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 .
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “shared in vDU pool” should be --shared in the vDU pool--. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The applicant’s submitted drawings are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0019773 to Raymond et al. (hereinafter Raymond), and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0205690 to Kurian et al. (hereinafter Kurian).
Regarding Claim 1, Raymond discloses (¶1) dynamically updated state pooling for radio access network (RAN) functions in open RAN architectures to facilitate stateful re-homing, which further includes:
generating a plurality of virtualized DU instances (vDUs) within a baseband cloud to form a vDU pool (Raymond discloses (¶34 - ¶36 and Fig. 2), the Distributed Unit (DU) pool 220 includes a number of DUs 120 e.g., virtualized DU (vDU) resources within network such a cloud-native architecture)
Raymond does not explicitly discloses dynamically sharing baseband processing resources among a plurality of cell sites served by respective vDUs within the vDU pool by reallocating idle processing capacities of vDUs within the pool serving underutilized cell sites to vDUs within the pool serving cell sites with higher traffic demands. However, in an analogous art, Kurian teaches:
dynamically sharing baseband processing resources among a plurality of cell sites served by respective vDUs within the vDU pool (Kurian teaches (¶34) sharing baseband computing resources. Kurian further teaches (¶81) the distributed unit allocate the resources of the pool dynamically among a plurality of cells belonging to said pool to have a broader applicability of baseband resources (¶78) for the gNB-DU pooling functionality)
by reallocating idle processing capacities of vDUs within the pool serving underutilized cell sites to vDUs within the pool serving cell sites with higher traffic demands (Kurian teaches (Fig. 5 and ¶70) pooling of the real time baseband computing resources across cells. The inter cell resource allocator can judge which cells require extra capacity at any time and can assign the shared/pooled computing resources to said cell(s) during that time period. This helps operators to efficiently use baseband resources, support more cells per gNB-DU and provision baseband computing resources to average cell load rather than peak cell load.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine generating a plurality of virtualized DU instances (vDUs) within a baseband cloud to form a vDU pool, as disclosed by Raymond, dynamically sharing baseband processing resources among a plurality of cell sites served by respective vDUs within the vDU pool by reallocating idle processing capacities of vDUs within the pool serving underutilized cell sites to vDUs within the pool serving cell sites with higher traffic demands, as taught by Kurian, for the purpose of (¶1) sharing of baseband computing resources.
Claim 2, Raymond in view of Kurian discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they disclose:
wherein the vDU pool is a vDU pool implemented within an Open Radio Access Network (ORAN) (Kurian teaches (¶56, ¶81) utilizing network function virtualization (NFV) and software defined networking (SDN) to implement a distributed unit of an access node (e.g., a gNB-DU) that has a pool of various baseband processing resources over an open radio access network (O-RAN) environment (¶57 and ¶95-¶97) as defined by the Open RAN Alliance) and the dynamically sharing includes (Kurian teaches (¶81) distributed unit may allocate the resources of the pool dynamically among a plurality of cells belonging to said pool)
determining there is needed additional capacity to support one or more cell sites supported by a first vDU within the pool (Kurian teaches (¶70) the inter cell resource allocator can judge which cells require extra capacity at any time)
in response to determining there is needed additional capacity, determining whether there is additional capacity available from one or more vDUs within the pool to meet the needed additional capacity (Kurian teaches (¶80) determining (602) an available baseband processing resource capacity of each of said cells and also the (604) aggregate available baseband processing resource capacity of said baseband processing resource pool)
and in response to determining there is additional capacity available from one or more vDUs within the pool, utilizing the additional capacity available from one or more vDUs within the pool to meet the needed additional capacity to support one or more cell sites (Kurian teaches (¶70, ¶81) the inter cell resource allocator assigns the shared/pooled computing resources to said cell(s). The distributed unit may allocate the resources of the pool dynamically among a plurality of cells belonging to said pool. This helps operators to efficiently use baseband resources, support more cells per gNB-DU and provision baseband computing resources to average cell load rather than peak cell load.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 3, Raymond in view of Kurian discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they disclose:
wherein the plurality of vDUs share common physical server resources, enabling multiple Radio Access Network (RAN) services provided by the plurality of vDUs to run on the shared common physical server resources; Kurian teaches (¶14, ¶56 - ¶57) sharing of baseband processing physical and virtual radio access network (RAN) resources among the cells belonging to the pool for radio resource control (RRC) connections or bearers by utilizing network function virtualization (NFV) and software defined networking (SDN).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 4, Raymond in view of Kurian discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they disclose:
configuring each vDU of the plurality of vDUs to support a predetermined maximum number of User Equipment (UEs) (Kurian teaches (¶69) DU's have a fixed computing resource/capacity used for establishing calls, handling U-plane data, scheduling etc., and the cells utilize their respective real time computing resources differently according to cell load and number of users. Kurian teaches (¶80, Fig. 6) determining the maximum and available baseband processing resource capacity of each of the said cells)
and enabling each vDU of the plurality of vDUs to dynamically adjust a number of UEs per cell site currently supported by the vDU up to the maximum number of UEs based on a total number of cell sites supported by the vDU pool and current traffic demands at each cell site supported by the vDU pool (Kurian teaches (¶69-¶70) baseband pooling via the inter cell resource allocator that can judge which cells require extra capacity at any time and can assign the shared/pooled computing resources to said cell(s) during that time period. Kurian teaches (¶82) distributed unit then provides a control unit associated with said distributed unit with an indication, which comprises at least information about identities of cells belonging to said baseband processing resource pool, the maximum and the available baseband processing resource capacity for each of said cells and the aggregate available baseband processing resource capacity of said baseband processing resource pool. Such information enables the control unit to update the cell capacity view and align it to be the same in the distributed unit and in the control unit.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 5, Raymond in view of Kurian discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they disclose:
wherein the reallocation of idle processing capacities includes utilizing spare capacity of one vDU within the pool to support another cell site with higher traffic supported by another vDU within the pool (Kurian teaches (¶80 and Fig. 6) determining (602) an available baseband processing resource capacity of each said cells and performing baseband pooling via inter cell resource allocator ¶70 that can judge which cells require extra capacity at any time and assigns shared/pooled computing resources.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 6, Raymond in view of Kurian discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they disclose:
wherein resource pooling within the vDU pool enables logical resources used by the plurality of cell sites to be shared in vDU pool (Raymond discloses (¶25) pooling involve centralization of resources, such as by implementing virtualized RAN function instances in a cloud-native architecture. Traffic to/from a particular radio unit (RU 130) can be dynamically assigned (e.g., routed) through the switching network to any of multiple Virtualized distributed unit (DU 120) resources. The cloud native principles conventionally call for stateless implementations to provide sufficiently nimble virtualized functions and the pooling facilitates sharing of multiple RAN function resources.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 7, Raymond in view of Kurian discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they disclose:
wherein at least one vDU within the pool supports multiple cell sites (Raymond discloses (¶28) RAN state pooling system (RSPS 230) coupled with the DU pool 220, implemented by some or all of the DUs 120, as a function of the DU switching network 225. Each DU 120 is managing multiple RUs 130 (e.g., multiple cells, etc.), and the stored state 310 can be maintained and updated for each cell.
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 8, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 9, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 10, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 11, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 12, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 13, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 6.
Claim 14, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 7.
Claim 15, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 16, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 17, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 18, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 19, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 20, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. 2021/0377801 to Noriega (Pooling of baseband units for 5G or other next gen networks)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313) 446-6574 and fax number is (571) 483-7559. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY - THURSDAY.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Christopher L. Parry can be reached on (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:/Awww.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.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451