure that affects the primary gNB-CU-CP instance…”;), and
responsive to the determination of the failure, signal to a second base station central unit control plane node (Section 2, “…a gNB-DU is able to switch over to the backup gNB-CU in case of failure at the primary gNB-CU…”, where the primary gNB-CU-CP signals the back-up gNB-CU), which is a stand-by to the first base station central unit control plane node (Section 2, “The backup gNB-CU-CP instances may maintain an updated replica of the state and the information stored in the primary gNB-CU-CP instance. This approach is referred to as hot-standby.”, where the primary gNB-CU-CP signals the back-up gNB-CU), to trigger the a second base station central unit control plane node to switch its protocol connection with at least the one client node from an inactive state to an active state (Section 2, “…a gNB-DU is able to switch over to the backup gNB-CU in case of failure at the primary gNB-CU…”), to enable the second base station central unit control plane node to control and serve the at least one client node (Fig. 1, “Backup gNB-CU-CP instance” performs as a base station CU-CP of “Primary gNB-CU-CP instance”).
Although not clear what specific apparatus is sending the instructions, R3-172551 does not specifically disclose where the switching takes place responsive to instructions received from an apparatus (external apparatus).
Nakata discloses the switching takes place responsive to receiving an instruction from an apparatus (Fig. 10 and par. [0131], “In step S1009, when the connection with the first client (for example, the client apparatus 200); par. [0132], “In step S1011, the server apparatus 100 transmits information (State Change Event Notification) related to the connection state between the server apparatus 100 and some or all of the clients, to the second client (for example, the client apparatus 300)…”; par. [0133], “In step S1013… client apparatus 300) controls the connection between the server apparatus 100 and the second client (client apparatus 300)…the client apparatus 300) switches the connection between the server apparatus 100 and the second client (client apparatus 300) from the standby state to the active state.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Nakata’s teachings where the switching takes place responsive to receiving an instruction from an apparatus with the resilient disaggregated gNB disclosed by R3-172551 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that external indication of failure to a backup node would be obvious, since the failing node might not be able or have the resources to inform the backup node of the failure; therefore, network reliability is maintained.
Regarding claim 43, R3-172551 and Nakata disclose all the limitations of claim 42. R3-172551 does not specifically disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to notify peer nodes of the apparatus that the apparatus has taken over as active base station central unit control plane node and begun controlling and serving the at least one client node.
Nakata discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to notify peer nodes of the apparatus that the apparatus has taken over as active base station central unit control plane node and begun controlling and serving the at least one client node (pars. [0131-[0134], “server apparatus 100 transmits information (State Change Event Notification) related to the connection state between the server apparatus 100 and some or all of the clients, to the second client (for example, the client apparatus 300)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Nakata’s teachings wherein the apparatus is configured to notify peer nodes of the apparatus that the apparatus has taken over as active base station central unit control plane node and begun controlling and serving the at least one client node with the resilient disaggregated gNB disclosed by R3-172551 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by informing the neighboring nodes about the control take over, the neighboring nodes can establish connections with the node in charge; therefore, connection reliability is maintained.
Regarding claim 44, R3-172551 and Nakata disclose all the limitations of claim 42. R3-172551 further discloses wherein the protocol connection comprises at least one of an F1, E1, NG, Xn, X2, and E2 interface as specified by the third generation partnership project and/or ORAN forum (Fig. 1, “F1-C”).
Regarding claim 45, R3-172551 and Nakata disclose all the limitations of claim 42. R3-172551 further discloses wherein the protocol connection comprises a service-based interface, SBI, in a service-based radio access network architecture (Section 1, Agreement 2: “The CU may be separated in control plane (CP) and user place (UP)”, where service-based architecture uses service-base interfaces and one main characteristic is the separation of the separation of control plane (CP) and user place (UP), which allows for flexibility, interoperability and scalability).
Regarding claim 47, R3-172551 and Nakata disclose all the limitations of claim 42.
R3-172551 does not specifically disclose wherein the apparatus is further configured to monitor the second base station central unit control plane node for failures, and to report failure of the second base station central unit control plane node to a further network node.
Nakata discloses wherein the apparatus is further configured to monitor the second base station central unit control plane node for failures, and to report failure of the second base station central unit control plane node to a further network node (pars. [0131-[0134], “server apparatus 100 transmits information (State Change Event Notification) related to the connection state between the server apparatus 100 and some or all of the clients, to the second client (for example, the client apparatus 300)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Nakata’s teachings wherein the apparatus is further configured to monitor the second base station central unit control plane node for failures, and to report failure of the second base station central unit control plane node to a further network node with the resilient disaggregated gNB disclosed by R3-172551 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by informing the neighboring nodes about the control take over, the neighboring nodes can establish connections with the node in charge; therefore, connection reliability is maintained.
