DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment submitted on 02/15/2024 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-44 were cancelled, and claims 45-70 were newly added.
Priority to PCT application EP2021/073799, dated 08/27/2021, is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains at least one typo on lines 9-10 of page 18: “A feasible migration budget may be understood to as an actual or estimated delay” (p. 18, lines 9-10). Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 47 is objected to because it depends on a rejected parent claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. The prior art does not fairly teach “a first feasible migration budget feasible to the first communications network” and “a second migration budget feasible to the second communications network” in combination with the “pair of core mobile networks” and “pair of service meshes” also required by Claim 47’s parent claim, claim 45. Although references like Xu et al. do describe an access network node reporting a “feasible migration budget”, it lacks the other aforementioned features required by Claim 47.
Claim 59 is similarly objected to because it also requires the combination of a “feasible migration budget”, a “pair of core mobile networks”, and a “pair of service meshes”, although its claim tree introduces these limitations in a different order than Claim 47.
Claim 65 is similarly objected to for the same reasons as Claim 47, except it depends on a different parent claim (Claim 63).
In addition to the allowable limitations in Claim 47, Claims 48-49 also contain additional allowable subject matter because the prior art does not describe determining a QoS parameter based on an indication from the access network before handover begins in conjunction with the other limitations of these claims. References like Xu et al. do teach determining a QoS parameter based on capability information from the access network node, but Xu describes doing this after handover has already begun, not before.
Finally, Claims 54-56 and 60-61 are also objected to because they contain the same subject matter as claims 48-49 that is similarly allowable in conjunction with the limitations of independent claims 51 and 57, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 45, 50, and 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2020/0374741 A1, hereinafter “Li”) in view of Ahmavaara et al. (US 8,483,174 B2, hereinafter “Ahmavaara”) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0064249 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
As to Claim 45 and 63:
Li describes a method to ensure compliance with a packet delay budget during handover.
Specifically, Li teaches:
Handling mobility of one or more ongoing communication sessions for a device, from a source domain to a target domain
Li describes “obtaining ... a first QoS parameter between a first access network device and a first UPF network element” “where the first access network device is a target access network device that serves the terminal device after handover” (Li, 0048).
Each of the source domain and the target comprises at least one first communications network and a second communications network
Li teaches that a “network domain” can include “a radio access network (RAN)” and “a backhaul network” (Li, 0005).
Each of the one or more ongoing communication sessions comprising a respective group of traffic flows having a respective requirement for a quality of service or experience
Li teaches that a “control plane network element” will “separately assign[] a proper QoS parameter to each network domain” (Li, 0006).
The first node operating in at least one of the first communications network, the second communications network, and another communications network
The claimed “first node” corresponds to the “control plane network element” Li describes which interacts with the “source access network” and the “target access network” (i.e. the claimed “first communications network” and the “second communications network”) (Li, 0048). This means the “control plane network element” is part of “another communications network” from the list of “at least one of the first communications network, the second communications network, and another communications network”.
Determining, for each respective group of traffic flows, in each of the one or more ongoing communication sessions having a similar requirement for quality of service or experience: a respective correspondence between a respective first set of resources belonging to the first communications network and a respective second set of resources belonging to the second network estimated to be required for a shift
Paragraph 0048 of Li describes a “control plane network element” that determines a “source access network node” and a “target access network device” for a packet flow with “a first QoS parameter” (Li, 0048).
Here, the traffic flow with “a first QoS parameter” maps to “each respective group of traffic flows, in each of the one ... communication session[] having a similar requirement for quality of service”,
the “source access network node” corresponds to “a respective first set of resources belonging to the first communications network”, and
the “target access network device” corresponds to “a respective second set of resources belonging to the second network estimated to be required for the shift”.
The second set of resources comprises ... a respective priority in the shift for each respective pair of resources
Li describes a “priority of the first network domain”, i.e. a priority of each access network node because each node will belong to a domain.
Determining a distribution of a time budget for the shift, between the first communications network and the second communications network, by exchanging communications with each of the first communications network and the second communications network
Li describes performing “handover admission control on the terminal device based on the QoS parameter” (Li, 0059) and later states that “a packet delay budget (PDB) is used” as “the QoS parameter” (Li, 0326). Li also clarifies that “the PDB is an upper limit of a delay for transmission of a data packet between the terminal device and the UPF network element” (Li, 0326).
