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 04/06/2026.
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 NON-FINAL.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/06/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the words “and the DU including the RLC, MAC and PHY, and RF modules” should be changed to “and the DU including the RLC, MAC, PHY, and RF modules”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20190174561_A1_Sivavakeesar in view of US_20190089447_A1_Sang.
Regarding claim 1, Sivavakeesar teaches A method for providing Radio Access Network (RAN) dynamic functional splits (Sivavakeesar figure 17, paragraph 34, “…the controller of the distributed unit and the controller of the central unit are configured to reconfigure dynamically the functional split…”), comprising: determining, for a first Radio Access Technology (RAT), a first split of different functionalities between a central Unit (CU) and a Distributed Unit (DU), the functionalities including at least a first plurality of a Radio Resource Controller (RRC) module, a Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) module, a Radio Link Control (RLC) module, a Medium Access control (MAC) module, a Physical Layer (PHY) module, or a Radio Frequency Unit (RF) module (Sivavakeesar figure 16, steps S1704-S1708, and paragraphs 209-224); and dynamically providing a third split of the different functionalities for either the first RAT or a second RAT at a later time (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”, paragraph 107, “…reconfiguring the functional split between the distributed unit 5-2a and the central unit 5-2b”. Also read paragraphs 11,45, 209-224, 272. Reconfiguration happens after the originally configuration. The reconfigured split is corresponding to the claimed “third split”) based on at least one factor including user count, fronthaul capacity, fronthaul usage, required baseband processing capacity, or latency (Sivavakeesar paragraph, paragraphs 231-232, “This decision will typically take account of prevailing channel conditions, load conditions and/or quality of service requirements… When a decision on the optimum functional split has been made, the central unit 5-2b provides an indication of the functional split to the distributed unit 5-2a at S1705 and the distributed and central units configure (or reconfigure) the functional split for that UE 3, tenant ID and/or slice at S1706”, and paragraph 8 (“…QoS/QoE requirements (e.g. high bandwidth and/or low latency)”),
But does not teach determining, for a second RAT, a second split of different functionalities between the CU and the DU, the functionalities including at least a second plurality of the RRC module, the PDCP module, the RLC module, the MAC module, the PHY module, or the RF module.
Sang from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: determining, for a second RAT, a second split of different functionalities between the CU and the DU, the functionalities including at least a second plurality of the RRC module, the PDCP module, the RLC module, the MAC module, the PHY module, or the RF module (Sang figure 5, paragraph 151, “…The NG-RAN Node 124B includes, within its DU, both a ng-eNB 126B and a gNB 128A. This allows the NG-RAN Node 124B to provide both LTE and NR connections to an ED 52”, The DU 126B is for LTE, and the DU 128A is for NR; paragraph 128, “CU: central unit, normally hosting L3 radio resource control (RRC) or packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) layers”, and paragraph 133, “… A DU may host radio link control (RLC), and/or Medium Access Control (MAC), and/or a physical layer (PHY), etc”. Also read figure 4, and paragraph 149).
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 Sang into Sivavakeesar, since Sivavakeesar suggests a technique for Splitting the RAN into CU and DUs, and Sang suggests the beneficial way of a first DU is for LTE, and a second DU is for NR so that the NG-RAN Node can provide the LTE and NR connections to the EDs (Sang paragraphs 151) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 2, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the RLC module comprises a high RLC module and a low RLC module (Sivavakeesar paragraph 214).
Regarding claim 3, Barbieri, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further discloses wherein the MAC module comprises a low MAC module and a high MAC module (Sivavakeesar paragraph 218, “According to the Option 5 functional split, functions of the RRC, PDCP, RLC and higher MAC layers are in the central unit. Functions of the lower MAC layers (e.g. Hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)), the physical layer and RF are in the distributed unit”).
Regarding claim 4, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the PHY module comprises a low PHY module and a high PHY module (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 221-222, option 7, “… (an upper) part of the Physical layer… (a lower) part of the physical layer…”).
Regarding claim 5, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the first split comprises the CU including the RRC module; and the DU including the PDCP, RLC, MAC, PHY and RF modules (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 209-210, option 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the first split comprises the CU including the RRC and the PDCP modules; and the DU including the, RLC, MAC, PHY and RF modules (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 211-212, option 2).
Regarding claim 7, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the method of claim 2, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the first split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP and high RLC modules; and the DU including the low RLC, MAC, PHY and RF modules (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 213-214, option 3).
Regarding claim 8, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the first split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP and RLC modulefs; and the DU including the MAC, PHY and RF modules (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 215-216, option 4).
Regarding claim 9, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the method of claim 3, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the first split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC and high MAC moduless; and the DU including the low MAC, PHY and RF modules (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 217-218, option 5).
Regarding claim 10, Sivavakeesar and Sang disclose the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the third split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC and MAC modules; and the DU including the PHY and RF modules (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 219-220, option 6).
Regarding claim 11, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the method of claim 4, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the third split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC, MAC and high PHY modules; and the DU including the low PHY and RF modules (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 221-222, option 7).
Regarding claim 12, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the method of claim 1, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the third split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC, MAC and PHY modules; and the DU including the RF modules (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 223-224, option 8).
Regarding claim 13, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions (Sivavakeesar paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 15, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the limitations as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the limitations as set forth in claim 11.
Claim(s) 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20190174561_A1_Sivavakeesar in view of US_20190089447_A1_Sang and US_20170273134_A1_Cao (hereinafter, “Cao-34”).
Regarding claim 14, Sivavakeesar and Sang teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1, but do not disclose a converged wireless system (CWS); a HetNet Gateway (HNG), and a Virtual Radio Unit (VRU) coupled to the CWS and the HNG.
Cao-34 from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: a converged wireless system (CWS) (Cao-34 figure 16, paragraph 121, CWS); a HetNet Gateway (HNG) (Cao-34 figure 16, paragraph 121, HNG), and a base station can be a Virtual Radio Unit (VRU) coupled to the CWS and the HNG (Cao-34 figure 16, paragraph 121, the virtual access network BTSs in the CWS groups).
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-34 into Sivavakeesar and Sang, since Sivavakeesar and Sang suggest a technique for the functions and the nodes may be virtualized within a network (Sang paragraph 148), and Cao-34 suggests the beneficial way of the combined system is a cloud-based network orchestration system that maximizes virtualization, and functions in a 3GPP standards-based Heterogeneous Network (HetNet) thus bring 3G, Wi-Fi and 4G operators better technology at lower cost (Cao-34 paragraphs paragraph 32) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 18, Sivavakeesar, Sang and Cao-34 teach the system of claim 14, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the third split comprises the CU including the RRC and PDCP modules, and the DU including the RLC, MAC and PHY, and RF modules (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 211-212, option 2).
Regarding claim 19, Sivavakeesar, Sang and Cao-34 teach the system of claim 14, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the PHY module comprises a low PHY module and a high PHY module (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 221-222, option 7, “… (an upper) part of the Physical layer… (a lower) part of the physical layer…”).
Regarding claim 20, Sivavakeesar, Sang and Cao-34 teach the system of claim 19, and Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein a third split comprises the CU including the RRC, PDCP, RLC, MAC and high PHY modules; and the DU including the low PHY and RF modules (Sivavakeesar paragraphs 221-222, option 7).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights