Detail Action
The present application is in response to the communication filed on 09/16/2025.
Notice of 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 received 11/28/2022 has been considered.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (Publication No. US 2022/0070091), the prior art discloses a software defined network (SDN) controller including a plurality of openflow edge switches connected to the RRH device via Ethernet; see ¶ 12.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 USC § 101
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant remarks, filed on 09/16/2025, traverse the Examiner's argument that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim scope covers software per se thereby causing the subject matter of the claim to be non-statutory. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the most of the arguments presented in the remarks are addressing the step 2A/step 2B of the 101-analysis (see remarks page 9-28), while the rejection under 35 USC § 101 is based on step 1 of the 101-analysis (see remarks page 9). The step 1 of 101-analysis determines whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Examiner found that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim scope covers software per se thereby causing the subject matter of the claim to be non-statutory; see MPEP §2106.03. This interpretation is determined from all the elements of the claim including at least one embodiment where they are only software and/or software functionality. Examiner suggest to amend the claim by incorporating physical components (e.g. processor and/or memory) associated with the claim elements (e.g. base station, ethernet switch, or controller) in order to overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Rejections Under 35 USC § 103
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Applicant remarks, filed on 09/16/2025, argues that the cited portion of the prior art, individually or in combination, fails to discloses the features in claim 1. In specific, Applicant argues the Cui reference does not teach any Ethernet switch; see remarks page 35-36. Examiner agrees with Applicant that the cited portion of the prior art failed to disclose that the switch is an ethernet switch. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Testa et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0163342). The new grounds of rejection recite the switch is and ethernet switch; see ¶ 0043.
In addition, Applicant argues Chen reference, this does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination with the teachings of Cui, configuration for Ethernet switch(es) determined based on destination information and topology information; see remarks page 35-36. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that topology information have been interpreted as any information describing the association between the different entities of the network. Therefore, topology information is described by the prior art as the eNBs to BBUs mapping configuration; see Cui figure 6 numeral 206 & ¶ 0028. Cui fails to disclose that reconfiguration of the mapping between the eNBs to BBUs takes into account a time period information and destination information. However, Chen discloses that the SDN controller receive the results of the analytics from the orchestrator, wherein the results of the analytics comprise destination and specified period of time, and the SDN controller use the results of the analytics to enables new path entries [topology information] into all the SDN switches; see ¶ 0031. Therefore, the combination of Chen and Cui discloses the reconfiguration of the mapping [topology] between the eNBs to BBUs taking into account a time period information and destination information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. the § 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. the § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 1, the claimed system is rejected as being directed towards a non-statutory category. The claimed system comprises the following elements: one or more base station entities, which includes software only embodiments (see spec. ¶¶22, 25-26), one or more ethernet switches, which include software only embodiments (see spec. ¶38), and at least one controller, which include at least one software only embodiment (see spec. ¶37). For example, the base station entity is partitioned into a CU, DU, and RU, wherein the DU is implemented as a software virtualized entity, and wherein the CU-UP is implemented as software virtualized entities; see spec ¶¶22, 25-26. Since all of the required elements include at least one embodiment where they are only software and/or software functionality, the system includes software only embodiments. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim scope covers software per se thereby causing the subject matter of the claim to be non-statutory; see MPEP §2106.03.
Regarding Claim 2-11, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved these deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to the parent claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 AIA 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 1-2, 4, 11-13, and 15-16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0077006, hereinafter referred as Cui) in view of Chen et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0092209, hereinafter referred as Chen), and further in view of Testa et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0163342, hereinafter referred as Testa).
Regarding claim 1 and 12, Cui discloses one or more base station entities (A plurality of Baseband units (BBUs); see figure 1.),
wherein each base station entity of the one or more base station entities is configured to implement at least some functions for one or more layers of a wireless interface used to communicate with user equipment (The BBU dynamically allocates [function] resources to adapt capacity during peak usage; see Figure 1 & ¶ 0017.);
one or more switches communicatively coupled to the one or more base station entities (The plurality of BBUs are connected to the switch, and wherein the switch is also connected to a plurality of eNodeBs (eNBs); see figure 1 & 0017.),
wherein the one or more switches are configured to receive downlink fronthaul data from the one or more base station entities, wherein the one or more switches are configured to be communicatively coupled to one or more radio units (RUs) and to forward downlink fronthaul data from the one or more base station entities to the one or more RU (The switch interconnects the individuals BBUs [base station entities] to the individual eNBs [RUs]; see figure 1 & ¶ 0018. The switch comprises a control plane and a forwarding plane; wherein the control plane feeds information to the forwarding plane to create forwarding tables for routing of data to/from the BBUs and the eNBs; see figure 2 numeral 12/30 & ¶ 0022.);
at least one controller communicatively coupled to the one or more base station entities and the one or more switches, wherein the at least one controller is configured to (The switch control plane is managed by a controller which effects the operations of the switch; see figure 2 numeral 33 & ¶ 0021.):
receive first information and second information for a first time period from the one or more base station entities (The switch makes the decision whether a fault has been detected by means of code violations [first information], sync header violations [second information], or a lost connection to a given BBU card/port from the BBU cluster [base station entities]; see figure 6 numeral 204 & ¶ 0028.);
determine a configuration of the one or more switches for the first time period based on the second information and topology information for the one or more Ethernet switches and RUs (When a fault is detected based on the sync header violations [second information], the controller trigger the algorithm to rerun and cause an eNBs [RUs] to BBUs [base station entities] mapping [topology] re-configuration on the switch; see figure 6 numeral 206 & ¶ 0028. The switch control plane tables are configured to provide the network topology of the connections between the BBUs and the eNBs; see figure 6 numeral 202 & ¶ 0028.); and
transmit one or more updates for forwarding rules to the one or more switches based on the determined configuration of the one or more switches (The controller dynamically re-configures [updates] the switch forwarding table based on the algorithm rerun; see figure 6 numeral 208 & ¶ 0028.).
Cui fails to discloses that the first information comprises the time period information and second information comprises destination information. However, in analogous art, Chen discloses that the SDN controller receive the results of the analytics from the orchestrator, wherein the results of the analytics comprise destination and specified period of time; see ¶ 0031. The SDN controller use the results of the analytics to enables new path entries into all the SDN switches; see ¶ 0031. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui SDN system with the analytics engine of Chen in order to optimize the application throughput by identifying which traffic from an application needs to be separated into different network paths; see ¶ 0031.
Cui fails to discloses that the switch is an ethernet switch. However, in analogous art, Testa discloses that a DU switch connected to a plurality of DU, wherein the DU may alternatively be termed Baseband Unit (BBU) [base station entities]; and a plurality of RRU switches are each connected to a cluster of RRUs; and a cross-connect node connects the DU switch to the plurality of RRU switches, wherein the cross connect node is a switch; see figure 5 & ¶ 0165. Furthermore, the switch is and ethernet switch; see ¶ 0043. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui with the switching mechanism in order to enable a switch architecture to support fronthaul transport network; see ¶ 0001.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Cui discloses that the at least one controller is configured to store destination information and/or forwarding rules for a previous time period in a memory (The switch comprises a control plane and a forwarding plane; wherein the control plane feeds information to the forwarding plane to create forwarding tables [destination information] for routing of data to/from the BBUs and the eNBs; see figure 2 numeral 12/30 & ¶ 0022.).
Regarding claim 4 and 15, Cui fails to discloses that the one or more base station entities includes a distributed unit, wherein the distributed unit is configured to determine the time period information and the destination information for the first time period. However, in analogous art, Chen discloses that the SDN controller receive the results of the analytics from the orchestrator [DU], wherein the results of the analytics comprise destination and specified period of time; see ¶ 0031. The SDN controller use the results of the analytics to enables new path entries into all the SDN switches; see ¶ 0031. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui SDN system with the analytics engine of Chen in order to optimize the application throughput by identifying which traffic from an application needs to be separated into different network paths; see ¶ 0031.
Regarding claim 11, Cui discloses that the system includes a scalable cloud environment configured to implement the one or more Ethernet switches and/or the at least one controller (Assist mobile operators in deploying cloud-based radio access networks (cloud-base RAN or CRAN) by increasing the overall reliability and availability of the CRAN; see ¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 16, Cui fails to discloses that the one or more RUs includes a plurality of RUs, wherein the one or more Ethernet switches include: at least one aggregation Ethernet switch communicatively coupled to the one or more base station entities; and a plurality of access Ethernet switches communicatively coupled to the at least one aggregation Ethernet switch, wherein each access Ethernet switch of the plurality of access Ethernet switches is communicatively coupled to one or more RUs of the plurality of RUs. However, in analogous art, Testa discloses a DU switch connected to a plurality of DU, wherein the DU may alternatively be termed Baseband Unit (BBU) [base station entities]; and a plurality of RRU switches are each connected to a cluster of RRUs; and a cross-connect node connects the DU switch to the plurality of RRU switches, wherein the cross connect node is a switch; see figure 5 & ¶ 0165. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui with the switching mechanism in order to enable a switch architecture to support fronthaul transport network; see ¶ 0001.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui, Chen, Testa, and further in view of Lange et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0341970, hereinafter referred as Lange).
Regarding claim 6, Cui discloses that the one or more RUs, wherein each RU of the one or more RUs is communicatively coupled to the one or more base station entities via the one or more Ethernet switches (The plurality of BBUs [base station entities] are connected to the switch, and wherein the switch is also connected to a plurality of eNBs [RU]; see figure 1 & 0017.),
Cui fails to discloses that each RU of the one or more RUs is associated with a respective set of one or more antennas via which downlink radio frequency signals are radiated to at least some of the user equipment and via which uplink radio frequency signals transmitted by at least some of the user equipment are received. However, in analogous art, Lange discloses a radio access network (RAN) system comprising a baseband unit (BBU), a plurality of remote radio units (RRU); see figure 1 & abstract. Each remote radio unit is configured to receive the downlink fronthaul data and generate therefrom at least one downlink radio frequency signal for wireless communication to user equipment (UE) via an associated at least one antenna; see figure 1 & abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui SDN system with the RRU functions of Lange in order to use existing ethernet infrastructure to distribute DAS traffic; see ¶ 0002-0003.
Regarding claim 7, Cui fails to discloses that the one or more RUs includes a plurality of RUs, wherein the one or more Ethernet switches include: at least one aggregation Ethernet switch communicatively coupled to the one or more base station entities and the at least one controller; and a plurality of access Ethernet switches communicatively coupled to the at least one aggregation Ethernet switch, wherein each access Ethernet switch of the plurality of access Ethernet switches is communicatively coupled to at least one of RU of the plurality of RUs. However, in analogous art, Testa discloses a DU switch connected to a plurality of DU, wherein the DU may alternatively be termed Baseband Unit (BBU) [base station entities]; and a plurality of RRU switches are each connected to a cluster of RRUs; and a cross-connect node connects the DU switch to the plurality of RRU switches, wherein the cross connect node is a switch; see figure 5 & ¶ 0165. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui with the switching mechanism in order to enable a switch architecture to support fronthaul transport network; see ¶ 0001.
Claims 8-10 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui, Chen, Testa, and further in view of Lai et al. (Publication No. US 2018/r0367431, hereinafter referred as Lai).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Cui fails to discloses that determine whether the first time period has passed; in response to a determination that the first time period has passed, forward downlink fronthaul data according to default settings; and in response to a determination that the first time period has not passed, forward downlink fronthaul data as indicated by the one or more updates for forwarding rules for the first time period. However, in analogous art, Lai discloses SDN controller receive a time point when a default amount of routing information is updated into the heavy network flow table; see ¶ 0039. According to the heavy network flow table, the SDN controller may update the corresponding routing rules to the SDN switches; see ¶ 0031. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui SDN system with the time point mechanism in order to flow diverting flow for the network packets based on the flow-amount evaluation; see ¶ 0039.
Regarding claim 9, Cui discloses that the default settings include broadcasting the downlink fronthaul data to Ethernet switches or RUs communicatively coupled to the respective Ethernet switch of the one or more Ethernet switches (The switch interconnects the individuals BBUs [base station entities] to the individual eNBs [RUs]; see figure 1 & ¶ 0018.).
Regarding claim 10, Cui discloses that the default settings include multicasting the downlink fronthaul data to less than all Ethernet switches or RUs communicatively coupled to the respective Ethernet switch of the one or more Ethernet switches (The switch interconnects the individuals BBUs [base station entities] to the individual eNBs [RUs]; see figure 1 & ¶ 0018.).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui, Chen, Testa, Lai, and further in view of Heo et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0260714, hereinafter referred as Heo).
Regarding claim 18, Cui discloses that the forwarding downlink fronthaul data to the one or more RUs according to default settings includes sending downlink fronthaul data from a first Ethernet switch of the one or more Ethernet switches to all RUs communicatively coupled to the first Ethernet switch of the one or more Ethernet switches (The switch interconnects the individuals BBUs [base station entities] to the individual eNBs [RUs]; see figure 1 & ¶ 0018.).
Cui fails to discloses that the forwarding is based on broadcasting the data. However, in analogous art, Heo discloses SDN switches may include propagating the generated block using either a broadcast technique or a multicast technique; see ¶ 0165. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui SDN system with the broadcasting mechanism Heo of in order to facilitate the propagation of the data to multiple destinations; see ¶ 0001.
Regarding claim 19, Cui discloses that forwarding downlink fronthaul data to the one or more RUs according to default settings includes forwarding the downlink fronthaul data from a first Ethernet switch of the one or more Ethernet switches to less than all Rus communicatively coupled to the first Ethernet switch of the one or more Ethernet switches (The switch interconnects the individuals BBUs [base station entities] to the individual eNBs [RUs]; see figure 1 & ¶ 0018.).
Cui fails to discloses that the forwarding is based on multicasting the data. However, in analogous art, Heo discloses SDN switches may include propagating the generated block using either a broadcast technique or a multicast technique; see ¶ 0165. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui SDN system with the broadcasting mechanism Heo of in order to facilitate the propagation of the data to multiple destinations; see ¶ 0001.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HECTOR REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472