Here, “packet delay budget (PDB)” maps to “determining a distribution of a time budget for the shift” because the PDB applies before, during, and after “handover”, and
“an upper limit of a delay” that applies before and after the “shift” corresponds to “exchanging communications with each of the first communications network and the second communications network” because the round-trip time of a packet will need to be measured between the UPF and each of the source and target access nodes to enforce the PDB.
The determining of the distribution of the time budget is based on ... the respective priority, according to a respective end to end performance requirement for the shift
Li teaches that “the control plane network element” can “determin[e] ... the second QoS parameter for the first network domain based on ... the first QoS parameter, and a priority of the first network domain” (Li, 0017). Li later states that “a packet delay budget (PDB) is used” as “the QoS parameter” (Li, 0326).
Here, “priority” corresponds to “the respective priority”, and
“a packet delay budget (PDB)” corresponds to “a respective end to end performance requirement for the shift”.
Providing one or more indications to at least one of: a second node operating in the first communications network and a third node operating in the second communications network, the one or more indications indicating the determined distribution
Li describes a “sending, by the control plane network element, the first QoS parameter to a second access network device” (Li, 0048). Again, a packet delay budget (PDB) is used” as “the QoS parameter” (Li, 0326).
The “second access network device” can correspond to “a third node operating in the second communications network”.
Li does not explicitly disclose:
The first set of resources comprises a respective pair of core mobile networks, comprising one or more source mobile networks and one or more target mobile networks
However, Ahmavaara does describe mobility between core networks.
Specifically, Ahmavaara teaches:
The first set of resources comprises a respective pair of core mobile networks, comprising one or more source mobile networks and one or more target mobile networks
Ahmavaara describes a UE with an “initial external network connection via a source core nodes” that “initializ[es] a mobility event” to move from “the source core node to via a first target core node to create at least one new external network connection” (Ahmavaara col. 1, lines 62-67).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li’s mobility method to transition between core networks, as taught in Ahmavaara. As Ahmavaara explains, handing over between core networks is necessary to change coverage areas, and Li’s method can facilitate this.
The combination of Li and Ahmavaara also does not explicitly disclose:
The second set of resources comprises a respective pair of service meshes, comprising a source service mesh and a target service mesh
However, Lee does describe a handover method that includes switching from a source proxy to a target proxy.
Specifically, Lee teaches:
The second set of resources comprises a respective pair of service meshes, comprising a source service mesh and a target service mesh
Lee states that “the UE is handed over to a target eNB” which involves “transferring, to the target proxy” from an “anchor proxy” (Lee, 0012).
Here, the “target proxy” is analogous to a “target service mesh” because the service mesh is a proxy that mediates between external traffic and a software container, just as the proxy here mediates between external traffic and the target base station, and
similarly, the “anchor proxy” is analogous to the “source service mesh”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the transition between proxy devices described in Lee into Li’s method for handing over between network domains. The proxy devices can help facilitate a smoother transition by converting between a generic interface for traffic entering the network and a device-specific interface for traffic leaving the network.
Claim 63 encompasses the same limitations as Claim 45 in the form of an apparatus claim that additionally requires:
Processing circuitry and memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry
Li teaches that “[a]ll or some of the foregoing embodiments may be implemented by means of software, hardware, firmware, or any combination thereof” (Li, 0542-0543).
Claim(s) 46 and 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2020/0374741 A1) in view of Ahmavaara (US 8,483,174 B2) and Lee (US 2014/0064249 A1) and further in view of Aftab et al. (US 2021/0051551 A1, hereinafter “Aftab”).
As to Claim 46 and 64:
Li teaches:
The first communications network is a mobile network
Li states that its method for “dynamically assign[ing]” a “QoS parameter” for a “mobile network” (Li, 0006).
The combination of Li, Ahmavaara, and Lee does not explicitly disclose:
The second communications network is an edge cloud network
However, Aftab does describe a method for handover between edge cloud networks.
