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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 06/06/2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, and 13-14 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/06/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 06/06/2025 is acknowledged and is approved, therefore the Double Patenting issue is resolved.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_9998310_B2_Barbieri in view of US_20190174561_A1_Sivavakeesar.
Regarding claim 1, Barbieri discloses a method for providing Radio Access Network (RAN) dynamic functional splits (Barbieri column 46, line(s) 15-20, “FIG. 21 is a diagram showing different possible partitioning options for embodiments of a distributed RAN. Different functional splits between BBU and RRU may be considered, that is, specific functions of the protocol stack 2100 may be carried out by either the BBU or RRU depending on the design…”), comprising: determining, for a RAN (Barbieri column 44, line(s) 59-62, “…optimizing user selection and PDCCH candidates (which both control the CCEs). Similarly, the PUSCH scheduler may try to minimize the number of non-consecutive blocks of non-empty REs”), a first split of different functionalities between a central Unit (CU) and a Distributed Unit (DU) (Barbieri column 46, line(s) 61 - column 47, line(s) 8, and figure 2), the functionalities including at least a plurality of a Radio Resource Controller (RRC), a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP), a Radio Link Control (RLC) (Barbieri column 46, line(s) 35-39, “the split of functions between RRU and BBU may be static, that is, functional split has to be designed in advance and RRU and BBU may have to be equipped with special modules to support specific functions”, and column 10, line(s) 57-64, “…The RAN stack functions 470 may include other functionality, such as layers corresponding to a network layer, a transport layer, and/or a session layer. Continuing to use the E-UTRAN as an example, the RAN stack functions module 470 may also include one or more of the radio link control (RLC) layer, the packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layer, and the radio resources control (RRC) layer”); a Medium Access control (MAC), a Physical Layer (PHY), or a Radio Frequency Unit (RF) (Barbieri column 42, line(s) 3-9); and the splits based on at least one factor including user count (Barbieri column 44, line(s) 36-40, “…The one or more parameters of the RAN include frequency-domain allocation size, modulation and coding schemes, number of users, number of grants, pattern of usable subframes, anticipation of the scheduling with respect to the time index…”), fronthaul capacity, fronthaul usage, required baseband processing capacity (Barbieri column 44, line(s) 28-33, “The indicator of fronthaul link quality may be determined based, at least in part, on a latency of the fronthaul link, a bandwidth of the fronthaul link, errors on the fronthaul link, undelivered packets on the fronthaul link, out-of-order packets on the fronthaul link, BBU buffer overruns, BBU buffer underruns, or any combination thereof”), and latency (Barbieri column 42, line(s) 56-59).
But does not explicitly disclose dynamically providing a second split, different than the first split, of the different functionalities.
Sivavakeesar discloses dynamically providing a second split, different than the first split, of the different functionalities (Sivavakeesar paragraph 34, “… and wherein the controller of the distributed unit and the controller of the central unit are configured to reconfigure dynamically the functional split between the lower layer functionality provided by the distributed unit and the higher layer functionality provided by the central unit from a first of the possible functional splits to a second of the possible functional splits”, paragraphs 45, 272. And paragraphs 209-224).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Sivavakeesar’s reconfigure dynamically the functional split between the lower layer functionality provided by the distributed unit and the higher layer functionality provided by the central unit from a first of the possible functional splits to a second of the possible functional splits in Barbieri’s system to adjust the splitting based on system need. This method for improving the system of Barbieri was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Sivavakeesar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Barbieri and Sivavakeesar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein the RLC comprises a high RLC and a low RLC (Sivavakeesar paragraph 214).
Regarding claim 4, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 1, and Barbieri further discloses wherein the PHY comprises a low PHY and a high PHY (Barbieri column 9, line(s) 63 - column 10, line(s) 3).
Regarding claim 5, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein the first split comprises the CU including the RRC; and the DU including the PDCP, RLC, MAC, PHY and RF (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 209-210, option 1).
Regarding claim 6, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein the second split comprises the CU including the RRC and the PDCP; and the DU including the, RLC, MAC, PHY and RF (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 211-212, option 2).
Regarding claim 7, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 2, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein the second split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP and high RLC; and the DU including the low RLC, MAC, PHY and RF (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 213-214, option 3).
Regarding claim 8, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein the second split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP and RLC; and the DU including the MAC, PHY and RF (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 215-216, option 4).
Regarding claim 9, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 3, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein the second split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC and high MAC; and the DU including the low MAC, PHY and RF (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 217-218, option 5).
Regarding claim 10, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein the second split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC and MAC; and the DU including the PHY and RF (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 219-220, option 6).
Regarding claim 11, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 4, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein the second split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC, MAC and high PHY; and the DU including the low PHY and RF (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 231-232, option 7).
Regarding claim 12, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein the second split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC, MAC and PHY; and the DU including the RF (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 223-224, option 8).
Regarding claim 13, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions (Barbieri column 59, line(s) 21-58).
Regarding claim 15, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 11.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_9998310_B2_Barbieri in view of US_20190174561_A1_Sivavakeesar WO_2018031057_A1_Chou.
Regarding claim 3, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the MAC comprises a low MAC and a high MAC.
Chou discloses wherein the MAC comprises a low MAC and a high MAC (Chou paragraph 22).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Chou’s divide a base station into 9 functional blocks in Barbieri and Sivavakeesar’s system for moving RAN network functions between the central unit and the distribution unit (Chow paragraph 24). This method for improving the system of Barbieri and Sivavakeesar was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chou. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Barbieri, Sivavakeesar and Chou to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim(s) 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_9998310_B2_Barbieriin view of US_20190174561_A1_Sivavakeesar and US_10237908_B2_Cao.
Regarding claim 14, Barbieri and Sivavakeesar disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1, but do not disclose a converged wireless system (CWS); a HetNet Gateway (HNG) in communication with the CWS.
Cao discloses a converged wireless system (CWS) (Cao abstract, column 11, line(s) 4-57); a HetNet Gateway (HNG) in communication with the CWS (Cao column 11, line(s) 10 – column 12 line(s) 6).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Cao’s the network including Parallel Wireless CWS and Parallel Wireless HNG in Barbieri and Sivavakeesar’s system to provide 3G configuration and control for the network nodes (Cao column 11 line(s) 58 – column 12 line(s) 6). This method for improving the system of Barbieri and Sivavakeesar was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Cao. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Barbieri, Sivavakeesar and Cao to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, Barbieri, Sivavakeesar and Cao disclose the system of claim 14, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein a first split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC, MAC and PHY; and the DU including the RF (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 223-224, option 8).
Regarding claim 19, Barbieri, Sivavakeesar and Cao disclose the system of claim 14, and Barbieri further discloses wherein the PHY comprises a low PHY and a high PHY (Barbieri column 9, line(s) 63 - column 10, line(s) 3).
Regarding claim 20, Barbieri, Sivavakeesar and Cao disclose the system of claim 19, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein a first split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC, MAC and high PHY; and the DU including the low PHY and RF (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 231-232, option 7).
Conclusion
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 WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471