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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 28 are- objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the acronyms “CU”, “QoS”, “DRB”, and “UE”. The first time these acronyms are introduced in the claims they should include the full phrase or term to which they correspond. For example, “at a network centralized unit (CU)”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “to one the plurality of Pod Classes” in line 6. It appears this should recite “to one of the plurality of Pod Classes”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “corresponding the one or more UEs DRB’s Pod Class” in line 8. It appears this should recite “corresponding to the one or more UEs DRB’s Pod Class”.
Similarly, dependent claims 6 “RIC”, 17 “CU-CP”, 17 “IWF”, 19 “AP-ID”, 21 “DPS” recite the identified acronyms and should include the full phrase or term to which they correspond.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “for critical Pod Class” in line 3. It appears this should recite “the critical Pod Class”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a critical Pod Class” in line 6. It appears this should recite “the critical Pod Class”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the plurality of UE Entity Classes” in lines 7-8. It appears this should recite “the plurality of UE Entity Pod Classes”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the UE Entity Class” in line 8. It appears this should recite “the UE Entity Pod Class”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “critical UE Entity Pod Class” in line 3. It appears this should recite “the critical UE Entity Pod Class”.
Claim 17 recites “in CU-CP” in line 6. It appears this should recite “in the CU-CP”.
Claim 18 recites “in CU-CP” in line 6. It appears this should recite “in the CU-CP”.
Claim 28 recites “user defined objects” in line 2. It appears this should recite “the user defined objects”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determining if one or more of the UE DRBs correspond to one the plurality of Pod Classes” in lines 6-7. The previous limitation introduces DRBs of UEs. It is unclear if determining one or more of a single UE DRBs or determining one or more of multiple UEs’ DRBs.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “allocating the UEs to the Pod corresponding one or more UEs DRB’s Pod Class”. A prior limitation introduces “one or more of the UE DRBs”. It is unclear if the limitation should be interpreted as allocating all of the UEs to a single Pod that corresponds to a Pod Class of a single DRB of one or more UEs or allocating all of the UEs to a single Pod that corresponds to a Pod Class of one or more DRBs of multiple UEs or allocating each UE to a pod corresponding to the UE’s DRB’s pod class.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the time of DRB establishment" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the CU-CP" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the plurality of the UE Entity Pods” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the plurality of non-critical UE Entity Pods” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the plurality non-critical UE Entity Pod Classes” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a critical UE Entity Pod Class” in line 9. It is unclear is this is the same critical UE Entity Pod Class that was introduced in claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the time of DRB establishment" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the CU-CP does load balancing within the Critical UE Entity Pod Class to identify a suitable the Critical UE Entity Pod Class”. It is unclear what is being identified here.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the critical UE Pod Class Pods” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “a UE” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same UE or a different UE from that introduced in Claim 11.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the assignment information” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the Critical UE Entity Pod” in lines 7-8 and “Critical UE Entity Pod” in line 12. It is unclear if this the same as the “least loaded Critical UE Entity Pod” in lines 5-6.
Claim 18 recites “a UE” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same UE or a different UE from that introduced in Claim 11.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the assignment information” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “the plurality of UE Entity Pods” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “a UE” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same UE or a different UE from that introduced in Claims 11 and 17.
Claim 19 recites “the context” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites “EMBB PDUs / DRBs” and “URLLC PDUs / DRBs”. It is unclear what the “/” means. For examining purposes, the examiner is interpreting it as “or”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the PDUs” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the class of PDU traffic” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the context of the URLLC DRB” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the eMBB PDU DRB” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the URLLC critical DPS Pod” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the URLLC” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the critical DRB Pod” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the eMBB DRB” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 if one or more of the UE DRBs correspond 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) the UEs to the Pod corresponding the one or more UEs DRB’s Pod Class. ([0129]; Fig. 7; [0125])
Regarding claim 3, Roessler discloses
The method of claim 1, 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 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.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nadaf et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0041301) shows identifying appropriate groups of microservices in accordance with a service type specified by the user.
Andrews et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0029242) shows a CU mapping DRBs to slices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE H JAHNIGE whose telephone number is (571)272-8450. 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451