Specifically, Aftab teaches:
The second communications network is an edge cloud network
Aftab describes a method for “handover” to “a second edge cloud based on utilization information of the first edge cloud network” (Aftab, 0059).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li’s method to hand over to or from an edge cloud network such as those described in Aftab. A device may need to hand over to or from an edge cloud network, in which case it would clearly be advantageous to have a method available to facilitate such handover.
Claim(s) 51, 53, 57, 62, 66, and 68-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2020/0374741 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2023/0199600 A1, hereinafter “Xu”).
As to Claim 51 and 66:
Li teaches:
Handling mobility of one or more ongoing communication sessions for a device, from a source domain to a target domain
Li describes “obtaining ... a first QoS parameter between a first access network device and a first UPF network element” “where the first access network device is a target access network device that serves the terminal device after handover” (Li, 0048).
Each of the source domain and the target domain comprises at least a first communications network and a second communications network
Li teaches that a “control plane network element” will “separately assign[] a proper QoS parameter to each network domain” (Li, 0006). Li further specifies that a “network domain” can include “a radio access network (RAN)” and “a backhaul network” (Li, 0005).
Each of the one or more ongoing communication sessions comprising a respective group of traffic flows having a respective requirement for a quality of service or experience
Li teaches that a “control plane network element” will “separately assign[] a proper QoS parameter to each network domain” (Li, 0006).
The third node operating in the second communications network
The claimed “third node” corresponds to a node in the “target access network” described in Li (i.e. the claimed “second communications network”) (Li, 0048).
A first node operating in at least one of the first communications network, the second communications network, and another communications network
The claimed “first node” corresponds to the “control plane network element” Li describes which interacts with the “source access network” and the “target access network” (i.e. the claimed “first communications network” and the “second communications network”) (Li, 0048).
Each respective group of traffic flows in each of the one or more ongoing communication sessions having a similar requirement for quality of service or experience
Li teaches that a “control plane network element” will “separately assign[] a proper QoS parameter to each network domain” (Li, 0006).
Obtaining, from the first node, one or more third indications indicating, for each respective group of traffic flows in each of the one or more ongoing communication sessions that are to be shifted from the source domain to the target domain, each of the respective group of traffic flows having the similar requirement for quality of service or experience, a distribution of a time budget for a shift between the first communications network and the second communications network
Li describes an access network performing “handover admission control on the terminal device based on the QoS parameter” (Li, 0059) and later states that “a packet delay budget (PDB) is used” as “the QoS parameter” (Li, 0326). Li also clarifies that “the PDB is an upper limit of a delay for transmission of a data packet between the terminal device and the UPF network element” (Li, 0326).
Here, “packet delay budget (PDB)” maps to “obtaining ... a distribution of a time budget for a shift” because the PDB applies before, during, and after “handover”, and
“handover” corresponds to “one or more ongoing communication sessions that are to be shifted from the source domain to the target domain”, and
the “QoS parameter” that applies to a session corresponds to “each of the respective group of traffic flows having the similar requirement for quality of service or experience”.
Li does not explicitly disclose:
Providing, to a first node ... for each respective group of traffic flows ... a second migration budget feasible to the second communications network
The obtained distribution of the time budget is based on the provided second migration budget feasible to the second communications network
However, Xu does describe a method for an access network to send a path switch request to a core network.
Specifically, Xu teaches:
Providing, to a first node ... for each respective group of traffic flows ... a second migration budget feasible to the second communications network
Xu describes a “handover request message” sent from a “second network device” (i.e. an access network device) that “carries ... a first packet delay budget (PDB) between a user plane function and the second network device” (Xu, 0009).
Here, “packet delay budget (PDB)” for “the second network device” is analogous to “a second migration budget feasible to the second communications network” because this delay budget cannot be violated during the requested handover.
The obtained distribution of the time budget is based on the provided second migration budget feasible to the second communications network
Xu teaches that a “first burst arrival time”, the “time at which a downlink quality of service (QoS) flow arrives at an ingress of the first network device”, is determined based on a “formula” including the “first PDB” (Xu, 0007, 0010).
Here, the “first burst arrival time” is analogous to “the obtained distribution of the time budget” and it is determined based on the “first PDB”, i.e. the “provided second migration budget”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Xu’s practice of scheduling a handover based on a timeline requested by an access network device into Li’s method for scheduling handover. Incorporating feedback from the access network device can ensure the handover does not violate that device’s QoS requirements.
Claim 66 requires substantially the same limitations as Claim 51 as well as:
Processing circuitry and memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry whereby the third node is configured
Fig. 15 in Li depicts “a physical device that performs a QoS parameter processing method” which includes a “Processor 1502”, a “Memory 1503”, and a “Computer-readable storage medium 1504”.
As to Claim 53 and 68:
Li teaches:
Determining, based on the obtained one or more third indications ... a strategy for the shift
Li states that “the capability information of the first network domain is dynamically fed back to the control plane network element such that the control network element can more precisely and more properly divide the QoS parameter between a terminal device and the UPF network element” (Li, 0021).
Here, “more precisely and more properly divid[ing] the QoS parameter” maps to “determining ... a strategy for the shift”.
Initiating performing the shift, based on the determined strategy
Li states that “the capability information of the first network domain is dynamically fed back to the control plane network element such that the control network element can more precisely and more properly divide the QoS parameter between a terminal device and the UPF network element” (Li, 0021).
Here, “divid[ing] the QoS parameter” corresponds to “initiating performing the shoft, based on the determined strategy” because “divid[ing] the QoS parameter” occurs during the shift.
Li does not explicitly disclose:
Available resources at the second communications network, as estimated by the third node
However, Xu does teach:
Available resources at the second communications network, as estimated by the third node
Xu describes a “handover request message” sent from a “second network device” (i.e. an access network device) that “carries ... a first packet delay budget (PDB) between a user plane function and the second network device” (Xu, 0009).
Here, “a first packet delay budget” reported by “the second network device” corresponds to “available resources at the second communications network, as estimated by the third node”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Xu’s practice of scheduling a handover based on a timeline requested by an access network device into Li’s method for scheduling handover. Incorporating feedback from the access network device can ensure the handover does not violate that device’s QoS requirements.
Claim 68 describes the same subject matter as Claim 53 in the form of an apparatus claim.
As to Claim 57 and 69:
Li teaches:
Handling mobility of one or more ongoing communication sessions for a device, from a source domain to a target domain
Li describes “obtaining ... a first QoS parameter between a first access network device and a first UPF network element” “where the first access network device is a target access network device that serves the terminal device after handover” (Li, 0048).
Each of the source domain and the target domain comprises at least a first communications network and a second communications network
Li teaches that a “control plane network element” will “separately assign[] a proper QoS parameter to each network domain” (Li, 0006). Li further specifies that a “network domain” can include “a radio access network (RAN)” and “a backhaul network” (Li, 0005).
Each of the one or more ongoing communication sessions comprising a respective group of traffic flows having a respective requirement for a quality of service or experience
Li teaches that a “control plane network element” will “separately assign[] a proper QoS parameter to each network domain” (Li, 0006).
The second node operating in the first communications network
The claimed “second node” corresponds to a node in the “target access network” described in Li (i.e. the claimed “first communications network”) (Li, 0048).
A first node operating in at least one of the first communications network, the second communications network, and another communications network
The claimed “first node” corresponds to the “control plane network element” Li describes which interacts with the “source access network” and the “target access network” (i.e. the claimed “first communications network” and the “second communications network”) (Li, 0048).
Each respective group of traffic flows in each of the one or more ongoing communication sessions having a similar requirement for quality of service or experience
Li teaches that a “control plane network element” will “separately assign[] a proper QoS parameter to each network domain” (Li, 0006).
Obtaining, from the first node, one or more third indications indicating, for each respective group of traffic flows in each of the one or more ongoing communication sessions that are to be shifted from the source domain to the target domain, each of the respective group of traffic flows having the similar requirement for quality of service or experience, a distribution of a time budget for a shift between the first communications network and the second communications network
Li describes an access network performing “handover admission control on the terminal device based on the QoS parameter” (Li, 0059) and later states that “a packet delay budget (PDB) is used” as “the QoS parameter” (Li, 0326). Li also clarifies that “the PDB is an upper limit of a delay for transmission of a data packet between the terminal device and the UPF network element” (Li, 0326).
