DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 4/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 4/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikberg et al. (US 2021/0282202) in view of Mladin et al. (US 2024/0121172).
Regarding claim 1, Vikberg discloses an apparatus comprising:
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to: based on receiving the trigger, instantiate one or more converged network functions that perform combined operations in the CN and the RAN, wherein the combined operations relate to at least one of policy management, session management, or user plane management (Vikberg integrates a CN user-plane function (UPF) and a RAN user-plane function (CU-UP) into one network node, the CRC-UPF. That node performs combined user-plane operation across CN and RAN; [0024] “Hence, in aspects of the invention, a network node referred to herein as a Combined RAN and CN User Plane Function (CRC-UPF) is introduced in which UPF functionality and CU-UP functionality are integrated. Hence, the CRC-UPF hosts the SDAP protocol and the user plane part of the PDCP protocol”, [0063] “the UPF functionality and CU-UP functionality is integrated within the CRC-UPF 228. Hence, the CRC-UPF 228 hosts the SDAP protocol and the user plane part of the PDCP protocol”, [0066] “Advantageously, with the CRC-UPF 228 user plane latency as well as number of signaling interfaces in the network is reduced. Further, the CRC-UPF 228 advantageously also enables removal of the user plane tunnel between 5GC and NG-RAN as the N3 interface becomes an internal interface in the CRC-UPF 228”); and
update one or more network elements with configuration information corresponding to the instantiated converged network functions for processing user session traffic (Vikberg sends UPF configuration from the SMF and CU-UP configuration from the CU-CP into the selected CRC-UPF so that user-session (PDU session) traffic is processed by the combined function; [0073] “The CRC-UPF 228 will thus, in step S211, configure the UPF functionality based on the configuration data contained in the transparent data container prepared at the SMF 222 and configure the CU-UP functionality based on the configuration data prepared at the CU-CP 225”).
However the prior art does not teach a transceiver configured to receive, from a service provider, a trigger to initiate convergence of network functions across a radio access network (RAN) and a core network (CN);
Mladin in the field of the same endeavor discloses techniques for registration, discovery, instantiation, scaling and reconfiguration of services for network functions virtualization on a core network. In particular, Mladin teaches the following:
a transceiver configured to receive, from a service provider, a trigger to initiate convergence of network functions across a radio access network (RAN) and a core network (CN) (Mladin discloses an application server/SCS (a service provider relative to the mobile network) sends a request that triggers instantiation of network functions, and that operators use information/actions from the AS to trigger service instantiation; [0239] “NF instantiation provides the ability to instantiate, i.e., spawn, NFs and expose this functionality to entities such as a SCS/AS. In one embodiment ‘a’ as shown in FIG. 13, the request for NF instantiation is initiated by a SCS/AS and sent to the SCEF (steps a0-2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the prior art with the teaching of Mladin. One would have been motivated because the application that needs the low latency combined RAN-CN user plane can trigger bringing that function up rather than waiting for RAN or SMF session setup alone.
Regarding claim 2, Vikberg-Mladin discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to update the one or more network elements with the configuration information, the processor is further configured to cause the transceiver to transmit, to at least one other apparatus operating in one of the CN or the RAN, a policy update including an indication of a convergence method, the convergence method including at least one of:
combining at least network function performed by the CN and at least one network function performed by the RAN into a single network function (Vikberg combines the CN UPF and the RAN CU-UP into one NF, the CRC-UPF and sends that combined function configuration to another node in the RAN (the CRC-UPF/CU-CP) and the CN (AMF/SMF); [0063] “the UPF functionality and CU-UP functionality is integrated within the CRC-UPF 228. Hence, the CRC-UPF 228 hosts the SDAP protocol and the user plane part of the PDCP protocol”);
co-locating at least network function performed by the CN and at least one network function performed by the RAN in a same network function virtualization infrastructure (NFVI) domain; and
relocating at least network function performed by the CN or the RAN from a present NFVI domain of the network function performed by the CN or the RAN to a different NFVI domain.
Regarding claim 3, Vikberg-Mladin discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trigger includes signaling indicating at least one of:
enablement of the one or more converged network functions (Vikberg; [0094-0095] “FIG. 8 shows a signalling diagram illustrating transmittal of indications from the CU-CP 228 that the CRC-UPF 228—and thus the functionality provided by the CRC-UPF 228—is provided in the 5G communication network 200 according to an embodiment. This indication is an important trigger for the SMF 222 to become aware as to whether the CRC-UPF 228 controlled by NG-RAN is supported or not”);
a convergence method for the one or more converged network functions; and
one or more relocation conditions for a network function performed by the CN or the RAN.
Regarding claim 4, Vikberg-Mladin discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the trigger is based on at least one of:
a determination that an end-to-end latency across the CN and the RAN exceeds a latency requirement of an application session (Vikberg teaches that keeping CN UPF and RAN CU-UP separater forces each user plane PDU across both functions and the transport between them and that this creats unnecessary user plane latency across the CN and the RAN. The CRC UPF exists to remove that latency. That is the latency determination underlying use of the converged function; [0058] “The separation does however include user plane efficiency aspects as each user plane PDU needs to traverse through both 5GC UPF 112 and NG-RAN CU-UP 126 functions, and a possible transport network between these functions. This creates unnecessary user plane latency”); and
a determination that a throughput requirement for the application session exceeds an end-to-end throughput capability across the CN and the RAN.
Regarding claim(s) 11-14, do(es) not teach or further define over the limitation in claim(s) 1-4 respectively. Therefore claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim(s) 1-4 respectively.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikberg et al. (US 2021/0282202) in view of Mladin et al. (US 2024/0121172) in view of Armenta et al. (US 2025/0008427).
Regarding claim 5, Vikberg-Mladin discloses the invention substantially, however the prior art does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the trigger is based on an energy optimization objective associated with one or more network functions; and
the one or more converged network functions are instantiated to optimize energy usage across the CN and the RAN.
Armenta in the field of the same endeavor discloses techniques for scaling energy consumption in wireless network infrastructure, while retaining the ability to quickly scale when load changes. In particular, Armeta teaches the following:
the trigger is based on an energy optimization objective associated with one or more network functions (Armenta [0009] “One or more Network Functions (NFs) are implemented as one or more software applications housed within one or more containers executing on one or more virtualized hosts. The containers are selectively activated or deactivated based on a demand for utilization of the one or more NFs”); and
the one or more converged network functions are instantiated to optimize energy usage across the CN and the RAN (Armenta [0046] “With multihoming, pods 170 can be enabled and disabled on demand as the processing load on a Network Function 160 increases or decreases, with minimal need to reconfigure communication interfaces with new addresses. This has the end goal of reducing static power consumption without compromising responsiveness, efficiency or performance”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the prior art with the teaching of Armenta. One would have been motivated because apply Vikberg’s CRC UPF would have used Armenta’s energy saving activate/deactivate rules so the combined RAN CN user-plane function is instantiated only when needed, cutting statis power in the core and at the RAN facing UP path instead of leaving extra UPF and CU-UP instance always on.
Regarding claim(s) 15, do(es) not teach or further define over the limitation in claim(s) 5 respectively. Therefore claim(s) 15 is/are rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim(s) 5 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, claims 1-20 have been rejected and remain pending.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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, Chris Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JIMMY H TRAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/JIMMY H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights