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
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, line 1, the term “the performing” should be changed “.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, line 1, the term “at least on” should be changed to “at least a”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries 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.
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) 1-9,12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (Pub No.: 2025/0150862).
Regarding claim 13, Chen et al. discloses a communication apparatus (read as secondary CU-CP in fig. 7), comprising: at least on circuitry (see interface 55 in fig. 4, and para. 0060, 0062) configured to:
receive context information (read as the corresponding UE context(s) of the signaling message in para. 0092) from a first CU-CP (see master CU-CP in fig. 7), wherein the context information comprises a context of a distributed unit DU and a context of a first central unit user plane (CU-UP), and the context information is used by the second CU-CP to communicate with the DU and the first CU-UP (Chen et al. see fig. 7, steps 1-2; fig. 8, steps 2a-3a; para. 0091, 0092, 0105; In para. 0091, …It will be appreciated that initially at least one UE 3 is connected to the master CU-CP 5C (and to the other units of the distributed base station), after performing an appropriate UE attach procedure (as generally shown in step 1). In para. 0091, …In step 2, after (or in response to) the UE attach/service request from the UE 3, the master CU-CP 5C generates and sends (using its associated communications control module 63) an appropriately formatted signalling message for backing up the UE context(s) associated with the connected UE(s) 3… The message includes information identifying the UE(s) (e.g. by their associated UE XnAP ID and/or the like) and the corresponding UE context(s). In para. 0105, … The DU 5D/CU-UP 5U includes in its message an identifier of the master CU-CP 5C (Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like) to indicate which node is deemed to have failed so that the secondary CU-CP 5C′ can retrieve the associated UE context(s). In step 2a/3a, the secondary CU-CP 5C′ indicates that it is now acting as the new serving CU-CP.);
Thus, initially the UE is attached/connected to the master CU-CP via DU and CU-UP. The master CU-CP sends signaling message to the secondary CU-CP. The message includes information identifying the UE and the corresponding UE context(s), wherein the corresponding UE context(s) is primarily information associated with the UE as well as the connected master CU-CP, DU and CU-UP. Although the corresponding UE context(s) does not explicitly comprises the context of a DU and the context of a CU-UP, an official notice is taken that the feature wherein the corresponding UE context(s) of the signaling message comprising information (e.g., context information) associated with the initially connected DU and information (e.g., context information) associated with the initially connected CU-UP is well known in the art;
receive a first message (Chen et al. see fig. 8, step 2 or step 3 Resiliency Activation message; see para. 0104, 0105; it generates and transmits in step 2 (using its associated communications control module 63) an appropriately formatted message to the secondary CU-CP 5C′ for activating resiliency.). The secondary CU-CP receives the resiliency activation message; and
communicate with the DU and the first CU-UP based on the first message through a communication interface (Chen et al. see fig. 7, steps 6-8; fig. 8 steps 2a-3a; para. 0089, 0090, 0098, 0099, 0105; In step 2a/3a, the secondary CU-CP 5C′ indicates that it is now acting as the new serving CU-CP. Specifically, the secondary CU-CP 5C′ generates and transmits an appropriate ‘Resiliency Notification’ message (and/or the like) to the CU-UP 5U (if the message in step 2 was transmitted by the DU 5D) or the DU 5D (if the message in step 3 was transmitted by the CU-UP 5U). It will be appreciated that the secondary CU-CP 5C′ may notify both the DU 5D and the CU-UP 5U. In other words, both steps 2a and 3a may be performed after either step 2 or step 3. In fig. 8, the secondary CU-CP communicates via an interface with the DU and the first CU-UP in step 2a and 3a based on the resiliency activation in step 2 or step 3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Chen et al. and to implement with feature wherein the corresponding UE context(s) comprising the context information of the DU and context information of the CU-CP.
The motivation would be to improve transmission reliability.
Claim 1 is rejected similarly to claim 13.
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al. discloses a communication method, applied to a first central unit control plane (CU-CP) (read as the master CU-CP in fig. 7), comprising:
sending context information (read as the corresponding UE context(s) of the signaling message in para. 0092) to a second CU-CP (read as secondary CU-CP in fig. 7), wherein the context information comprises a context of a distributed unit (DU) and a context of a first central unit user plane (CU-UP), and the context information is used by the second CU-CP to communicate with the DU and the first CU-UP (Chen et al. see fig. 7, steps 1-2; fig. 8, steps 2a-3a; para. 0091, 0092, 0105; In para. 0091, …It will be appreciated that initially at least one UE 3 is connected to the master CU-CP 5C (and to the other units of the distributed base station), after performing an appropriate UE attach procedure (as generally shown in step 1). In para. 0091, …In step 2, after (or in response to) the UE attach/service request from the UE 3, the master CU-CP 5C generates and sends (using its associated communications control module 63) an appropriately formatted signalling message for backing up the UE context(s) associated with the connected UE(s) 3… The message includes information identifying the UE(s) (e.g. by their associated UE XnAP ID and/or the like) and the corresponding UE context(s). In para. 0105, … The DU 5D/CU-UP 5U includes in its message an identifier of the master CU-CP 5C (Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like) to indicate which node is deemed to have failed so that the secondary CU-CP 5C′ can retrieve the associated UE context(s). In step 2a/3a, the secondary CU-CP 5C′ indicates that it is now acting as the new serving CU-CP.);
Thus, initially the UE is attached/connected to the master CU-CP via DU and CU-UP. The master CU-CP sends signaling message to the secondary CU-CP. The message includes information identifying the UE and the corresponding UE context(s), wherein the corresponding UE context(s) is primarily information associated with the UE as well as the connected master CU-CP, DU and CU-UP. Although the corresponding UE context(s) does not explicitly comprises the context of a DU and the context of a CU-UP, an official notice is taken that the feature wherein the corresponding UE context(s) of the signaling message comprising information (e.g., context information) associated with the initially connected DU and information (e.g., context information) associated with the initially connected CU-UP is well known in the art;
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Chen et al. and to implement with feature wherein the corresponding UE context(s) comprising the context information of the DU and context information of the CU-CP.
The motivation would be to improve transmission reliability.
Regarding claims 2, 14, Chen et al. discloses the feature wherein the receiving of the context information from the first CU-CP comprises: receiving the context information from the first CU-CP via an access and mobility management function network element (Chen et al. see para. 0053, 0095; the AMF 8 generates and sends (using its communications control module 83) an appropriately formatted signalling message to the secondary CU-CP 5C′, in step 3a. This message (for example a ‘UE Resiliency Setup Response’ message) completes setting up of the NG connection between the AMF 8 and the secondary CU-CP 5C′ (and the UE 3). The message includes an appropriate UE identifier (UE NGAP ID).). Thus, the secondary CU-CP receives context information from the master CU-CP via AMF.
Regarding claims 3, 15, Chen et al. discloses the feature wherein the first message comprises state value information from the first CU-CP (see para. 0103, 0104, 0105; the DU 5D determines in step 1 that the failure timer associated with the master CU-CP 5C has expired before it was able to recover from an SCTP failure. Accordingly, when the DU 5D determines that the SCTP problem lasted longer than the allowed maximum duration as per the associated failure timer, it generates and transmits in step 2 (using its associated communications control module 63 an appropriately formatted message to the secondary CU-CP 5C′ for activating resiliency. In para. 0105, … The DU 5D/CU-UP 5U includes in its message an identifier of the master CU-CP 5C (Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like) to indicate which node is deemed to have failed so that the secondary CU-CP 5C′ can retrieve the associated UE context(s)). Thus, the transmitted formatted message indicates the failure from the master CU-CP.
Regarding claims 4, 16, Chen et al. discloses the feature wherein the communicating with the DU and the first CU-UP based on the first message through the communication interface comprises: determining, based on the state value information, that the first CU-CP is overloaded or faulty; determining, based on that the first CU-CP is overloaded or faulty, to communicate with the DU and the first CU-UP through the communication interface; and communicating with the DU and the first CU-UP through the communication interface (Chen et al. see para. 0105; The DU 5D/CU-UP 5U includes in its message an identifier of the master CU-CP 5C (Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like) to indicate which node is deemed to have failed so that the secondary CU-CP 5C′ can retrieve the associated UE context(s). In step 2a/3a, the secondary CU-CP 5C′ indicates that it is now acting as the new serving CU-CP.). The DU or the CU-UP includes in its message the identification of the master CU-CP such as Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like (e.g., value) to indicate to the secondary CU-CP that the master CU-CP has failed. The secondary CU-CP determines that the master CU-CP has failed and acts as the new serving CU-CP for communication with the DU and CU-UP via an interface.
Regarding claims 5, 17, Chen et al. discloses the feature wherein the first message comprises first request information from the DU or the first CU-UP, and the first request information is for requesting to communicate with the second CU-CP through the communication interface (Chen et al. see fig. 8, step 2; para. 0104, 0105; it generates and transmits in step 2 (using its associated communications control module 63) an appropriately formatted message to the secondary CU-CP 5C′ for activating resiliency.). Thus, the resiliency activation message in fig. 8 step 2 serves as a request message for requesting communication with the second CU-CP through the interface.
Regarding claims 6, 18, Chen et al. discloses the feature wherein the first message comprises first indication information from the first CU-CP, and the first indication information indicates that the first CU-CP is overloaded (Chen et al. see para. 0105; The DU 5D/CU-UP 5U includes in its message an identifier of the master CU-CP 5C (Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like) to indicate which node is deemed to have failed so that the secondary CU-CP 5C′ can retrieve the associated UE context(s). In step 2a/3a, the secondary CU-CP 5C′ indicates that it is now acting as the new serving CU-CP.). The DU or the CU-UP includes in its message the identification of the master CU-CP such as Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like to indicate to the secondary CU-CP that the master CU-CP has failed or overloaded.
Regarding claims 7, 19, Chen et al. discloses the feature wherein the first message comprises second indication information from the first CU-CP, and the second indication information indicates to communicate with the DU and the first CU-UP through the communication interface (Chen et al. see para. 0105; The DU 5D/CU-UP 5U includes in its message an identifier of the master CU-CP 5C (Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like) to indicate which node is deemed to have failed so that the secondary CU-CP 5C′ can retrieve the associated UE context(s). In step 2a/3a, the secondary CU-CP 5C′ indicates that it is now acting as the new serving CU-CP. Specifically, …In other words, both steps 2a and 3a may be performed after either step 2 or step 3.). The DU or the CU-UP includes in its message the identification of the master CU-CP such as Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like to indicate to the secondary CU-CP that the master CU-CP has failed or overloaded. The resiliency activation in step 3 includes an activation indication to the secondary Cu-CP for activating communication with the DU and the CU-UP through the interface.
Regarding claims 8, 12, 20, Chen et al. discloses the feature wherein the performing of communication through the communication interface comprises: establishing a communication interface and performing communication through the communication interface; or activating a standby communication interface and performing communication through the standby communication interface (Chen et al. see para. 0105; The DU 5D/CU-UP 5U includes in its message an identifier of the master CU-CP 5C (Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like) to indicate which node is deemed to have failed so that the secondary CU-CP 5C′ can retrieve the associated UE context(s). In step 2a/3a, the secondary CU-CP 5C′ indicates that it is now acting as the new serving CU-CP. Specifically, …In other words, both steps 2a and 3a may be performed after either step 2 or step 3.). The DU or the CU-UP includes in its message the identification of the master CU-CP such as Master CU XnAP ID and/or the like to indicate to the secondary CU-CP that the master CU-CP has failed or overloaded. The resiliency activation in step 3 includes an activation indication to the secondary CU-CP for activating communication (e.g., activating interface) with the DU and the CU-UP through the interface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner's Note
The Applicant is welcome to request a telephonic interview if the Applicant has any questions or requires any additional information that would further or expedite the prosecution of the application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chandrashekar et al. (Pub No.: 2024/0323707) discloses an apparatus configured to perform as a base station central unit control plane node, setup, into an inactive state, a protocol connection with at least one client node, wherein the apparatus does not control or actively serve the said client node while the protocol connection is in the inactive state, synchronize, while the protocol connection is in the inactive state, at least one control plane user equipment context of the base station from a second base station central unit control plane node which controls the at least one client node, and responsive to receiving an instruction from outside the apparatus, switch the protocol connection into an active state and begin controlling the at least one client node. The apparatus may serve user equipments directly or indirectly.
Xu et al. (Pub No.: 2023/0328625) discloses methods, apparatuses and computer readable storage media for transferring traffic in integrated access and backhaul (IAB) communication. According to embodiments of the present disclosure, a first Central Unit-Control Plane (CU-CP) of a first IAB donor transmits, to a second CU-CP of a second IAB donor, a request to transfer target traffic via a Distributed Unit (DU) of the second IAB donor. The request comprises first information of the target traffic. The first CU-CP receives, from the second CU-CP, second information to be used for configuring the target traffic. This solution can improve the reliability and robustness of the IAB communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am-7pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/KAN YUEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights