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
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roessler et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0243770), hereinafter Roessler.
Regarding claim 1, Roessler discloses
A method comprising:
at a network CU, ([0091]; [0096]; [0037]; Fig. 2; i.e. control circuitry located at gNB-CU) establishing a plurality of Pod Classes (i.e. to be provided services/functions including QCI or 5QI and latency sensitivity) including a critical Pod Class (i.e. high quality and high latency sensitivity service) and a non-critical Pod Class; (i.e. low quality and low latency sensitivity service) ([0097]; [0110]; [0118]; [0125])
classifying and assigning Pods (i.e. dedicated pool of resources/microservice/vm/container) to the plurality of Pod Classes; ([0097-0098]; [0110]; [0093]; [0013])
monitoring QoS classes (i.e. type of service such as VOIP/VOLTE with a particular QCI) of DRBs of UEs that join the CU network; ([0118]; [0129]; [0125]; [0110]; Fig. 7)
determining, for one or more of the UEs that joins the network that a respective DRB of the UE corresponds to one the plurality of Pod Classes; and ([0118]; i.e. It is determined if a service request matches a service that is to be provided.)
allocating (i.e. mapping user request/UE of the user to a particular pool of resources) each of the one or more UEs to the Pod corresponding the one or more UEs DRB’s Pod Class. ([0129]; Fig. 7; [0125])
wherein the CU is configured to give higher priority to the critical Pod Class by at least one of moving the UE in or out of a critical Pod Class, or reclassifying one or more of the Pods as critical or non-critical (e.g. 121 and 16).
Regarding claim 3, Roessler discloses
The method of claim 1, further comprising setting a predetermined fixed or dynamic time period (i.e. continuously/always) for observing if the one or more UEs use a high amount traffic for critical Pod Class corresponding to one of the plurality of Pod classes; and ([0131]; i.e. Services, including high priority sensitive services, are monitored.)
activating the DRB for the one or more UEs to the critical Pod Class without allocating the one or more UEs to another of the plurality of Pod Classes. ([0129]; i.e. The service is activated based on the service class requested. Therefore, activating the UE DRB to the POD class it requested without activating it to another POD class.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8, 10, 21, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roessler in view of Akman et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0086746), hereinafter Akman.
Regarding claim 8, Roessler shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Roessler fails to show
The method of claim 1, wherein at a CU-CP, the plurality of Pod Classes comprise UE Entity Pod Classes including a critical UE Entity Pod Class and a non-critical UE Entity Pod Class.
Akman shows
wherein at a CU-CP, (Fig. 8; i.e. CU F1-C/CU Q0S mapping) the plurality of Pod Classes comprise UE Entity Pod Classes (i.e. available VLANs) including a critical UE Entity Pod Class (i.e. VLAN with high QoS) and a non-critical UE Entity Pod Class.(i.e. VLAN with low QoS) ([0074]; [0064]; [0051]; i.e. The CU receives in the control plane a QoS profile/requirements of the requested service of a UE on the DRB and matches it to the available VLANs QoS properties. ([0074]) Therefore, the CU-CP includes the available UE Entity Pod Classes.)
Akman and Roessler are considered analogous art because they involve managing resources in a radio access network. Roessler shows control circuitry located at gNB-CU performing the mapping of requests to resources. Akman shows that it may done at the CP of the CU. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roessler to incorporate the teachings of Akman wherein at a CU-CP, the plurality of Pod Classes comprise UE Entity Pod Classes including a critical UE Entity Pod Class and a non-critical UE Entity Pod Class. Doing so provides the details on how interfaces may be used.
Regarding claim 10, Roessler in view of Akman shows all of the features with respect to claim 8 as outlined above. Roessler in view of Akman further shows
The method of claim 8, further comprising setting a predetermined time period (i.e. continuously/always) for observing if the one or more UEs use a high amount traffic for critical UE Entity Pod Class corresponding to one of the plurality of UE Entity Pod classes; and (Roessler: [0131]; i.e. Services, including high priority sensitive services, are monitored.)
activating the DRB for the one or more UEs to the critical UE Entity Pod Class without allocating the one or more UEs to another of the plurality of UE Entity Pod Classes. (Roessler: [0129]; i.e. The service is activated based on the service class requested. Therefore, activating the UE DRB to the POD class it requested without activating it to another POD class.)
