DETAILED REJECTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 2/28/25 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 17-19, 21-23, 26, 33-35, 37-38, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed at al. (US 20210385686) in view of Kuppuswamy et al. (US 11516721) in further view of Raja et al. (EP 3937530)
Regarding claim 1, Ahmed discloses an open radio access network distributed unit, comprising:
at least one processor;
and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the open radio access network distributed unit to at least (A unit capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a processor and memory):
identify at least one profile for configuration of communication between an O-DU and an O-RU (Par. 286: Multiple delay management profiles in M-plane are defined; Par. 290: O-DU 115 and O-RU 105 exchange all the delay management parameters via M-plane for each profile; Par. 291: Each profile is given a delay management profile ID; Identifiable profiles exchange defining parameters between O-DU 115 and O-RU 105. The disclosed profile is therefore a profile used to configure operation between the O-DU and O-RU, rather than merely a profile existing independently of those entities),
receive over an open radio access network management plane flow from an open radio access network radio unit a capability report comprising information identifying profiles and profile parameters supported by the open radio access network radio unit (Par. 287: O-RU 105 reports in its capabilities whether it can support the multiple delay management profiles feature; Par. 288: If yes, O-RU 105 reports the number of delay management profiles that it can support; Par. 330: The O-RU sends a report of capabilities including a quantity of supported delay management profiles and supported parameters for the profiles; Pars. 66-68:Tthe O-RU reports capabilities to O-RU controller 125 through the M-plane; Par. 70: Line 3; The O-RU controller 125 may reside in O-DU 115; accordingly, the O-DU receives the O-RU capability report over the O-RAN M-plane),
associating extended antenna-carrier identifiers with profiles (Par. 282: Lines 3-4: Specific eAxC IDs are linked to specific delay management profile IDs),
selecting a mutually supported configuration from configurations reported as supported by the open radio access network radio unit (Par. 301: Lines 1-4: O-RU 105 reports to O-RU controller 125, via a management-plane, window sizes that are supported by O-RU 105. O-RU controller 125 selects a window size from among the window sizes; A configuration is selected from configurations expressly reported as supported by the O-RU. Because the selected configuration is chosen from the O-RU-supported configurations and is thereafter used by the O-DU/O-RU system, the selected configuration is mutually usable by the O-DU and O-RU), and
based on the selecting, configuring operation for one of transmitting or receiving a signal for data exchange over control signal and user data exchange planes (Par. 299: Lines 1-3: This section extension enables O-DU 115 to link specific C-plane and/or U-plane sections to delay management profiles; Par. 304: Lines 2-6; The profile ID informs the O-RU that the associated C-plane section and/or corresponding U-plane data follows the identified profile; Par. 318: the O-RU controller configures the O-RU and O-DU with corresponding transmission and reception windows for C-plane and U-plane messages; The selected/configured profile is applied to C-plane and U-plane data exchange).
Ahmed does not disclose the full limitation of “identify at least one extended antenna-carrier identifier profile for configuration of at least one of cells or carriers with an operator of a communication network.” In particular, Ahmed discloses identifiable delay-management profiles rather than expressly eAxC ID profiles and does not tie those profiles to cell/carrier configuration with an operator. Ahmed also does not disclose that the capability report comprises “a list of at least one extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment supported by the open radio access network radio unit”; does not disclose “map the supported at least one extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment to the at least one extended antenna-carrier identifier profile”; does not disclose selecting an “optimal and mutually supported extended antenna-carrier identifier profile”; and does not disclose, based on that selection, configuring endpoints with the claimed eAxC ID subfield assignment and eAxC ID values for data exchange to available resources.
Kuppuswamy, however, discloses capability information identifying eAxC-related endpoint arrangements supported by the open radio access network radio unit (Col. 5: Lines 57-62; The DU receives capability information “indicating support of endpoint groups from an RU”; The capability information may identify the quantity of endpoint groups and the endpoints associated with the respective groups. The O-RU reports which endpoint arrangements it supports),
an extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment supported in accordance with the open radio access network radio unit capability information ((Col. 19: Lines 4-8: The DU receives capability information indicating a quantity of endpoint groups and endpoints associated with the groups; Col. 19: Lines 17-23: The DU determines the quantity of bits dedicated to the group index based on the quantity of groups; Col. 19: Lines 24-33: The DU determines the quantity of bits dedicated to the per-group layer/stream index based on the quantity of endpoints; The bit/subfield assignment within the eAxC identifier is determined according to capability information reported by the RU),
an extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment comprising a first portion of the RU port identifier associated with an endpoint group and a second portion associated with an RU endpoint (Col. 25: Lines 61-67 and Col. 26: Lines 1-4: The DU may allocate dedicated bits to a group index and a per-group layer/stream index or use a bitmask; Col. 26: Lines 5-11: The first portion of the RU port identifier encodes the group index and the second portion encodes the RU endpoint; the disclosed allocation of defined bit portions within the RU_Port_ID is mapped to the claimed “extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment” because the reference expressly divides the eAxC RU_Port_ID into separately assigned bit portions having different identifier functions).
Kuppuswamy further discloses based on the capability-based extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment, configuring endpoints with extended antenna-carrier identifier assignment information and extended antenna-carrier identifier values (Col. 41: Lines 58-67: The DU allocates eAxC messages to RU endpoints within respective endpoint groups based in part on the capability information; Col. 42: Lines 1-20: The DU transmits an eAxC allocation configuration to the RU, wherein the configuration may indicate the encoding technique and the mapping between endpoint groups and endpoints; RU endpoints are configured according to the determined eAxC bit/subfield allocation and corresponding eAxC identifier mappings/values), and
using the configured extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment and extended antenna-carrier identifier values for one of transmitting or receiving a signal for data exchange (Col. 18: Lines 41-50: The RU uses the first portion of the RU port identifier to determine an endpoint group, uses the second portion to determine an RU endpoint, and routes the eAxC message to the correct hardware component for processing; The configured eAxC assignment is used in processing exchanged eAxC traffic. The supported RU endpoints and endpoint groups constitute available RU resources because the capability information identifies the RU endpoint resources available for allocation, and the DU thereafter allocates the eAxC traffic to those endpoints).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Ahmed’s profile-based O-RAN capability/configuration framework according to Kuppuswamy’s capability-based eAxC allocation technique so that the O-DU associates supported eAxC subfield assignments with selectable profiles, selects a mutually supported configuration, and configures the corresponding endpoints with the selected eAxC assignment and values. Such a modification would predictably use O-RU capability information to select an eAxC configuration compatible with the O-RU while simplifying RU routing and processing. It would further have been obvious to include the supported eAxC subfield assignments in the O-RU capability information so that the O-DU can directly identify and map the supported assignments to the selectable profiles rather than reconstructing them from lower-level endpoint capability data.
Ahmed in view of Kuppuswamy still does not expressly disclose that the eAxC ID profile is “for configuration of at least one of cells or carriers with an operator of a communication network.” Although the combination renders obvious reporting the supported eAxC subfield assignments and mapping those assignments to selectable profiles for the reasons explained above, neither Ahmed nor Kuppuswamy expressly ties the resulting eAxC profile to cell/carrier configuration in an operator-managed communication network.
Raja, however, discloses an extended antenna-carrier identifier configuration for configuration of at least one of cells or carriers, wherein the eAxC ID comprises DU_Port_ID, BandSector_ID, CC_ID, and RU_Port_ID (Par. 6: Line 5: The eAxC ID is divided into the four identified subfields; Par. 8: BandSector_ID “represents an aggregated cell identifier”; Par. 9: CC_ID “distinguishes Component Carriers supported by the O-RU”; The subfields of the eAxC configuration identify a cell/sector and component carrier. Accordingly, the claimed “for configuration of at least one of cells or carriers” relationship is expressly supported because BandSector_ID identifies the cell/sector and CC_ID identifies the component carrier. The eAxC configuration therefore identifies/configures the endpoints associated with the relevant cell/sector and component carrier rather than merely identifying an unrelated data field),
extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments corresponding to O-RU capabilities and required configuration (Par. 11: the bit widths of the eAxC subfields are flexible, with such flexibility being necessary to support different RU capabilities including multiple carriers; Par. 31: different bitmask values may be used as per the O-RU capabilities and required configuration; Candidate eAxC subfield arrangements are tied to the capabilities of the O-RU and the particular configuration being implemented),
configuring endpoints with extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment and extended antenna-carrier identifier values (Par. 23-24: The O-RAN user-plane configuration module defines Tx and Rx endpoints at the O-DU/O-RU and each endpoint defines its own Eaxc-ID bitmask and Eaxc-ID value; Respective endpoints are configured with both an eAxC bit/subfield assignment and an eAxC ID value), and
such endpoint configuration is for one of transmitting or receiving a signal for data exchange over control signal and user data exchange planes (Pars. 5-6: The C-plane and U-plane carry control and user-data flows between O-DU and O-RU, and the configured endpoints refer to the respective data flows used on those planes; Par. 23: The Tx and Rx endpoints are configured for DL and UL use; The eAxC bitmask/value configuration identifies the endpoint/resource used for the relevant C/U-plane data flow).
Raja further confirms that the eAxC configuration occurs through the O-RAN management framework because the O-DU retrieves O-RU capabilities and sends relevant C/U-plane configuration to the O-RU over the M-plane, and the eAxC subfield bit widths and positions are provided through M-plane messaging (Pars. 5, 12), expressly places the disclosed system in a communication network operated through network-management choices: O-RAN is described as a 4G/5G mobile-network architecture, and standardized interfaces permit an operator to select vendors and establish the network (Par. 3), and that the applicable eAxC bitmask values depend upon the “required configuration” and the O-RU capabilities (Par. 31). Thus, Raja establishes that the eAxC assignment is part of the configuration of the operator-established O-RAN network and varies according to the cell/carrier and RU configuration requirements of that network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Ahmed and Kuppuswamy according to Raja so that the selectable eAxC ID profiles correspond to eAxC subfield assignments used for configuration of cells or carriers in the operator-managed O-RAN network. Raja teaches that BandSector_ID identifies a cell/sector, CC_ID identifies a component carrier, the eAxC subfield arrangement varies according to O-RU capabilities and required configuration, and Tx/Rx endpoints are configured with corresponding eAxC bitmasks and values for C/U-plane flows. The resulting combination would therefore provide the claimed cell/carrier-based, mutually supported and optimized eAxC profile selection and endpoint configuration.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, the limitations of configuring the endpoints with extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment and extended antenna-carrier identifier values for the data exchange are addressed above with respect to claim 1.
Ahmed does not disclose that the endpoint configuration is used with at least one of an open radio access network radio unit or open radio access network distributed unit processing operations.
Kuppuswamy, however, discloses using the endpoint configuration with at least one of an open radio access network radio unit or open radio access network distributed unit processing operations (Col. 18: Lines 41-50: the RU uses portions of the eAxC identifier to determine the endpoint group and RU endpoint and routes the eAxC message to the corresponding hardware processing component; Col. 41: Lines 58-67: the DU allocates eAxC messages to RU endpoints based in part on the reported capability information; thus, the eAxC configuration is used in DU allocation processing and RU message-routing/processing operations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Ahmed in view of Kuppuswamy in further view of Raja, according to Kuppuswamy so that the configured eAxC subfield assignment and values are used in O-DU and/or O-RU processing operations because Kuppuswamy teaches that doing so enables the DU to allocate eAxC traffic according to RU capabilities and enables the RU to route the traffic to the appropriate hardware processing component, thereby simplifying switching and improving processing efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of the open radio access network radio unit or open radio access network distributed unit processing operations are addressed above with respect to claim 2.
Ahmed does not disclose that the at least one of the open radio access network radio unit or open radio access network distributed unit processing operations are based on the open radio access network radio unit or open radio access network distributed unit implementation being optimized for support of selected extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments or extended antenna-carrier identifier values.
Kuppuswamy, however, discloses the open radio access network radio unit processing operation being based on the open radio access network radio unit implementation being optimized for support of selected extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments or extended antenna-carrier identifier values (Col. 6: Lines 13-20: The RU receives an eAxC identifier whose group-index assignment is based on the RU-reported capabilities and uses that assigned value to select the corresponding processing component; thus, the RU processing implementation operates according to the selected eAxC subfield assignment/value); Col. 45: Lines 63-66: The selected portions and values of the RU_Port_ID directly control routing to the hardware component configured to process the corresponding traffic; therefore, the RU implementation is specifically arranged to support and process the selected eAxC subfield assignment and values; Col. 46: Lines 14-17; The eAxC allocation is expressly used to improve RU routing and reduce switching/lookup processing; accordingly, the disclosed RU implementation is optimized for operation using the selected eAxC allocation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Ahmed in view of Kuppuswamy in view of Raja according to Kuppuswamy so that the O-RU processing implementation is optimized for the selected eAxC subfield assignments and values because Kuppuswamy teaches that such an arrangement simplifies RU switching, reduces lookup-table processing, and enables the eAxC identifier to directly route traffic to the appropriate hardware processing component.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1, Ahmed does not disclose that the capability report identifies supported assignment schemes of more than one subfield using the at least one of the open radio access network radio unit or open radio access network distributed unit processing operations.
Kuppuswamy, however, discloses supported assignment schemes of more than one subfield using the open radio access network radio unit or open radio access network distributed unit processing operations (Col. 25: Lines 64-67 and Col. 26: Lines 1-4: “the DU 804 may apply a first encoding technique in which dedicated bits are allocated to a group index and to a per-group layer/stream index” and “may apply a second encoding technique in which a bitmask may be used to indicate the group and a varying quantity of bits may be used to reference the endpoints associated with the respective group”; Multiple supported assignment schemes for assigning different portions of the RU_Port_ID are disclosed; Col. 26: Lines 6-11; “the DU 804 may use a first portion of the RU port identifier to encode the group index” and “may use a second portion of the RU port identifier to encode the per-group layer/stream index”; the first and second portions are separate assigned portions of the eAxC identifier and therefore correspond to more than one subfield assignment; Col. 26: Lines 46-49: “the eAxC allocation configuration 830 may indicate whether the DU 804 is applying the first encoding technique or the second encoding technique”; the configuration identifies which of the supported multi-subfield assignment schemes is being used; Col. 26: Lines 63-67 and Col. 27: Lines 1-3: the RU configures endpoint groups based on the eAxC allocation configuration and determines how to decode the RU port identifier; thus, the identified assignment scheme is used by the DU/RU processing operations to encode, configure, and decode the multiple assigned portions of the eAxC identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Ahmed in view of Kuppuswamy in further view of Raja according to Kuppuswamy so that the capability/configuration information identifies supported assignment schemes for more than one eAxC subfield because Kuppuswamy teaches that providing alternative multi-subfield encoding schemes allows the DU and RU to configure and process eAxC identifiers according to the RU's supported endpoint structure, thereby enabling flexible and efficient endpoint addressing and routing.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, Ahmed discloses the extended antenna-carrier identifier profile, as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but Ahmed does not disclose that the profile describes extended antenna-carrier identifier processing capabilities of at least one of the open radio access network radio unit or the open radio access network distributed unit.
Kuppuswamy, however, discloses extended antenna-carrier identifier processing capabilities of the open radio access network radio unit (Col. 2: Lines 10-18: “transmit, to a DU, capability information indicating support of endpoint groups, each endpoint group associated with a respective set of RU endpoints” and “route the eAxC message to a processing component based in part on the group index included in the eAxC message”; the RU reports supported endpoint-group capabilities and thereafter processes eAxC traffic according to the group index associated with those capabilities, thus, the capability information describes RU capabilities that govern eAxC processing; Col. 6: Lines 24-33: “allocating eAxC endpoints based on the capabilities of the RU” and “encode, based on the capability information, an endpoint group associated with an eAxC message using a first portion of an RU port identifier”; the DU determines the eAxC allocation according to the RU's reported capabilities; therefore, the disclosed capabilities directly define how the eAxC identifier is assigned and processed; Col. 30: Lines 13-17: “route the eAxC message to a processing component based on the RU endpoint of the endpoint group, the processing component configured to process eAxC messages associated with the set of characteristics”; the reported endpoint capability corresponds to the RU processing component capable of processing the associated eAxC traffic; Accordingly, when these disclosed processing capabilities are incorporated into the eAxC profile discussed above with respect to claim 1, the profile describes the RU's eAxC processing capabilities).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Ahmed in view of Kuppuswamy in further view of Raja according to Kuppuswamy so that the eAxC profile describes the O-RU's eAxC processing capabilities because Kuppuswamy teaches using the RU's reported capabilities to determine the eAxC allocation and route the resulting eAxC traffic to the appropriate processing component, thereby allowing the selected profile to reflect a configuration that the RU is capable of processing efficiently.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, Ahmed in view of Kuppuswamy in further view of Raja discloses the extended antenna-carrier identifier profile, as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but Ahmed does not disclose that the profile comprises extended antenna-carrier identifier assignments to leverage open radio access network radio unit or open radio access network distributed unit processing.