Regarding claim 48, R3-172551 and Nakata disclose all the limitations of claim 42. R3-172551 further discloses wherein the at least one client node comprises a base station distributed unit, a base station central unit user plane node, a neighboring base station node, an access and mobility management function, or a near-real-time radio access network intelligent controller (Fig. 1, “gNB-DU”).
Regarding claim 49, R3-172551 and Nakata disclose all the limitations of claim 42.
The gNB-DU is able to switch from the primary CU-CP to the backup CU-CP (R3-172551, Fig. 1), suggests that it might be able to inform the second base station central unit control plane node.
However, R3-172551 does not explicitly disclose the apparatus is further configured to at least one of: receive failure reports concerning the second base station central unit control plane node from the at least one client node, and ping the second base station central unit control plane node to verify that the second base station central unit control plane node has developed a failure.
Nakata discloses where the apparatus is further configured to at least one of: receive failure reports concerning the second base station central unit control plane node from the at least one client node (Fig. 10 and par. [0131], “In step S1009, when the connection with the first client (for example, the client apparatus 200); par. [0132], “In step S1011, the server apparatus 100 transmits information (State Change Event Notification) related to the connection state between the server apparatus 100 and some or all of the clients, to the second client (for example, the client apparatus 300)…”), and ping the second base station central unit control plane node to verify that the second base station central unit control plane node has developed a failure (par. [0133], “In step S1013… client apparatus 300) controls the connection between the server apparatus 100 and the second client (client apparatus 300)…the client apparatus 300) switches the connection between the server apparatus 100 and the second client (client apparatus 300) from the standby state to the active state.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Nakata’s teachings receive failure reports concerning the second base station central unit control plane node from the at least one client node, and ping the second base station central unit control plane node to verify that the second base station central unit control plane node has developed a failure with the resilient disaggregated gNB disclosed by R3-172551 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that external indication of failure to a backup node would be obvious, since the failing node might not be able or have the resources to inform the backup node of the failure; therefore, network reliability is maintained. Also, sending a ping constitutes a mere option to the inventor to make the node/s aware of the failure.
Regarding claim 50, R3-172551 and Nakata disclose all the limitations of claim 42. R3-172551 further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to perform the synchronizing via a service-based radio access network or via a radio access network data storage function (Section 1, Agreement 2: “The CU may be separated in control plane (CP) and user place (UP)”, where service-based architecture uses service-base interfaces and one main characteristic is the separation of the separation of control plane (CP) and user place (UP), which allows for flexibility, interoperability and scalability).
Regarding claim 60, R3-172551 and Nakata disclose all the limitations of claim 59. R3-172551 further discloses wherein the determination that the first base station central unit control plane node has developed the failure is based on at least one of the following: a signal from the second base station central unit control plane node indicating the first base station central unit control plane node has developed the failure; traffic statistics of the first base station central unit control plane node no longer matching acceptable parameters, and a machine learning classifier decision based on traffic parameters of the first base station central unit control plane node (page 2, paragraph below Fig. 1, “the standard should allow the possibility of establishing failover signaling transport network layer (TNL) associations between a gNB-DU and a logical gNB-CU-CP.”).
Claims 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R3-172551 in view of Nakata, and further in view of US 20210153095 A1 (Yang et al., hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 46, R3-172551 and Nakata disclose all the limitations of claim 42. R3-172551 further discloses wherein the protocol connection comprises a stream control transmission protocol connection (page 2, below Fig. 1, “SCTP transport protocol”).
R3-172551 discloses (paragraph bellow Fig. 1, “IP end-point addresses as probably keeping a hot-stand-by TNL (SCTP) association in evidence throughout the operation via the primary gNB-CU”, where APIs use IP addresses); however, R3-172551 does not specifically disclose an application protocol interface.
In related art concerning system and method for ultra-low latency short data service, Yang discloses an application protocol interface (Fig. 3par. [0035], “application-programming interfaces (APIs)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Yang’s teachings about using an application protocol interface with the resilient disaggregated gNB disclosed by R3-172551 and Nakata because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that APIs allows different software applications to communicate and exchange data or functionality; therefore, they help in maintaining interconnections between elements of networks that operate utilizing disparate protocols.
Note: the Examiner agrees with the Written Opinion cited in IDS dated and portions of the opinion are cited in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240357401 A1 relates to managing application-layer measurements in response to a connection set-up message.
US 20230276271 A1 relates to managing user experiences during cellular telecommunication network outage utilizing a backup data center.
US 2023/0058492 A1 relates to beam selection in unlicensed operation.
US 2020/0221485 A1, relates to methods and systems and apparatuses for beam management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelica Perez whose telephone number is 571-272-7885. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
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 the PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through the 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). Information regarding Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system can be found at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2600's customer service number is 703-306-0377.
/Angelica M. Perez/
Primary Examiner AU 2649