Regarding claim 21, Roessler shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Roessler fails to show
The method of claim 1, where at a CU-UP, the plurality of Pod Classes comprise DPS Pod Classes including a critical DPS Pod Class and a non-critical DPS Entity Pod Class.
Akman shows
where at a CU-UP, (Fig. 8; CU including F1-U modules) the plurality of Pod Classes comprise DPS Pod Classes (i.e. available VLANs to carry user plane data to an appropriate slice) including a critical DPS Pod Class (i.e. VLAN and slice with high QoS) and a non-critical DPS Entity Pod Class. (i.e. VLAN and slice with low QoS) ([0074]; [0064]; [0051]; [0038]; i.e. The CU F1-U modules query for the layer 2-4 prop of the VLAN which identifies a VLAN with either a high QoS or a low QoS.)
Akman and Roessler are considered analogous art because they involve managing resources in a radio access network. Roessler shows control circuitry located at gNB-CU performing the mapping of requests to resources. Akman shows that it may done at the UP of the CU. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roessler to incorporate the teachings of Akman wherein at a CU-UP, the plurality of Pod Classes comprise DPS Pod Classes including a critical DPS Pod Class and a non-critical DPS Entity Pod Class. Doing so provides the details on how interfaces may be used.
Regarding claim 22, Roessler in view of Akman shows all of the features with respect to claim 21 as outlined above. Roessler in view of Akman further shows
The method of claim 21, further comprising:
a set of non-critical DPS pods (i.e. slice with SST value of 1) being for eMBB PDUs / DRBs, and another set of critical DPS pods (i.e. slice with SST value of 2) are for URLLC PDUs / DRBs; (Akman: [0008]; [0049])
wherein each of a plurality of PDUs are assigned a critical DPS Pod or a non-critical DPS Pod depending on the service needed by the DRBs in each PDU. (Akman: [0040]; [0074])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roessler to incorporate the teachings of Akman wherein a set of non-critical DPS pods being for eMBB PDUs / DRBs, and another set of critical DPS pods are for URLLC PDUs / DRBs wherein each of a plurality of PDUs are assigned a critical DPS Pod or a non-critical DPS Pod depending on the service needed by the DRBs in each PDU to provide the appropriate QoS for the desired service.
Regarding claim 26, Roessler shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Roessler fails to show
The method of claim 1, where at a CU-CP, the plurality of Pod Classes comprises Node Entity Pod Classes including a critical Node Entity Pod Class and a non-critical Node Entity Pod Class.
Akman shows
wherein at a CU-CP, (Fig. 8; i.e. CU F1-C/CU Q0S mapping) the plurality of Pod Classes comprises Node Entity Pod Classes (i.e. available VLANs) including a critical Node Entity Pod Class (i.e. VLAN with high QoS) and a non-critical Node Entity Pod Class.(i.e. VLAN with low QoS) ([0074]; [0064]; [0051]; i.e. The CU receives in the control plane a QoS profile/requirements of the requested service of a UE on the DRB and matches it to the available VLANs QoS properties. ([0074]) Therefore, the CU-CP includes the available UE Entity Pod Classes.)
Akman and Roessler are considered analogous art because they involve managing resources in a radio access network. Roessler shows control circuitry located at gNB-CU performing the mapping of requests to resources. Akman shows that it may done at the CP of the CU. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roessler to incorporate the teachings of Akman wherein at a CU-CP, the plurality of Pod Classes comprises Node Entity Pod Classes including a critical Node Entity Pod Class and a non-critical Node Entity Pod Class. Doing so provides the details on how interfaces may be used.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s stated that the claims have been amended to recite allowable features from claims 4-5, however the amendment did not include the claimed limitations in their entirety. Therefore, the amended limitations have been rejected.
Note from the Examiner
Claims 2,4-7, 9, 11-20, 23-25, 27, and 28 could not be rejected under prior art. They may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and amended to overcome any outstanding U.S.C. 112 rejections and objections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Follansbee whose telephone number is 571-272-3964. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
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.
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights