DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to claims filed on 04/17/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending for evaluation.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 10 are amended; Claims 1-18 remain pending for evaluation. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 01/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 7-8 of Applicant Remarks that, in substance, Park does not address the transmission periodicity of messages themselves in Claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP §2111.
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Applicant’s arguments in Sections I-III are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with the scope of Claim 1. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Claim 1 does not require a separate message-level periodicity field, an express statement that the claimed messages are transmitted according to a transmission schedule independent from the resource configuration information carried by the messages, and does not exclude messages that convey periodicity information for different periodic resources. Rather, Claim 1 broadly recites that the first section type 9 message and the first section type 8 message are “transmitted with different periodicities.” Park Para. [0415] teaches messages comprising resource configuration parameters of periodic resources, where the resource configuration parameters include periodicity information for the periodic resources.
Thus, as the claim is presently written, Park’s disclosure reasonably corresponds to multiple messages conveying information for different periodic resources having different periodicities. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection.
Moreover, even if Claim 1 were interpreted or later amended to require the first section type 8 message and first section type 9 message themselves to be periodically transmitted with different time periods, the general concept of transmitting different messages or different message types according to different periods is/was known in the art. For example, Geng et al. (US 20190327665) in Para. [0206] teaches different SIBS having different scheduling periods, such as SIB3, SIB4, and SIB5 having a scheduling period of 160 ms and SIB6, SIB7, and SIB8 having a scheduling period of 320 ms. Ryu et al. (US 20200367213) in Para. [0213, 0217] teaches that SIB-A and SIB-B may be transmitted at different periods/frequency resource location and with different transmission bandwidths. Lee et al. (US 20100015969) Para. [0060] also teaches that SIBs may be periodically broadcast in each different cycle according to requirements for each SIB. Thus, the cited but not relied upon art further confirms that periodically transmitting different control/signaling messages using different periods was a known concept in the art.
In response to applicant’s argument in Section IV of Applicant Remarks on pgs. 8-9, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ahmed teaches an O-RAN/fronthaul signaling framework in which messages are exchanged between network nodes and include numerology/resource-related information. Rajagopal teaches using channel information for beamforming in a fronthaul/cloud RAN system. Also, Park teaches resource configuration parameters for periodic resources, including periodicity information for those resources. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to provide an O-RAN/fronthaul signaling method in which channel information is communicated for beamforming, numerology/resource-related information is communicated for configuring radio resources, and periodic resource-configuration information is included to account for the timing characteristics of periodic resources. The combination applies known fronthaul signaling, beamforming, and periodic resource-configuration techniques according to their established functions to achieve the result of flexible and efficient control signaling for wireless resources.
In response to applicant's argument in Section V of Applicant Remarks on pg. 9, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's argument in Section VI of Applicant Remarks on pg. 9, that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument in Section VII of Applicant Remarks on pg. 9, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In conclusion, the system of Ahmed/Rajagopal/Park teaches Claim 1, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is upheld.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent Claim(s) 10 and the dependent claims are substantively the same as those set forth for Claim 1. Accordingly, the same reasoning and supporting explanation provided for Claim 1 are equally applicable to Claim(s) 10 and the dependent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (US 2019/0254047, previously presented), Ahmed hereinafter, in view of Rajagopal (US 2019/0289497, previously presented), and further in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0368205, previously presented), Park hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Ahmed teaches an operation method of a first communication node in a communication system supporting an open-radio access network (0-RAN) fronthaul interface, the operation method comprising (Fig. 11; Paras. [0337-0417]):
transmitting a first section type 9 message and a first section type 8 message, wherein the first section type 9 message includes channel information of each of one or more second communication nodes and first numerology related information (Table 1; Fig. 11, element 10; Para. [0339] - In contrast to the licensed spectrum, where the RU may continuously send data or reference signals OTA, in the unlicensed spectrum, the RU can only send discontinuous bursts of data (of length MCOT) or periodic DRS signals. In an embodiment, as shown in FIG. 11, a “LBT_DL_CONFIG.request” message 10 is sent once prior to each OTA transmission on the LAA SCell. This includes both DRS and PDSCH (i.e., MCOT burst) transmissions. For every LBT_DL_CONFIG.request message 10, the RU replies with the “LBT_DL.indication” message 12 that includes the LBT outcome; Para. [0349-0363] - [0349] Common Header Fields [0350] dataDirection (data direction (gNB Tx/Rx)) field: 1 bit [0351] payloadVersion (payload version) field: 3 bits [0352] value=“1” shall be set (1.sup.st protocol version for payload and time reference format) [0353] filterIndex (filter index) field: 4 bits [0354] frameId (frame identifier) field: 8 bits [0355] subframeId (subframe identifier) field: 4 bits [0356] slotID (slot identifier) field: 6 bits [0357] startSymbolId (start symbol identifier) field: 6 bits [0358] numberOfsections (number of sections) field: 8 bits [0359] sectionType (section type) field: 8 bits [0360] value=“7” shall be set [0361] reserved (reserved for future use) field: 8 bits [0362] Section Fields [0363] sectionId (section ID) field: 16 bits),
The examiner interprets the PRACH and mixed-numerology channels in Table 1 as channel information and numerology related information.
the first section type 8 message includes the first numerology related information, the first numerology related information includes frame structure information and frequency offset information (Table 1; Fig. 11, element 10; Para. [0339]; Para. [0349-0363] - [0349] Common Header Fields [0350] dataDirection (data direction (gNB Tx/Rx)) field: 1 bit [0351] payloadVersion (payload version) field: 3 bits [0352] value=“1” shall be set (1.sup.st protocol version for payload and time reference format) [0353] filterIndex (filter index) field: 4 bits [0354] frameId (frame identifier) field: 8 bits [0355] subframeId (subframe identifier) field: 4 bits [0356] slotID (slot identifier) field: 6 bits [0357] startSymbolId (start symbol identifier) field: 6 bits [0358] numberOfsections (number of sections) field: 8 bits [0359] sectionType (section type) field: 8 bits [0360] value=“7” shall be set [0361] reserved (reserved for future use) field: 8 bits [0362] Section Fields [0363] sectionId (section ID) field: 16 bits).
The examiner interprets the PRACH and mixed-numerology channels in Table 1 as frequency offset information.
The examiner interprets the Common Header Fields in Paras. [0350-0363] as frame structure.
Yet, Ahmed does not expressly teach the channel information is used for a beamforming operation.
However, Rajagopal teaches
the channel information is used for a beamforming operation (Para. [0127] - In another embodiment, described is a system and a method to support a layer-based fronthaul interface between BBU 103 and RU 105 for common reference signal based modes (e.g.: TM1, TM2, TM3 and TM4) modes using a section type separation to distinguish common reference signal based modes with UE specific reference signal based modes (e.g.: TM1, TM7, TM8, TM9 and TM10). The RU 105 is configured to understand that the interpretation of the beamforming index needs to be different in different transmission modes; i.e. if a beamforming index is transmitted in TM7-10, it uses one of a plurality of beam weights that pre-computed and stored in the RU 105. If beamforming index is transmitted in TM1, TM2, TM3 and TM4, the RU 105 is configured to re-interpret the beamforming index as a precoder index, and can follow 3GPP defined precoding calculations as described in 3GPPTS 213 ETSI TS 136 213 V13.0.0 (2016 May). Thus, the transmission mode used per UE are communicated in this case; See also Paras. [0124, 0128-0133, 0156, 0180, 0184, 0186])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ahmed’s invention of “embodiments of a system, method, and devices for LTE operation in the unlicensed bands” (Ahmed Para. [0010]) with Rajagopal’s invention of “systems, methods, and interfaces for optimization of the fronthaul interface bandwidth for Radio Access Networks and Cloud Radio Access Networks” (Rajagopal §Abstract) because Rajagopal’s invention provides “embodiments of a system and a method for a physical layer functional split between the CU and the RUs that maximizes the efficiency of the transport and allows the flexibility to support many of the features required for virtualization and commercialization” (Rajagopal Para. [0012]) of open and cloud RAN technology.
Yet, Ahmed nor Rajagopal explicitly teach the first section type 9 message and the first section type 8 message are transmitted with different periodicities.
However, Park teaches
the first section type 9 message and the first section type 8 message are transmitted with different periodicities (Fig. 51,steps 5110 and 5130; Para. [0415] - FIG. 51 is an example flow diagram as per an aspect of an embodiment of the present disclosure. At 5110, a base station central unit may transmit, to a first wireless device and via a base station distributed unit, a first message comprising first resource configuration parameters of periodic resources. The first resource configuration parameters may comprise a periodicity of the periodic resources. The first resource configuration parameters may comprise a first demodulation reference signal. At 5120, the base station central unit may receive, from the base station distributed unit, a second message comprising utilization information of the periodic resources. At 5130, the base station central unit may transmit, to a second wireless device and via the base station distributed unit, a third message based on the utilization information. The third message may comprise second resource configuration parameters of the periodic resources. The second resource configuration parameters may comprise the periodicity of the periodic resources. The second resource configuration parameters may comprise a second demodulation reference signal; See also Para. [0213, 0235, 0237, 0243, 0296, 0327, 0329, 0332, 0334, 0336, 0339, 0343, 0347, 0353, 0356, 0358, 0382, 0423]).
Examiner’s Note: Park teaches that different configuration messages are transmitted according to different update behaviors, where a first message conveying periodic resource configuration parameters is transmitted with a first periodicity and subsequent messages conveying utilization-based updates are transmitted at a different periodicity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first section type 9 message and the first section type 8 message are transmitted with different periodicities as taught by Park, in the combined system of Ahmed/Rajagopal, so that it would provide methods such that different control signaling may be configured with different periodicities and that periodicity of one type of signaling may be separated from the periodicity of another type of signaling depending on system conditions (Park Para. [0327]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ahmed teaches a first communication node in a communication system supporting an open- radio access network (0-RAN) fronthaul interface, comprising: (Fig. 1, elements 104; Para. [0200-0203; 0642]):
a processor, wherein the processor causes the first communication node to (Para. [0642]):
transmit a first section type 9 message and a first section type 8 message, wherein the first section type 9 message includes channel information of each of one or more second communication nodes and first numerology related information (Table 1; Fig. 11, element 10; Para. [0339]),
the first section type 8 message includes the first numerology related information, the first numerology related information includes frame structure information and frequency offset information (Table 1; Fig. 11, element 10; Para. [0339]; Para. [0349-0363]).
Yet, Ahmed does not expressly teach the channel information is used for a beamforming operation.
However, Rajagopal teaches
the channel information is used for a beamforming operation (Para. [0127]; See also Paras. [0124, 0128-0133, 0156, 0180, 0184, 0186])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ahmed’s invention of “embodiments of a system, method, and devices for LTE operation in the unlicensed bands” (Ahmed Para. [0010]) with Rajagopal’s invention of “systems, methods, and interfaces for optimization of the fronthaul interface bandwidth for Radio Access Networks and Cloud Radio Access Networks” (Rajagopal §Abstract) because Rajagopal’s invention provides “embodiments of a system and a method for a physical layer functional split between the CU and the RUs that maximizes the efficiency of the transport and allows the flexibility to support many of the features required for virtualization and commercialization” (Rajagopal Para. [0012]) of open and cloud RAN technology.
Yet, Ahmed nor Rajagopal explicitly teach the first section type 9 message and the first section type 8 message are transmitted with different periodicities.
However, Park teaches
the first section type 9 message and the first section type 8 message are transmitted with different periodicities (Fig. 51,steps 5110 and 5130; Para. [0415]; See also Para. [0213, 0235, 0237, 0243, 0296, 0327, 0329, 0332, 0334, 0336, 0339, 0343, 0347, 0353, 0356, 0358, 0382, 0423]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first section type 9 message and the first section type 8 message are transmitted with different periodicities as taught by Park, in the combined system of Ahmed/Rajagopal, so that it would provide methods such that different control signaling may be configured with different periodicities and that periodicity of one type of signaling may be separated from the periodicity of another type of signaling depending on system conditions (Park Para. [0327]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Ahmed in view of Rajagopal and Park teach Claims 1 and 10.
Ahmed further teaches
wherein each of the first section type 9 message and the first section type 8 message includes further cyclic prefix (CP) length information (Paras. [0516-0517] - [0516] Normal CP [0517] As will be appreciated parameters are not required to be integer number of OFDM symbols. This is assumed only for simplicity).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Ahmed in view of Rajagopal and Park teach Claims 1 and 10.
Ahmed further teaches
transmit/transmitting a second section type 9 message and a second section type 8 message, wherein the second section type 9 message includes channel information of each of one or more third communication nodes and second numerology-related information, and the second section type 8 message includes the second numerology- related information (Paragraph [0347], Table 1; Fig. 11, element 10; Para. [0339]; Para. [0349-0363]).
Per Para. [0339], the examiner interprets that the LBT_DL_CONFIG.request message (message 10 in Fig. 11) can be sent multiple times as the message is required before each OTA (over the air) transmission.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Ahmed in view of Rajagopal and Park teach Claims 3 and 12.
Ahmed further teaches
wherein each of the first section type 8 message and the second section type 8 message includes a plurality of sections, and the plurality of sections indicate different frequency offsets (Paragraph [0347], Table 1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Ahmed in view of Rajagopal and Park teach Claims 3 and 12.
Ahmed further teaches
wherein channel information of a second communication node indicated by an identifier included in each of sections included in the first section type 8 message is indicated by a section mapped to the identifier of the second communication node among sections included in the first section type 9 message (Paragraph [0347], Table 1),
and channel information of a third communication node indicated by an identifier included in each of sections included in the second section type 8 message is indicated by a section mapped to the identifier of the third communication node among sections included in the second section type 9 message (Paragraph [0347], Table 1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Ahmed in view of Rajagopal and Park teaches Claims 3 and 12.
Yet, Ahmed does not explicitly teach wherein the first section type 8 message, the second section type 8 message, the first section type 9 message, and the second section type 9 message are used for a channel-information-based-beamforming operation.
However, Rajagopal teaches
wherein the first section type 8 message, the second section type 8 message, the first section type 9 message, and the second section type 9 message are used for a channel-information-based-beamforming operation (Para. [0127] - In another embodiment, described is a system and a method to support a layer-based fronthaul interface between BBU 103 and RU 105 for common reference signal based modes (e.g.: TM1, TM2, TM3 and TM4) modes using a section type separation to distinguish common reference signal based modes with UE specific reference signal based modes (e.g.: TM1, TM7, TM8, TM9 and TM10). The RU 105 is configured to understand that the interpretation of the beamforming index needs to be different in different transmission modes; i.e. if a beamforming index is transmitted in TM7-10, it uses one of a plurality of beam weights that pre-computed and stored in the RU 105. If beamforming index is transmitted in TM1, TM2, TM3 and TM4, the RU 105 is configured to re-interpret the beamforming index as a precoder index, and can follow 3GPP defined precoding calculations as described in 3GPPTS 213 ETSI TS 136 213 V13.0.0 (2016 May). Thus, the transmission mode used per UE are communicated in this case; See also Paras. [0124, 0128-0133, 0156, 0180, 0184, 0186]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ahmed’s invention of “embodiments of a system, method, and devices for LTE operation in the unlicensed bands” (Ahmed Para. [0010]) with Rajagopal’s invention of “systems, methods, and interfaces for optimization of the fronthaul interface bandwidth for Radio Access Networks and Cloud Radio Access Networks” (Rajagopal §Abstract) because Rajagopal’s invention provides “embodiments of a system and a method for a physical layer functional split between the CU and the RUs that maximizes the efficiency of the transport and allows the flexibility to support many of the features required for virtualization and commercialization” (Rajagopal Para. [0012]) of open and cloud RAN technology.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of Rajagopal and Park, and further in view of Akhtar et al. (US 2022/0295309, previously presented), Akhtar hereinafter.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Ahmed in view of Rajagopal and Park teach Claims 3 and 12.
Ahmed further teaches
wherein each of the first section type 9 message and the second section type 9 message is generated based on a section type 6 message (Table 1).
Yet, Ahmed, Rajagopal, nor Park explicitly teach for the O-RAN fronthaul interface.
However, Akhtar teaches
for the O-RAN fronthaul interface (Fig. 1; Paras. [0003-0004] - [0003] Fifth generation (5G) radio networks are more disaggregated than fourth generation (4G) radio networks, meaning that the radio-network is subdivided into a multitude of components that interwork across standardized interfaces and well-defined application programming interfaces (APIs). This is partly specified in Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) specifications that define the radio access network (RAN) components such as distributed unit (DU), central unit control plane (CU-CP) and central unit user plane (CU-UP) interworking over the standardized E1 and F1 interfaces. The Open RAN (O-RAN) industry initiative (www.o-ran.org) takes RAN disaggregation even further by specifying the components O-RAN radio unit (O-RU), O-RAN distributed unit (O-DU), O-RAN central unit control plane (O-CU-CP), near real time RAN intelligent controller (NearRT-RIC) and non-real time RAN intelligent controller (NonRT-RIC) interworking across the E2 and A1 interfaces. An example is illustrated in FIG. 1. [0004] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example O-RAN architecture. The O-RAN architecture defines the logical entity NearRT-RIC that does radio resource management (RRM) on the time scale of 100 ms. The NearRT-RIC uses the data it has available to decide on a set of RRM actions including radio-bearer management and handover decisions. These decisions are signaled over the E2 to the O-CU-CP, O-CU-UP and O-DU. The data available to the NearRT-RIC is in existing O-RAN technology the standardized dynamic data specified over the interface E2 plus semi-static configuration data and policies. The NearRT-RIC is by O-RAN defined as a network function and may be realized as a virtual network function (VNF)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the O-RAN fronthaul interface as taught by Akhtar, in the combined system of Ahmed/Rajagopal/Park, so that it would provide methods for sharing information between NonRT-RIC and xAPPs in the NearRT-RIC (near real time-radio access network intelligent controller) (Akhtar Para. [0016]) and methods for data sharing between an rAPP and an xAPP (Akhtar Para. [0018]). See Akhtar Para. [0040] for definitions of rAPP and xAPP.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Ahmed in view of Rajagopal and Park teach Claims 3 and 12.
Yet, Ahmed, Rajagopal, nor Park explicitly teach wherein the first communication node is an 0-RAN distributed unit (0-DU), each of the one or more second communication nodes and the one or more third communication nodes is an 0-RAN radio unit (0-RU), and communication between the O-DU and the O-RU is performed using the O-RAN fronthaul interface.
However, Akhtar teaches
wherein the first communication node is an 0-RAN distributed unit (0-DU), each of the one or more second communication nodes and the one or more third communication nodes is an 0-RAN radio unit (0-RU), and communication between the O-DU and the O-RU is performed using the O-RAN fronthaul interface (Fig. 1; Fig. 6, elements 110, 110b, 110c, 160; Para. [0087] - Network node 160 and WD 110 comprise various components described in more detail below. These components work together to provide network node and/or wireless device functionality, such as providing wireless connections in a wireless network. In different embodiments, the wireless network may comprise any number of wired or wireless networks, network nodes, base stations, controllers, wireless devices, relay stations, and/or any other components or systems that may facilitate or participate in the communication of data and/or signals whether via wired or wireless connections; Para. [0091] - As another example, a network node may be a virtual network node as described in more detail below. More generally, however, network nodes may represent any suitable device (or group of devices) capable, configured, arranged, and/or operable to enable and/or provide a wireless device with access to the wireless network or to provide some service to a wireless device that has accessed the wireless network. In some embodiments, the network mode may comprise an O-RAN network node; See also Para. [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the first communication node is an 0-RAN distributed unit (0-DU), each of the one or more second communication nodes and the one or more third communication nodes is an 0-RAN radio unit (0-RU), and communication between the O-DU and the O-RU is performed using the O-RAN fronthaul interface as taught by Akhtar, in the combined system of Ahmed/Rajagopal/Park, so that it would provide methods for sharing information between NonRT-RIC and xAPPs in the NearRT-RIC (near real time-radio access network intelligent controller) (Akhtar Para. [0016]) and methods for data sharing between an rAPP and an xAPP (Akhtar Para. [0018]). See Akhtar Para. [0040] for definitions of rAPP and xAPP.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
1014
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Fig. 1 from Akhtar et al. (US 2022/0295309, previously presented)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Geng et al. (US 20190327665) in Para. [0206].
Ryu et al. (US 20200367213) in Para. [0213, 0217].
Lee et al. (US 20100015969) Para. [0060].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAENITA ANN FENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0880. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:30 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 270-1096. 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.
/R.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/Thomas R Cairns/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights