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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 30, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4,6-7 and 9-21 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103.
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 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, 6-13, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAMNJANOVIC et al. (US 20230254702 A1) in view of Eklund et al. (US 20220400385 A1).
Regarding claim 1, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches a Radio Access Network (RAN) system configured to provide shared access to a plurality of mobile network operators (MNOs) (Paragraph 70, 137, These passages teach a RAN architecture in which multiple MNO-specific network elements share common radio infrastructure (RUs), thereby providing shared access across multiple MNOs), the system comprising: a plurality of distributed units comprising: one or more donor distributed units, wherein each donor distributed unit is associated with its own mobile network operator (Paragraph 70, 137, These passages teach multiple DUs each associated with a respective MNO, corresponding to donor distributed units tied to different operators), wherein each donor distributed unit is configured to transmit data to and receive data from a centralized unit of the mobile network operator associated with the donor distributed unit (Paragraph 59, 70, These passages teach bidirectional communication between each DU and its corresponding CU, matching transmission and reception with the operator’s centralized unit), wherein the scheduler distributed unit is configured to receive traffic comprising a plurality of data transmissions from one or more donor distributed units (Paragraph 69, 70, These passages teach multiple DUs generating traffic toward shared radio resources, showing aggregation of transmissions from multiple donor DUs in the shared DU–RU interaction context), determine an intended end user recipient device associated with each of the plurality of data transmissions (Paragraph 130, This passage teaches scheduling decisions mapping transmissions to specific UEs, corresponding to determining intended recipients for transmissions), and transmit the data associated with each of the plurality of data transmissions to a respective one of the one or more radio units associated with the intended end user recipient computing device for transmission to the one or more intended end user computing devices (Paragraph 59, 88, These passages teach DU-originated data being forwarded through RUs to specific UEs, corresponding to routing transmissions to appropriate radio units for delivery), and wherein the scheduler distributed unit is configured to receive data from the one or more radio units, determine an MNO associated with the received data, and transmit the received data to a donor distributed unit of the one or more donor distributed units based on the determined MNO associated with the data received from the one or more radio units (Paragraph 70, 85, 88, 144–145, These passages teach uplink data being received at the RU and forwarded to a specific DU associated with an MNO, with allocation decisions based on MNO, corresponding to determining operator association and routing data to the appropriate donor DU).
DAMNJANOVIC et al. does not explicitly teach a scheduler distributed unit communicatively coupled to each of the one or more donor distributed units; and one or more radio units configured to communicate with one or more end user computing devices, wherein the scheduler distributed unit is linked to the one or more radio units via a fronthaul network and communicatively positioned between the one or more radio units and the one or more donor distributed units.
However, Eklund et al. teaches a scheduler distributed unit communicatively coupled to each of the one or more donor distributed units (Paragraph 108, 137, These passages disclose DU-level scheduler functionality operating in connection with multiple slice DUs under shared infrastructure control); and one or more radio units configured to communicate with one or more end user computing devices, wherein the scheduler distributed unit is linked to the one or more radio units via a fronthaul network (Paragraph 96, 98, 133, These passages disclose that DU-level functionality is connected to the RU via a fronthaul network and that fronthaul processing occurs between DU and RU) and communicatively positioned between the one or more radio units and the one or more donor distributed units (Paragraph 133–135, These passages disclose a fronthaul spectrum mixer positioned in the communication path between multiple DUs and a shared RU, receiving DU traffic before RU transmission and demultiplexing traffic received from the RU back to the corresponding DU slice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a scheduler distributed unit communicatively coupled to each of the one or more donor distributed units; and one or more radio units configured to communicate with one or more end user computing devices, wherein the scheduler distributed unit is linked to the one or more radio units via a fronthaul network and communicatively positioned between the one or more radio units and the one or more donor distributed units as taught by Eklund et al. in the system of DAMNJANOVIC et al., so that it would enable centralized scheduling and efficient routing of traffic between multiple operator-specific distributed units and shared radio units within a multi-operator RAN architecture while maintaining proper delivery of data to the intended user devices.
Regarding claim 2, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches the scheduler distributed unit is configured to control a frequency band at which the one or more radio units are configured to wirelessly communicate with the one or more end user devices (Page 8, Paragraph 70-71, The DU (serving as the scheduler distributed unit) requests specific frequency resources from the RU, effectively controlling which frequency the RU uses to communicate with UEs); and wherein the distributed units control the frequency band at which the one or more radio units are configured to control the frequency band by transmitting one or more physical resource blocks of a plurality of physical resource blocks to the radio units (Page 8, Paragraph 71, 72, Page 10, Paragraph 86, The DU controls which PRBs (physical resource blocks) are used by requesting allocations. The RU uses these PRBs to transmit to UEs, satisfying the claim's requirement that distributed units control frequency via PRBs sent to radio units).
Regarding claim 3, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches the scheduler distributed unit selects the physical resource block to the send to the radio units (Page 10, Paragraph 81, 85-86, Page 13-14, Paragraph 130, While RUs perform RF transmission, the DU initiates the resource request and handles scheduling coordination, including selecting time/frequency (e.g., physical resource blocks). BRI allows interpreting the DU as selecting RBs for transmission) based on a determined identity of the MNO associated with the donor DU from which data is received from (Paragraph 67, 71, 85, 101, The system includes identification of MNO association with each DU (MNO1, MNO2, etc.). The RU or scheduling logic selects physical resources based on the DU's MNO identity and associated "consideration" (a form of priority or identity-linked decision metric)).
Regarding claim 4, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches the donor distributed units are configured to handle data transmissions at the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer of a 5G wireless protocol (Paragraph 62-63, The passage explicitly states that the distributed unit (DU) hosts the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer, and since the DU is part of the 5G disaggregated base station architecture, this fully teaches that donor distributed units are configured to handle MAC layer data transmissions in a 5G wireless protocol).
Regarding claim 6, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches transmit the data to the determined radio unit comprises assigning or more physical resource blocks of a plurality of physical resource blocks to the radio units based on the MNO associated with the received traffic (Paragraph 75, 78-79, the passages explicitly describe a system in which an RU allocates PRBs (e.g., subchannels or frequency slots) based on MNO association, fulfilling the functional requirement of transmitting data to a determined RU by PRB assignment).
Regarding claim 7, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches the scheduler distributed unit is configured to perform High-PHY layer processing (Paragraph 62, The passage explicitly states that the DU 230 may host one or more high PHY layers, including modules such as FEC encoding/decoding, scrambling, modulation, and demodulation. These are canonical examples of High-PHY processing).
Regarding claim 9, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches the scheduler DU is configured to perform upper-PHY layer processing on the received data (Paragraph 62, This passage explicitly states that the DU (Distributed Unit) may host high physical (PHY) layers, including FEC encoding/decoding, scrambling, modulation/demodulation, which fall under the scope of upper-PHY layer processing under BRI. Since the DU is configured to host and perform these functions, it meets the requirement of being “configured to perform upper-PHY layer processing on the received data”).
Regarding claim 10, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches the scheduler DU is configured to combine the received data from the one or more radio units into a PHY layer frame (Paragraph 62-63, The claim part is fully taught under BRI. Paragraphs [0062] and [0063] describe the DU performing high PHY layer functions and managing real-time communication with RUs. From these capabilities, it logically follows that the DU can combine data received from RUs into PHY layer frames).
Regarding claim 11, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches the scheduler DU is configured to perform low MAC processing on the PHY frame (Paragraph 62, This teaches that the DU performs MAC layer functions, which under BRI includes low MAC processing on PHY frames).
Regarding claim 12, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches the distributed unit associated with the determined MNO (Paragraph 62, 70, These quotations identify a distributed unit (DU) as a logical base station component and clarify that the DU is associated with a particular MNO) is configured to perform high medium access control (MAC) processing (Paragraph 62, This teaches that the DU performs MAC layer processing. Because the MAC layer is described as part of the DU’s hosted functions, and under BRI "high MAC processing" reasonably includes the typical MAC-layer tasks performed in a DU (e.g., scheduling, HARQ, multiplexing), this passage fully teaches the DU being configured to perform high MAC processing).
Regarding claim 13, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches the distributed unit associated with the determined MNO (Paragraph 70, This establishes that each DU is associated with a specific MNO. Under BRI, this satisfies the “distributed unit associated with the determined MNO”) is configured to perform radio link control (RLC) processing (Paragraph 62, This directly states that the DU is configured to perform RLC processing, fully teaching the functional aspect of the claim).
Regarding claim 22, DAMNJANOVIC et al. teaches a connection between each donor distributed unit and the centralized unit of the mobile network operator associated with the donor distributed unit comprises a midhaul network, and wherein the centralized unit is communicatively coupled to a core network via a backhaul network (Paragraph 59, 70, 127, These passages teach DUs connected to their associated CU via midhaul links and the CU communicating with the core network via backhaul links).
Claims 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAMNJANOVIC et al. (US 20230254702 A1) in view of Eklund et al. (US 20220400385 A1) in further view of Garcia (US 20240373312 A1).
Regarding claim 14, DAMNJANOVIC et al. does not explicitly teach one or more donor distributed units are implemented as Integrated Access Backhaul Protection Proxy (IAB-PP) distributed units.
However, Garcia teaches one or more donor distributed units are implemented as Integrated Access Backhaul Protection Proxy (IAB-PP) distributed units (Paragraph 146, 147, 151, 160, These passages show that the donor DU manages IAB connections, routes, and mobility-aware parameters—core functions of an IAB-PP unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one or more donor distributed units are implemented as Integrated Access Backhaul Protection Proxy (IAB-PP) distributed units as taught by Garcia in the combined system of DAMNJANOVIC et al. and Eklund et al., so that it would enable efficient management of IAB connections, routing, and mobility-aware parameters using established IAB-PP functionality.
Regarding claim 15, DAMNJANOVIC et al. does not explicitly teach the IAB-PP distributed unit is communicatively coupled to a donor centralized unit associated with its MNO using a wireless connection.
However, Garcia teaches the IAB-PP distributed unit is communicatively coupled to a donor centralized unit associated with its MNO using a wireless connection (Paragraph 146, 147, 177, 198, 202, The cited passages collectively teach that a mobile base station, acting as an IAB-PP distributed unit, is wirelessly connected to a donor centralized unit (gNB-CU) operated by the same MNO, enabling data transfer and coordination. The mobile base station connects via wireless backhaul to the donor unit ([0146], [0177]), receives and caches data ([0198], [0202]), and participates in IAB architectures ([0146], [0147]), thereby satisfying the claimed communicative coupling between the IAB-PP DU and the donor CU associated with its MNO over a wireless link).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the IAB-PP distributed unit is communicatively coupled to a donor centralized unit associated with its MNO using a wireless connection as taught by Garcia in the combined system of DAMNJANOVIC et al. and Eklund et al., so that it would enable flexible deployment of IAB-PP nodes without reliance on wired infrastructure while maintaining coordinated operation within the same MNO’s network.
Regarding claim 16, DAMNJANOVIC et al. does not explicitly teach the IAB-PP is configured to wirelessly communicate with an IAB gateway device that is connected to the donor centralized unit associated with its MNO.
However, Garcia teaches the IAB-PP is configured to wirelessly communicate with an IAB gateway device (Paragraph 64, 146, The mobile access device 30 (IAB-PP) wirelessly connects to donor device 20 (IAB gateway), satisfying this part) that is connected to the donor centralized unit associated with its MNO (Paragraph 62, 146, 79, Donor access device 20 (IAB gateway) connects to the core network (centralized unit), which is operated by the MNO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the IAB-PP is configured to wirelessly communicate with an IAB gateway device that is connected to the donor centralized unit associated with its MNO as taught by Garcia in the combined system of DAMNJANOVIC et al. and Eklund et al., so that it would enable seamless integration of mobile access devices into the MNO-operated core network through established IAB gateway links, improving network scalability and deployment flexibility.
Regarding claim 17, DAMNJANOVIC et al. does not explicitly teach the IAB gateway device is configured to determine whether the data from the IAB-PP is safe for transmission to the donor centralized unit.
However, Garcia teaches the IAB gateway device is configured to determine whether the data from the IAB-PP is safe for transmission to the donor centralized unit. (Paragraph 226, 228, 229, These passages collectively teach that the macro base station (i.e., donor centralized unit) determines whether and when data transfer from the mobile base station (which under BRI includes an IAB-PP or IAB-node) should proceed based on various factors including location, throughput, and velocity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the IAB gateway device is configured to determine whether the data from the IAB-PP is safe for transmission to the donor centralized unit as taught by Garcia in the combined system of DAMNJANOVIC et al. and Eklund et al., so that it would enable intelligent control of data transmission based on network conditions such as location, throughput, and mobility, thereby optimizing resource utilization and ensuring reliable communication.
Regarding claim 18, DAMNJANOVIC et al. does not explicitly teach the one or more donor distributed units are implemented as F1 Protection Proxy (FI-PP) distributed units.
However, Garcia teaches the one or more donor distributed units are implemented as F1 Protection Proxy (FI-PP) distributed units (Paragraph 148, 149, 157, 158, 163, 164, These passages collectively describe a donor gNB-CU and its interaction with DUs (including mobile ones) where the F1 interface is preserved, reactivated, or protected during mobility events such as handovers, IAB parent migration, or DU reattachment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the one or more donor distributed units are implemented as F1 Protection Proxy (FI-PP) distributed units as taught by Garcia in the combined system of DAMNJANOVIC et al. and Eklund et al., so that it would preserve or protect the F1 interface during mobility events such as handovers or DU reattachment to ensure seamless connectivity and service continuity.
Regarding claim 19, DAMNJANOVIC et al. does not explicitly teach the F1-PP distributed unit is communicatively coupled to a donor centralized unit associated with its MNO using a wired connection.
However, Garcia teaches the F1-PP distributed unit is communicatively coupled to a donor centralized unit associated with its MNO using a wired connection (Paragraph 146, 148, 164, 149, The passage fully teaches the claim under BRI. The F1 interface between a DU and CU is known in the art (and per 3GPP standards referenced) to be a wired link, and the cited passages demonstrate persistent F1 connections between a mobile DU (F1-PP distributed unit) and a donor CU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the F1-PP distributed unit is communicatively coupled to a donor centralized unit associated with its MNO using a wired connection as taught by Garcia in the combined system of DAMNJANOVIC et al. and Eklund et al., so that it would ensure reliable and standardized high-throughput communication between the distributed and centralized units in accordance with established 3GPP F1 interface protocols.
Regarding claim 20, DAMNJANOVIC et al. does not explicitly teach the F1-PP is configured to communicate with a F1 gateway device that is connected to the donor centralized unit associated with its MNO.
However, Garcia teaches the F1-PP is configured to communicate with a F1 gateway device that is connected to the donor centralized unit associated with its MNO (Paragraph 146-148, 154, The cited paragraphs explain how the F1 interface is maintained between a mobile DU and a centralized unit (gNB-CU), including support for communication parameter setup, dynamic routing, and mobility handling—fully supporting the claimed communication configuration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the F1-PP is configured to communicate with a F1 gateway device that is connected to the donor centralized unit associated with its MNO as taught by Garcia in the combined system of DAMNJANOVIC et al. and Eklund et al., so that it would enable seamless communication and dynamic routing between distributed and centralized units across multiple MNOs using standardized F1 interface protocols.
Regarding claim 21, DAMNJANOVIC et al. does not explicitly teach the F1 gateway device is configured to determine whether the data from the F1-PP is safe for transmission to the donor centralized unit.
However, Garcia teaches the F1 gateway device is configured to determine whether the data from the F1-PP is safe for transmission to the donor centralized unit (Paragraph 201, 202, 206, 211, 215, The cited passages teach that the mobile base station (acting as an F1-PP) caches data and only transmits it to the UE when the communication link is suitable, based on mobility patterns and connection quality, thereby implying that a gateway-like function (i.e., F1 gateway) determines whether the data is safe for transmission to the donor centralized unit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the F1 gateway device is configured to determine whether the data from the F1-PP is safe for transmission to the donor centralized unit as taught by Garcia in the combined system of DAMNJANOVIC et al. and Eklund et al., so that it would ensure data is only forwarded when the communication conditions are appropriate, thereby improving transmission reliability and reducing unnecessary network load.
Allowable Subject Matter
The applicant could strengthen the claim by incorporating concepts directed to the hybrid private/public 5G architecture enabled through midhaul gateway functionality, such as specifying that the donor distributed units are implemented as F1-Protection Proxy (F1-PP) or Integrated Access Backhaul Protection Proxy (IAB-PP) distributed units configured to securely support public MNO traffic over a private 5G RAN while maintaining isolation and security requirements of both networks. The claim could further recite that the scheduler distributed unit controls allocation of physical resource blocks (PRBs) of the private 5G RAN and dynamically assigns PRBs to radio units based on the identity of the MNO associated with received traffic, thereby enabling MORAN or MOCN operation over shared spectrum resources. Additional concepts that could be added include that the scheduler distributed unit performs specific protocol stack functions, such as High-PHY and upper-PHY processing, combining uplink data into PHY layer frames, performing low-MAC processing, and routing traffic to donor distributed units that perform high-MAC and RLC processing, thereby defining a functional split across layers. The claim could also incorporate that the donor distributed units communicate with their associated centralized units through an MNO gateway (e.g., F1-gateway or IAB-gateway) configured to validate or protect traffic before forwarding it to the MNO core network, including embodiments where the connection is wireless (IAB) or wired (F1). Finally, the applicant could emphasize that the system enables simultaneous support of enterprise private 5G traffic and multiple public MNO traffic streams using shared radio infrastructure, with the scheduler distributed unit determining both intended end-user device and associated MNO to enforce traffic segregation and secure hybrid network operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Phan et al. (US 20250274773 A1)
Ibrahim et al. (US 20230318767 A1)
Sevindik (US 20230354349 A1)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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.
/ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/IQBAL ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464