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 .
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0359244 A1 to Yao et al.
AS to claim 16, Yao discloses A method performed by a first node in a wireless communication system, comprising (Figs. 4, 6A/B, paragraph 17, 43-53, 56, 90-93, 120-129, disclosing measuring “average delay DL on/[across] F1-U [which is the user plane interface between gNB-CU-UP [user plane] and gNB-DU]”, gNB-CU-UP and gNB-DU teaching/disclosing “first node” and “second node” respectively; further note in paragraphs 90-93, to a PHOSITA, the “egress/ingress GTP termination” would be situated at the other end of the F1-U interface from gNB-DU, i.e., the gNB-CU-UP, i.e., the recited “first node”):
transmitting user plane packet with reporting polling indicating a report for feedback information to a second node in the wireless communication system (Figs. 4, 6A/B, paragraph 17, 43-53, 56, 90-93, 120-129, disclosing measuring “average delay DL on/[across] F1-U [which is the user plane interface between gNB-CU-UP [user plane] and gNB-DU]”, gNB-CU-UP and gNB-DU teaching/disclosing “first node” and “second node” respectively; further note in paragraphs 90-93, to a PHOSITA, the “egress/ingress GTP termination” would be situated at the other end of the F1-U interface from gNB-DU, i.e., the gNB-CU-UP, i.e., the recited “first node”; paragraphs 90-93, teaching “time when sending the same packet [i.e., the packet triggering a “GTP packet delivery status message” as disclosed in paragraph 93, thus teaching that this “same packet” is a GTP packet, teaching the recited “user plane packet”] to gNB-DU at the GTP ingress termination [i.e., the other end of F1-U, i.e., gNB-CU-UP, teaching the recited “second node in the wireless communication system”]”, and “time when receiving a GTP packet delivery status message from the gNB-DU [“second node”] at the egress GTP termination [i.e., gNB-CU-UP, i.e., “first node”]”, thus teaching that the “first node”/”ingress/egress GTP termination”/gnb-CU-UP-end-of-f1-U-interface sending a GTP packet to the “second node”/gnb-DU, which would then respond/feedback with and send a “GTP packet delivery status message” to “first node”/”ingress/egress GTP termination”/gnb-CU-UP-end-of-f1-U-interface, thus teaching that the GTP packet has “reporting polling indicating a report for feedback information”, teaching this limitation);
obtaining, from the second node, feedback information including feedback delay of a frame where the report polling is included (Figs. 4, 6A/B, paragraph 17, 43-53, 56, 90-93, 120-129, see discussion above, teaching the determination of “time when receiving a GTP packet delivery status message from the gNB-DU [“second node”] at the egress GTP termination [i.e., gNB-CU-UP, i.e., “first node”]”, as well as “feedback delay time in gNB-DU” [teaching to a PHOSITA the feedback delay from the time a frame transmitted from gNB-DU triggered by the GTP packet received there, to the time a response frame is received back at the gNB-DU indicative of the “GTP packet delivery status message”, teaching the recited “feedback delay”] thus teaching to a PHOSITA that at the “first node”/”ingress/egress GTP termination”/gnb-CU-UP-end-of-f1-U-interface, a “time when receiving a GTP packet delivery status message from the gNB-DU [“second node”] …” and “feedback delay time in gNB-DU” may be determined, since gNB-CU-UP may be the NF or service provider in Figs. 6A/B that collects information and measurements, teaching this limitation); and
determining interface delay of the user plane packet between the first node and the second node based on the feedback delay. (Figs. 4, 6A/B, paragraph 17, 43-53, 56, 90-93, 120-129, disclosing that the “average delay DL on F1-U” [the recited “interface delay of the user plane packet”] may be determined “as: the time when receiving a GTP packet delivery status message from the gNB-DU at the egress GTP termination, minus time when sending the same packet to gNB-DU at the GTP ingress termination, minus feedback delay time in gNB-DU [the recited “feedback delay”], obtained result is divided by two”, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 17, Yao discloses the method as in the parent claim 16.
Yao discloses wherein the interface delay is determined as (reception time of the feedback information at the first node - transmission time of the user plane packet at the first node - the feedback delay)/2 (Figs. 4, 6A/B, paragraph 17, 43-53, 56, 90-93, 120-129, disclosing that the “average delay DL on F1-U” [the recited “interface delay”] may be determined “as: the time when receiving a GTP packet delivery status message from the gNB-DU at the egress GTP termination [“reception time of the feedback information at the first node”], minus time when sending the same packet to gNB-DU at the GTP ingress termination [“transmission time of the user plane packet at the first node”], minus feedback delay time in gNB-DU [the recited “feedback delay”], obtained result is divided by two”, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 18, Yao discloses the method as in the parent claim 16.
Yao discloses wherein feedback delay is determined from reception time of the frame where the report polling is included to transmission time of the feedback information at the second node. (Figs. 4, 6A/B, paragraph 17, 43-53, 56, 90-93, 120-129, disclosing “feedback delay time in gNB-DU”, teaching to a PHOSITA the feedback delay from the time a frame transmitted from gNB-DU triggered by the GTP packet received there, to the time a response frame is received back at the gNB-DU indicative of the “GTP packet delivery status message”, teaching the recited “feedback delay”).
As to claim 19, Yao discloses the method as in the parent claim 16.
Yao discloses wherein the feedback information is included in downlink data delivery status information. (Figs. 4, 6A/B, paragraph 17, 43-53, 56, 90-93, 120-129, disclosing that the “average delay DL on F1-U” [the recited “interface delay”] may be determined in reference to “the time when receiving a GTP packet delivery status message from the gNB-DU at the egress GTP termination”, teaching this limitation)
As to claim 20, Yao discloses the method as in the parent claim 16.
Yao discloses wherein the first node is a gNB central unit user plane (gNB-CU-UP), and the second node is a gNB distributed unit (gNB-DU). (Figs. 4, 6A/B, paragraph 17, 43-53, 56, 90-93, 120-129, disclosing “gNB-CU-UP “ and “gNB-du” as first node and second node, respectively, as discussed in claim 16)
AS to claims 21-25, see rejections for claim 16-20.
AS to claims 26-29, see rejections for claims 16-19.
As to claim 30, see rejection for claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463