Here, “packet delay budget (PDB)” maps to “obtaining ... a distribution of a time budget for a shift” because the PDB applies before, during, and after “handover”, and
“handover” corresponds to “one or more ongoing communication sessions that are to be shifted from the source domain to the target domain”, and
the “QoS parameter” that applies to a session corresponds to “each of the respective group of traffic flows having the similar requirement for quality of service or experience”.
Li does not explicitly disclose:
Providing, to a first node ... for each respective group of traffic flows ... a first feasible migration budget feasible to the second communications network
The obtained distribution of the time budget is based on the provided first feasible migration budget feasible to the first communications network, and a respective end to end performance requirement for the shift
However, Xu does describe a method for an access network to send a path switch request to a core network.
Specifically, Xu teaches:
Providing, to a first node ... for each respective group of traffic flows ... a first feasible migration budget feasible to the second communications network
Xu describes a “handover request message” sent from a “second network device” (i.e. an access network device) that “carries ... a first packet delay budget (PDB) between a user plane function and the second network device” (Xu, 0009).
Here, “packet delay budget (PDB)” for “the second network device” is analogous to “a first feasible migration budget feasible to the second communications network” because this delay budget cannot be violated during the requested handover.
The obtained distribution of the time budget is based on the provided first feasible migration budget feasible to the first communications network, and a respective end to end performance requirement for the shift
Xu teaches that a “first burst arrival time”, the “time at which a downlink quality of service (QoS) flow arrives at an ingress of the first network device”, is determined based on a “formula” including the “first PDB” (Xu, 0007, 0010).
Here, the “first burst arrival time” is analogous to “the obtained distribution of the time budget” and it is determined based on the “first PDB”, i.e. the “provided second migration budget”.
The “first PDB” also meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a respective end to end performance requirement for the shift”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Xu’s practice of scheduling a handover based on a timeline requested by an access network device into Li’s method for scheduling handover. Incorporating feedback from the access network device can ensure the handover does not violate that device’s QoS requirements.
Claim 69 requires substantially the same limitations as Claim 57 as well as:
Processing circuitry and memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry whereby the second node is configured
Fig. 15 in Li depicts “a physical device that performs a QoS parameter processing method” which includes a “Processor 1502”, a “Memory 1503”, and a “Computer-readable storage medium 1504”.
As to Claim 62:
From the list of:
At least one of:
Each of the group of traffic flows traverses a group of microservices,
Each of the one or more ongoing communication sessions is a PDU session,
Each of the group of traffic flows having a similar requirement for quality of service or experience is a traffic aggregate, and
The one or more ongoing communication sessions are handled by a service mesh
Li at least teaches:
Each of the one or more ongoing communication sessions is a PDU session,
Li states that its method for handover results in “PDU session establishment” (Li, 0364-0365).
Claim(s) 52, 58, 67, and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2020/0374741 A1) in view of Xu (US 2023/0199600 A1) and further in view of Aftab (US 2021/0051551 A1).
As to Claim 52, 58, 67, and 70:
Li teaches:
The first communications network is a mobile network
Li states that its method for “dynamically assign[ing]” a “QoS parameter” for a “mobile network” (Li, 0006).
The combination of Li and Xu does not explicitly disclose:
The second communications network is an edge cloud network
However, Aftab does teach:
The second communications network is an edge cloud network
Aftab describes a method for “handover” to “a second edge cloud based on utilization information of the first edge cloud network” (Aftab, 0059).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li’s method to hand over to or from an edge cloud network such as those described in Aftab. A device may need to hand over to or from an edge cloud network, in which case it would clearly be advantageous to have a method available to facilitate such handover.
Claim 58 introduces the same new limitations as Claim 52 from the perspective of an access node in the other network involved in handover.
Claim 67 introduces the same new limitations as Claim 52 in the form of an apparatus claim.
Claim 70 introduces the same new limitations as Claim 58 in the form of an apparatus claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Non-patent literature Chuang et al. (“Network Controlled Handover Mechanisms in Mobile Edge Computing”) describes using “handover latency (HL)” as a metric for measuring the success of a mobility procedure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights