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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The RCE and amendment filed 10/13/2025 are entered.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Levit (US 2007/0268821) in view of Kloper (US 2019/0036737) and Hof (US 2010/0165881).
Regarding Claim 1, Levit teaches an access network system, comprising:
at least one first access network device and at least two second access network devices, wherein (Levit, Fig 1, paragraph 55, in network 20 network nodes 24 communicate with one another, in this example nodes represent label switched routers (LSR), LSRs would be considered access network devices):
at least one first unit and at least two of the second units are connected in series to form a closed loop (Levit, Fig 1, paragraph 56, ring network 28 of Fig 1 connects network nodes 24A . . . 24D, which are referred to as ring nodes);
each of the at least two second units is configured to determine a bandwidth requirement of their associated second access network devices (Levit, Paragraph 58, at least one of the ring nodes comprises a bandwidth broker (BWB) module 4, which carries out resource (e.g., bandwidth) reservation functions for the entire ring network, hence each of the other ring nodes would need to determine how much bandwidth it needs and then request this bandwidth from the BWB); and
the first unit is configured to:
obtain, from a plurality of the at least two second units, bandwidth requirements of each of the second BBU’s associated second access network device (Levit, Paragraph 58, at least one of the ring nodes comprises a bandwidth broker (BWB) module 4, which carries out resource (e.g., bandwidth) reservation functions for the entire ring network, hence the BWB would receive bandwidth requests/requirements from the other ring nodes); and
determine a bandwidth available to each of the at least two second access network devices (Levit, Paragraph 58, at least one of the ring nodes comprises a bandwidth broker (BWB) module 4, which carries out resource (e.g., bandwidth) reservation functions for the entire ring network, hence the BWB would receive bandwidth requests from the other ring nodes and then need to determine whether to fulfill those requests in full or partially).
Levit does not explicitly teach the below limitations:
wherein the first access network device comprises a first baseband unit (BBU), and the second access network devices comprises a second baseband unit (BBU);
that the “units” are baseband units (BBUs);
determine, based on the bandwidth available to each of the at least two second access network devices, a service data transmission path from at least one second access network device to the first access network device and service data between each of the at least two second access network devices on the service data transmission path, wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT;
However Kloper teaches the below limitations:
wherein the first access network device comprises a first baseband unit (BBU), and each of the at least two second access network devices comprises a second BBU (Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 2, paragraph 30, central controller includes a BBU);
that the “units” are baseband units (BBUs) (Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 2, paragraph 30, central controller includes a BBU);
wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT (Kloper, Fig 3A, paragraph 35 and 36, the central controller G is interpreted as being the baseband unit of the current invention, the BBU 201 is interpreted as being the baseband module of the current invention since the claims do not define what the baseband module is and how it's different from the baseband unit, the Ethernet 331 is interpreted as being the backplane or bus of the current invention, along with the communications within central controller G, the UL TDM switch 202 is interpreted as being the control module of the current invention, the I/O interface 204 is interpreted as being the transmission module of the current invention, the combination of the UL TDM switch (control module) and I/O interface (transmission module) are interpreted as being the UMPT of the current invention since the UMPT is the combination of the control module and transmission module);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Levit by adding the ring devices being baseband units (BBUs) as taught by Kloper. Because Levit and Kloper teach ring networks, and specifically Kloper teaches the ring devices being baseband units (BBUs) for the benefit of the analogous art of forwarding data bits between a radio head and a BBU by using TDM cells which may reduce latency relative to using Ethernet frames (Kloper, abstract).
Levit and Kloper do not explicitly teach the below limitation:
determine, based on the bandwidth available to each of the at least two second access network devices, a service data transmission path from at least one second access network device to the first access network device and service data between each of the at least two second access network devices on the service data transmission path, (wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT);
However Hof teaches the below limitation:
determine, based on the bandwidth available to each of the at least two second access network devices, a service data transmission path from at least one second access network device to the first access network device and service data between each of the at least two second access network devices on the service data transmission path, (wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT) (Hof, paragraph 23, a plurality of physical end-to-end data transmission paths are first determined with the available bandwidths for implementing the logical connection path that is to be set up);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Levit and Kloper by adding path selection based on available bandwidth as taught by Hof. Because Levit, Kloper, and Hof teach communication in a wireless network, and specifically Hof teaches path selection based on available bandwidth for the benefit of the analogous art of setting up a logic end-to-end connecting path of a selectable first bandwidth from a starting nodal point to a target nodal point in a connection-oriented packet-switched communication network (Hof, abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein:
each of the at least two second BBUs is further configured to forward service data of its associated second access network device based on the service data transmission path (Levit, Paragraph 86, one of the ring nodes is defined as master and obtains and maintains the TE-related information required for advertising all point-to-point links of the ring network, paragraph 87, the ring node that currently operates as bandwidth broker is also chosen to serve as the master for maintaining advertisement-related information, when establishing a new communication path, the master ring node approves the resource allocations in the ring for the selected path, since the master is responsible for configuring and maintaining all paths, all data would be transferred via these paths, Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 2, paragraph 30, central controller includes a BBU).
Regarding Claim 3, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein
each of the at least two second BBUs comprises a second UMPT (Kloper, Fig 3A, the second UMPT is interpreted as being UL TDM 302 of central controller I along with a transmission module that must exist since there is Ethernet communication 331 between UL TDM switch 302 of central controller I and UL TDM switch 202 of central controller G ); and
that the at least one first BBU and the at least two second BBUs are connected in series to form a closed loop comprises the first UMPT and the second UMPTs are connected in series to form a closed loop (Kloper, Fig 3A, the second UMPT is interpreted as being UL TDM 302 of central controller I along with a transmission module that must exist since there is Ethernet communication 331 between UL TDM switch 302 of central controller I and UL TDM switch 202 of central controller G).
Regarding Claim 5, Levit teaches a first unit, comprising (Levit, Fig 1, routers 24 of ring network):
At least one processor (Levit, Fig 1, paragraph 44, 46, an apparatus for use as a ring node includes a processor); and
a computer-readable non-transitory memory storing a program to be executed by the at least one processor, the program including instructions for (Levit, Fig 1, paragraph 44, 46, an apparatus for use as a ring node includes a processor, inherently the processor would execute instructions that are stored in memory):
obtaining, from a plurality of second units, bandwidth requirements of second access network devices corresponding to each of the plurality of second units (Levit, Paragraph 58, at least one of the ring nodes comprises a bandwidth broker (BWB) module 4, which carries out resource (e.g., bandwidth) reservation functions for the entire ring network, hence the BWB would receive bandwidth requests/requirements from the other ring nodes);
determining a bandwidth available to each second access network device (Levit, Paragraph 58, at least one of the ring nodes comprises a bandwidth broker (BWB) module 4, which carries out resource (e.g., bandwidth) reservation functions for the entire ring network, hence the BWB would receive bandwidth requests from the other ring nodes and then need to determine whether to fulfill those requests in full or partially);
forwarding, based on the service data transmission path, service data to at least one of the plurality of the second units through a transmission interface (Levit, Paragraph 86, one of the ring nodes is defined as master and obtains and maintains the TE-related information required for advertising all point-to-point links of the ring network, paragraph 87, the ring node that currently operates as bandwidth broker is also chosen to serve as the master for maintaining advertisement-related information, when establishing a new communication path, the master ring node approves the resource allocations in the ring for the selected path, since the master is responsible for configuring and maintaining all paths, all data would be transferred via these paths).
Levit does not explicitly teach the below limitations:
that the “units” are baseband units (BBU’s);
determining, based on the bandwidth available to each second access network device, a service data transmission path from at least one second access network device to a first access network device and service data between every two second access network devices on the data transmission path;
(forwarding, based on the service data transmission path, service data to at least one of the plurality of the second units through a transmission interface), wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT;
However Kloper teaches the below limitations:
that the “units” are baseband units (BBU’s) (Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 2, paragraph 30, central controller includes a BBU);
(forwarding, based on the service data transmission path, service data to at least one of the plurality of the second units through a transmission interface), wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT (Kloper, Fig 3A, paragraph 35 and 36, the central controller G is interpreted as being the baseband unit of the current invention, the BBU 201 is interpreted as being the baseband module of the current invention since the claims do not define what the baseband module is and how it's different from the baseband unit, the Ethernet 331 is interpreted as being the backplane or bus of the current invention, along with the communications within central controller G, the UL TDM switch 202 is interpreted as being the control module of the current invention, the I/O interface 204 is interpreted as being the transmission module of the current invention, the combination of the UL TDM switch (control module) and I/O interface (transmission module) are interpreted as being the UMPT of the current invention since the UMPT is the combination of the control module and transmission module);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Levit by adding the ring devices being baseband units (BBUs) as taught by Kloper. Because Levit and Kloper teach ring networks, and specifically Kloper teaches the ring devices being baseband units (BBUs) for the benefit of the analogous art of forwarding data bits between a radio head and a BBU by using TDM cells which may reduce latency relative to using Ethernet frames (Kloper, abstract).
Levit and Kloper do not explicitly teach the below limitation:
determining, based on the bandwidth available to each second access network device, a service data transmission path from at least one second access network device to a first access network device and service data between every two second access network devices on the data transmission path;
However Hof teaches the below limitation:
determining, based on the bandwidth available to each second access network device, a service data transmission path from at least one second access network device to a first access network device and service data between every two second access network devices on the data transmission path (Hof, paragraph 23, a plurality of physical end-to-end data transmission paths are first determined with the available bandwidths for implementing the logical connection path that is to be set up);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Levit and Kloper by adding path selection based on available bandwidth as taught by Hof. Because Levit, Kloper, and Hof teach communication in a wireless network, and specifically Hof teaches path selection based on available bandwidth for the benefit of the analogous art of setting up a logic end-to-end connecting path of a selectable first bandwidth from a starting nodal point to a target nodal point in a connection-oriented packet-switched communication network (Hof, abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein the first BBU comprises at least three transmission interfaces (Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 3A, central controllers are interpreted as being the BBUs of the current invention, as per Fig 1, using central controller A as an example, there are links (interfaces) from central controller A to central controller B, central controller C, and via stack A to central controller D).
Regarding Claim 8, Levit teaches a second unit, comprising (Levit, Fig 1, routers 24 of ring network):
At least one processor (Levit, Fig 1, paragraph 44, 46, an apparatus for use as a ring node includes a processor); and
a computer-readable non-transitory memory storing a program to be executed by the at least one processor, the program including instructions for (Levit, Fig 1, paragraph 44, 46, an apparatus for use as a ring node includes a processor, inherently the processor would execute instructions that are stored in memory):
receiving, through a first transmission interface, service data forwarded by a first unit (Levit, Paragraph 86, one of the ring nodes is defined as master and obtains and maintains the TE-related information required for advertising all point-to-point links of the ring network, paragraph 87, the ring node that currently operates as bandwidth broker is also chosen to serve as the master for maintaining advertisement-related information, when establishing a new communication path, the master ring node approves the resource allocations in the ring for the selected path, since the master is responsible for configuring and maintaining all paths, all data would be transferred via these paths); and
receiving a forwarding instruction from a first access network device (Levit, Paragraph 86, one of the ring nodes is defined as master and obtains and maintains the TE-related information required for advertising all point-to-point links of the ring network, paragraph 87, the ring node that currently operates as bandwidth broker is also chosen to serve as the master for maintaining advertisement-related information, when establishing a new communication path, the master ring node approves the resource allocations in the ring for the selected path, hence the master would inform the subordinate nodes of the paths); and
forwarding the service data to another second unit through a second transmission interface, wherein the forwarding instruction comprises a service data transmission path from the second unit to the first unit and service data between every two second access network devices on the data transmission path (Levit, Paragraph 86, one of the ring nodes is defined as master and obtains and maintains the TE-related information required for advertising all point-to-point links of the ring network, paragraph 87, the ring node that currently operates as bandwidth broker is also chosen to serve as the master for maintaining advertisement-related information, when establishing a new communication path, the master ring node approves the resource allocations in the ring for the selected path, since the master is responsible for configuring and maintaining all paths, all data would be transferred via these paths).
Levit does not explicitly teach the below limitations:
that the “units” are baseband units (BBU’s);
(forwarding the service data to another second unit through a second transmission interface, wherein the forwarding instruction comprises a service data transmission path from the second unit to the first unit and service data between every two second access network devices on the data transmission path), wherein the service data transmission path is determined based on bandwidth available to the every two second access network devices on the data transmission path, wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT;
However Kloper teaches the below limitations:
that the “units” are baseband units (BBU’s) (Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 2, paragraph 30, central controller includes a BBU);
(forwarding the service data to another second unit through a second transmission interface, wherein the forwarding instruction comprises a service data transmission path from the second unit to the first unit and service data between every two second access network devices on the data transmission path), wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT (Kloper, Fig 3A, paragraph 35 and 36, the central controller G is interpreted as being the baseband unit of the current invention, the BBU 201 is interpreted as being the baseband module of the current invention since the claims do not define what the baseband module is and how it's different from the baseband unit, the Ethernet 331 is interpreted as being the backplane or bus of the current invention, along with the communications within central controller G, the UL TDM switch 202 is interpreted as being the control module of the current invention, the I/O interface 204 is interpreted as being the transmission module of the current invention, the combination of the UL TDM switch (control module) and I/O interface (transmission module) are interpreted as being the UMPT of the current invention since the UMPT is the combination of the control module and transmission module);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Levit by adding the ring devices being baseband units (BBUs) as taught by Kloper. Because Levit and Kloper teach ring networks, and specifically Kloper teaches the ring devices being baseband units (BBUs) for the benefit of the analogous art of forwarding data bits between a radio head and a BBU by using TDM cells which may reduce latency relative to using Ethernet frames (Kloper, abstract).
Levit and Kloper do not explicitly teach the below limitation:
(forwarding the service data to another second unit through a second transmission interface, wherein the forwarding instruction comprises a service data transmission path from the second unit to the first unit and service data between every two second access network devices on the data transmission path), wherein the service data transmission path is determined based on bandwidth available to the every two second access network devices on the data transmission path, (wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT);
However Hof teaches the below limitation:
(forwarding the service data to another second unit through a second transmission interface, wherein the forwarding instruction comprises a service data transmission path from the second unit to the first unit and service data between every two second access network devices on the data transmission path), wherein the service data transmission path is determined based on bandwidth available to the every two second access network devices on the data transmission path, (wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT)
(Hof, paragraph 23, a plurality of physical end-to-end data transmission paths are first determined with the available bandwidths for implementing the logical connection path that is to be set up);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Levit and Kloper by adding path selection based on available bandwidth as taught by Hof. Because Levit, Kloper, and Hof teach communication in a wireless network, and specifically Hof teaches path selection based on available bandwidth for the benefit of the analogous art of setting up a logic end-to-end connecting path of a selectable first bandwidth from a starting nodal point to a target nodal point in a connection-oriented packet-switched communication network (Hof, abstract).
Regarding Claim 9, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein the instructions further comprise:
determining a bandwidth requirement of a second access network device corresponding to the BBU (Levit, Paragraph 58, at least one of the ring nodes comprises a bandwidth broker (BWB) module 4, which carries out resource (e.g., bandwidth) reservation functions for the entire ring network, hence each of the other ring nodes would need to determine how much bandwidth it needs and then request this bandwidth from the BWB); and
sending the bandwidth requirement to the first BBU (Levit, Paragraph 58, at least one of the ring nodes comprises a bandwidth broker (BWB) module 4, which carries out resource (e.g., bandwidth) reservation functions for the entire ring network, hence the BWB would receive bandwidth requests/requirements from the other ring nodes).
Regarding Claim 10, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein the second BBU comprises at least three transmission interfaces, and wherein the at least three transmission interfaces comprise the first transmission interface and the second transmission interface (Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 3A, central controllers are interpreted as being the BBUs of the current invention, as per Fig 1, using central controller A as an example, there are links (interfaces) from central controller A to central controller B, central controller C, and via stack A to central controller D).
Regarding Claim 11, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein at least one second access network device is connected to another second access network device (Levit, Paragraph 58, at least one of the ring nodes comprises a bandwidth broker (BWB) module 4, which carries out resource (e.g., bandwidth) reservation functions for the entire ring network).
Regarding Claim 12, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein the first BBU sends a forwarding instruction to at least one of the at least two second BBUs, where the forwarding instruction includes the service data transmission path (Levit, paragraph 87, the ring node that currently operates as bandwidth broker is also chosen to serve as the master for maintaining advertisement-related information, when establishing a new communication path, the master ring node approves the resource allocations in the ring for the selected path, Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 3A central controllers are interpreted as being the BBUs of the current invention, Hof, paragraph 55, node N1 sends a message PATH to the neighboring network node over the data link).
Regarding Claim 13, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein the first UMPT comprises a plurality of transmission interfaces (Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 3A, central controllers are interpreted as being the BBUs of the current invention, as per Fig 1, using central controller A as an example, there are links (interfaces) from central controller A to central controller B, central controller C, and via stack A to central controller D).
Regarding Claim 14, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein the plurality of transmission interfaces includes at least three transmission interfaces (Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 3A, central controllers are interpreted as being the BBUs of the current invention, as per Fig 1, using central controller A as an example, there are links (interfaces) from central controller A to central controller B, central controller C, and via stack A to central controller D).
Regarding Claim 16, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein the first BBU sends a forwarding instruction to at least one of the plurality of second BBUs, where the forwarding instruction includes the service data transmission path (Levit, paragraph 87, the ring node that currently operates as bandwidth broker is also chosen to serve as the master for maintaining advertisement-related information, when establishing a new communication path, the master ring node approves the resource allocations in the ring for the selected path, Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 3A, central controllers are interpreted as being the BBUs of the current invention, Hof, paragraph 55, node N1 sends a message PATH to the neighboring network node over the data link).
Regarding Claim 17, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein the second UMPT comprises a plurality of transmission interfaces (Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 3A, central controllers are interpreted as being the BBUs of the current invention, as per Fig 1, using central controller A as an example, there are links (interfaces) from central controller A to central controller B, central controller C, and via stack A to central controller D).
Regarding Claim 18, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein the plurality of transmission interfaces includes at least three transmission interfaces, where the at least three transmission interfaces include the first transmission interface and the second transmission interface (Kloper, Fig 1, paragraph 21, central controllers A, B, and C are physically connected together in a ring, Fig 3A, central controllers are interpreted as being the BBUs of the current invention, as per Fig 1, using central controller A as an example, there are links (interfaces) from central controller A to central controller B, central controller C, and via stack A to central controller D).
Regarding Claim 19, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein two of the three transmission interfaces are separately configured to connect to different second BBUs (Hof, paragraph 23, a plurality of physical end-to-end data transmission paths are first determined with the available bandwidths for implementing the logical connection path that is to be set up, hence each interface of each node (BBU) would be separately configured as part of different paths).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Levit (US 2007/0268821), Kloper (US 2019/0036737), and Hof (US 2010/0165881), and further in view of Li (US 2019/0313288).
Regarding Claim 4, Levit, Kloper, and Hof teach all the limitations of parent claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the first BBU is connected to an aggregation-layer network device, however Li teaches wherein the first BBU is connected to an aggregation-layer network device (Li, Paragraph 17, The FTN-AGG is respectively connected to the FTN-ACC and a BBU pool).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Levit, Kloper, and Hof by adding connection to an aggregation-layer network device as taught by Li. Because Levit, Kloper, Hof, and Li teach communication in a wireless network, and specifically Li teaches connection to an aggregation-layer network device for the benefit of the analogous art of a front-haul transportation network (FTN) (Li, paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Levit, Kloper, and Hof teach all the limitations of parent claim 5, but do not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further comprise sending the service data to an aggregation-layer network device, however Li teaches wherein the instructions further comprise sending the service data to an aggregation-layer network device (Li, Paragraph 17, The FTN-AGG is respectively connected to the FTN-ACC and a BBU pool).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Levit, Kloper, and Hof by adding connection to an aggregation-layer network device as taught by Li. Because Levit, Kloper, Hof, and Li teach communication in a wireless network, and specifically Li teaches connection to an aggregation-layer network device for the benefit of the analogous art of a front-haul transportation network (FTN) (Li, paragraph 2).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Levit (US 2007/0268821), Kloper (US 2019/0036737), and Hof (US 2010/0165881), and further in view of Sulzberger (US 2005/0152695).
Regarding Claim 15, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein two of the at least three transmission interfaces are separately configured to connect different second BBUs (Hof, paragraph 23, a plurality of physical end-to-end data transmission paths are first determined with the available bandwidths for implementing the logical connection path that is to be set up, hence each interface of each node (BBU) would be separately configured as part of different paths);
Levit, Kloper and Hof do not explicitly teach the below limitation:
(wherein two of the at least three transmission interfaces are separately configured to connect different second BBUs), and the remaining transmission interface of the at least three transmission interfaces is used as a backup;
However Sulzberger teaches the below limitation:
(wherein two of the at least three transmission interfaces are separately configured to connect different second BBUs), and the remaining transmission interface of the at least three transmission interfaces is used as a backup (Sulzberger, For redundancy purpose, the baseband unit has two redundant ports P1 and P2, hence one of the transmission interfaces of Kloper may be redundant);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Levit, Kloper, and Hof by adding a backup / redundant transmission interface as taught by Sulzberger. Because Levit, Kloper, Hof, and Sulzberger teach communication in a wireless network, and specifically Sulzberger teaches a backup / redundant transmission interface for the benefit of the analogous art of a radio base station with multiple radio frequency heads for use in a cellular radio network (Sulzberger, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Levit, Kloper, and Hof further teach wherein two of the three transmission interfaces are separately configured to connect a second BBU and another first BBU (Hof, paragraph 23, a plurality of physical end-to-end data transmission paths are first determined with the available bandwidths for implementing the logical connection path that is to be set up, hence each interface of each node (BBU) would be separately configured as part of different paths).
Levit, Kloper, and Hof do not explicitly teach the below limitation:
(wherein two of the three transmission interfaces are separately configured to connect a second BBU and another first BBU), and the remaining transmission interface of the at least three transmission interfaces is used as a backup;
However Sulzberger teaches the below limitation:
(wherein two of the three transmission interfaces are separately configured to connect a second BBU and another first BBU), and the remaining transmission interface of the at least three transmission interfaces is used as a backup (Sulzberger, For redundancy purpose, the baseband unit has two redundant ports P1 and P2, hence one of the transmission interfaces of Kloper may be redundant);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Levit, Kloper, and Hof by adding a backup / redundant transmission interface as taught by Sulzberger. Because Levit, Kloper, Hof, and Sulzberger teach communication in a wireless network, and specifically Sulzberger teaches a backup / redundant transmission interface for the benefit of the analogous art of a radio base station with multiple radio frequency heads for use in a cellular radio network (Sulzberger, paragraph 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are respectfully not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the below limitation:
wherein the first BBU comprises a first universal main processing and transmission unit (UMPT), the first UMPT comprised of a control module and a transmission module that are each connected to a baseband module through a backplane that is outside the first UMPT;
However, as per the updated rejection, Kloper does teach the above limitation. In Kloper (Fig 3A, paragraph 35 and 36), the central controller G is interpreted as being the baseband unit of the current invention, the BBU 201 is interpreted as being the baseband module of the current invention since the claims do not define what the baseband module is and how it's different from the baseband unit, the Ethernet 331 is interpreted as being the backplane or bus of the current invention, along with the communications within central controller G, the UL TDM switch 202 is interpreted as being the control module of the current invention, the I/O interface 204 is interpreted as being the transmission module of the current invention, the combination of the UL TDM switch (control module) and I/O interface (transmission module) are interpreted as being the UMPT of the current invention since the UMPT is the combination of the control module and transmission module
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAD N DEFAUW whose telephone number is (571)272-6905. The examiner can normally be reached the first Wednesday or Thursday of the bi-week 9 am – 5 pm, or the second Monday or Tuesday of the bi-week 9 am – 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Jiang can be reached on (571) 270-7191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.N.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412