Kuppuswamy, however, discloses extended antenna-carrier identifier assignments to leverage open radio access network radio unit processing (Col. 45: Lines 54-66: “a DU may encode the RU port identifier to indicate a group index via a first portion of the RU port identifier and to indicate a per-group layer/stream index via a second portion of the RU port identifier” and the RU “routes the eAxC message to the correct hardware component for processing based on the group index”; the eAxC identifier is assigned different portions/values specifically so that the RU can determine the appropriate endpoint group and route the message to the corresponding hardware processing component; thus, the eAxC assignment is used to leverage the RU's processing architecture; Col. 6: Lines 52-55: “The aspects presented herein may enable improving RU ingress routing, for example, by simplifying switching based on an eAxC allocation policy and/or reducing costs associated with lookup table sizes and lookup table processing”; the disclosed eAxC assignment expressly improves RU routing and processing efficiency; therefore, the assignment leverages RU processing rather than merely identifying an endpoint).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Ahmed in view of Kuppuswamy in further view of Raja according to Kuppuswamy so that the eAxC profile comprises assignments that leverage O-RU processing because Kuppuswamy teaches structuring the eAxC identifier to route traffic directly to the appropriate hardware processing component, thereby simplifying switching and reducing lookup-table processing.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, Ahmed discloses the extended antenna-carrier identifier profile and O-RU capability reporting over the O-RAN management plane, as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Ahmed does not disclose causing the O-RU to report the supported extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments to inform the communication network about the supported extended antenna-carrier identifier profile.
Kuppuswamy, however, discloses the O-RU reporting supported eAxC-related capability information to the O-DU (Col. 2: Lines 10-13: “transmit, to a DU, capability information indicating support of endpoint groups, each endpoint group associated with a respective set of RU endpoints”; the O-RU reports to the DU the endpoint arrangements it supports; Col. 6: Lines 24-33: the DU “allocating eAxC endpoints based on the capabilities of the RU” and encodes an endpoint group “based on the capability information” using a first portion of the RU port identifier; thus, the reported RU capability information identifies the supported arrangement from which the corresponding eAxC subfield assignment is determined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Ahmed in view of Kuppuswamy in further view of Raja according to Kuppuswamy so that the O-RU reports eAxC-related capability information used to determine the supported eAxC assignment because Kuppuswamy teaches that reporting RU endpoint capabilities enables the O-DU to determine an eAxC allocation compatible with the RU and configure the corresponding endpoints efficiently.
Ahmed in view of Kuppuswamy still does not expressly disclose that the O-RU reports the supported extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments themselves to inform the communication network about the supported extended antenna-carrier identifier profile.
Raja, however, discloses extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments corresponding to O-RU capabilities and communicated through the O-RAN management framework (Par. 11: “The bit-width of these four subfields is flexible” and such flexibility supports different RU capabilities; Par. 12: the O-DU informs the O-RU of the “actual size and position of these four subfields” using predefined bitmasks through M-plane messaging; Par. 31: “other bitmask values may be used as per the O-RU capabilities and required configuration”; thus, Raja teaches multiple eAxC subfield assignments associated with O-RU capabilities and communicated through the M-plane configuration framework).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Ahmed and Kuppuswamy according to Raja so that the O-RU reports the supported eAxC subfield assignments over the M-plane because Raja teaches that the available eAxC subfield arrangements depend on O-RU capabilities, and reporting those supported assignments would allow the O-DU/network-management function to directly identify the supported eAxC profile and select a compatible configuration without reconstructing the assignment from lower-level capability information.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 17 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 17, the rejection of claim 2 addressed the limitations presented in claim 18. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 18 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 18, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 19. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 19 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 21 as applied to claim 17, the rejection of claim 5 addresses the limitations presented in claim 21. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 21 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 17, the rejection of claim 6 addresses the limitations presented in claim 22. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 22 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 23 as applied to claim 17, the rejection of claim 7 addresses the limitations presented in claim 23. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 23 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 26 as applied to claim 17, the rejection of claim 10 addresses the limitations presented in claim 26. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 26 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 33, the limitations directed to identifying an extended antenna-carrier identifier profile, mapping a supported extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment to the profile, selecting an optimal and mutually supported profile, and configuring endpoints with extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignment and values for control-plane and user-plane data exchange are addressed above with respect to claim 1.
Ahmed further discloses an O-RU identifying supported profiles and sending capability information over an O-RAN management plane toward the O-DU (Par. 287: “O-RU 105 shall report in its capabilities whether it can support this feature or not, i.e., the multiple delay management profiles feature”; The O-RU identifies whether it supports the profile feature; Par. 288: “If yes, O-RU 105 shall report the number of delay management profiles that it can support”; the O-RU identifies the supported profiles by reporting how many profiles it supports; Par. 290: “O-DU 115 and O-RU 105 shall exchange all the delay management parameters via M-plane for each profile”; the O-RU participates in identifying and communicating the parameters defining each supported profile over the M-plane; Par. 68: Lines 3-5: “O-RU 105 reports its capabilities to O-RU controller 125” through M-plane messaging; Par. 70: the O-RU controller may reside in O-DU 115; thus, in this embodiment the O-RU sends its capability information over the M-plane to the O-DU).
Ahmed further discloses that based on the capability/profile exchange there is selection and subsequent configuration for C-plane and U-plane operation (Par. 301: “O-RU 105 reports to O-RU controller 125, via a management-plane, window sizes that are supported by O-RU 105. O-RU controller 125 selects a window size from among the window sizes”; Supported capability information is reported and a mutually supported configuration is selected; Pars. 294-296: the O-DU indicates the selected delay management profile and the O-RU applies the selected profile to corresponding resources for C-plane, U-plane, or both; thus, the capability exchange leads to selection and use of a common configuration for data exchange).
Ahmed does not disclose that the supported profiles are extended antenna-carrier identifier profiles defined by extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments, that the capability report comprises a list of supported extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments, or that the resulting endpoint configuration uses the claimed extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments and extended antenna-carrier identifier values.
Kuppuswamy, however, discloses an O-RU sending capability information to an O-DU that is used to determine an eAxC identifier assignment supported by the O-RU (Col. 2: Lines 10-13: the RU is configured to “transmit, to a DU, capability information indicating support of endpoint groups, each endpoint group associated with a respective set of RU endpoints”; The RU sends its supported endpoint capabilities to the DU; Col. 38: Lines 10-22: The DU receives the RU capability information and “encodes, based on the capability information, an endpoint group associated with an eAxC message using a first portion of an RU port identifier” and encodes an RU endpoint using a second portion of the RU port identifier; Thus, the O-RU capability information is used to determine an eAxC subfield assignment compatible with the O-RU).
Kuppuswamy further discloses mapping the RU-supported capability to the eAxC assignment, selecting an assignment supported by the RU, and configuring corresponding eAxC endpoint values for processing (Col. 2: Lines 42-44: The DU “allocates eAxC messages to RU endpoints within respective endpoint groups based in part on the capability information”; the eAxC allocation is selected according to the RU-reported support; Col. 42: Lines 1-20: The DU transmits an “eAxC allocation configuration” to the RU, which may identify an encoding technique and mappings between endpoint groups and endpoints; Thus, the selected capability-based assignment is mapped into an eAxC configuration and corresponding endpoint values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Ahmed according to Kuppuswamy so that the O-RU-reported capability information is used to identify, map, and select an eAxC configuration supported by the O-RU because Kuppuswamy teaches that reporting RU endpoint capabilities enables the DU to select an eAxC allocation compatible with the RU and configure the resulting eAxC traffic for efficient endpoint routing and processing.
Ahmed in view of Kuppuswamy still does not expressly disclose the claimed extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield structure associated with cell/carrier configuration, including the standardized DU_PortID, BandSector_ID, CC_ID, and RU_Port_ID arrangement used for endpoint configuration.
Raja, however, discloses the extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield structure and endpoint configuration used for cell/carrier-related O-RAN communication (Par. 6: “O-RAN specifications define a 16-bit Eaxc-ID field … divided into four subfields, i.e., DU_Port_ID, BandSector_ID, Component Carrier id (CC_ID) and RU_Port_ID”; These are the eAxC subfields; Par. 8: “BandSector_ID represents an aggregated cell identifier”; Par. 9: “CC_ID distinguishes Component Carriers supported by the O-RU”; thus, the eAxC subfields correspond to cell and carrier configuration; Par. 22: Lines 6-10: the O-RAN configuration includes Tx and Rx endpoints and “Each endpoint defines its own Eaxc-ID bitmask and Eaxc-ID value”; Therefore, configuring endpoints with eAxC subfield assignments and corresponding eAxC values is taught).
Raja further discloses that the eAxC subfield arrangement is selected according to O-RU capabilities and required configuration (Par. 29: Lines 3-4: Other bitmask values may be used as per the O-RU capabilities and required configuration; thus, different eAxC subfield assignments are selected according to the capabilities of the O-RU and the configuration required by the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Ahmed and Kuppuswamy according to Raja so that the mutually supported profile corresponds to an eAxC subfield assignment used for cell/carrier endpoint configuration because Raja teaches that the standardized eAxC subfields identify cell/carrier and endpoint information and that the particular bitmask arrangement may be selected according to O-RU capabilities and required configuration, thereby providing a compatible eAxC configuration for C-plane and U-plane data exchange.
Regarding claim 34 as applied to claim 33, the rejection of claim 2 addressed the limitations presented in claim 34. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 34 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 35 as applied to claim 34, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 35. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 35 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 37 as applied to claim 33, the limitations concerning the O-RU interface sending the list of supported extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments are addressed above with respect to claim 33.
Ahmed does not disclose that the list of supported extended antenna-carrier identifier subfield assignments comprises a list of tuples comprising a DUPortID, BandSectorID, CCID, and RUPortID.
Kuppuswamy, however, discloses an extended antenna-carrier identifier comprising a DU port identifier, a band sector identifier, a component carrier identifier, and an RU port identifier (Col. 49: Lines 16-19: “the eAxC message includes a DU port identifier, a band sector identifier, a component carrier identifier, and an RU port identifier”; thus, Kuppuswamy teaches that an eAxC assignment is represented by an associated set of these four identifier fields).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to represent each supported eAxC assignment reported by the O-RU as a grouped entry containing the DU port identifier, band sector identifier, component carrier identifier, and RU port identifier because Kuppuswamy teaches that these four fields collectively define the eAxC identifier, and grouping the associated field values together would preserve the complete assignment for each supported eAxC configuration and allow the O-DU to interpret the reported assignment unambiguously.
Raja further discloses the same four eAxC subfields as the standardized structure of the eAxC identifier (Par. 6: Lines 5-6: the 16-bit Eaxc-ID “can be divided into four subfields, i.e., DU_Port_ID, BandSector_ID, Component Carrier id (CC_ID) and RU_Port_ID”; thus, Raja confirms that these four fields together constitute the complete eAxC identifier assignment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the Ahmed/Kuppuswamy combination according to Raja so that each reported supported assignment is represented as a tuple comprising DUPortID, BandSectorID, CCID, and RUPortID because Raja teaches that these four subfields collectively define the standardized eAxC identifier, making a four-field grouped representation a predictable way to communicate each complete supported assignment to the O-DU.
Regarding claim 38 as applied to claim 33, the rejection of claim 5 addresses the limitations presented in claim 38. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 38 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 40 as applied to claim 33, the rejection of claim 7 addresses the limitations presented in claim 40. Therefore, the limitations presented in claim 40 have been addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
