DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 11/21/2025.
2. Claims 7, 9 – 11, 13 – 15, 17, 19 - 21 and 23 - 24 have been amended.
3. Claims 1 - 6 have been previously withdrawn from consideration.
4. Claims 1 – 26 are pending of which claims 1 – 6 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The arguments presented by the applicant’s representative on 11/21/2025 were thoroughly reviewed. Independent claims 7 and 17 were further amended to provide clarity that the combination across symbol has to do with “…signal combining rather than combining across symbols in the sense of an RE grouping perspective”. [see applicant arguments submitted on 11/21/2025, 3rd, page]. The examiner checks the specification for the above amended limitation but could not find any support. In other words, the specification does not clearly state signals are combining in view of across symbols. The applicant further argues on page 3 with regards to capability pertaining to claim 7 and 17, the following: “As noted above, the max-remask-per-section is indeed an RU capability, but max-remask- per-section is not a capability "associated with signal combining across symbols at an O-RAN radio unit (0-RU)," with independent claim 17 being similarly amended.”. The examiner checks the specification for the above amended limitation but could not find any support. In other words, the specification does not clearly state signals are combining in view of across symbols. The examiner does not believe the primary reference of Huh has been overcome in view of the amendments to the independent claims. The applicant in the arguments submitted (see third page) agrees that symbols are being combined in the reference of Huh but not signals being combined across symbols. However, one must ask why does particular REs are being combined/ scheduled in advance in the reference of Huh, it has to be for signals, hence signal must also be combined in view of the scheduled/selected combined REs. A further search was conducted and a secondary reference was provided in the rejection below, not that the Huh reference has been overcome, it is to support the idea of symbols that entails PRB/REs are scheduled in advance for signal to be combined/multiplex across these selected symbols.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Regarding claim 7 and 17, the applicant/applicant’s representative made further amendments adding the limitation of signal combining across symbols at the O-RAN. However, such amendments were not explicitly detailed or implied in the specification submitted on 12/22/2022. The dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected based claim.
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
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.
Claim(s) 7 - 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh et al. (US 2021/0120538 A1, the foreign priority date is relied on for support) in view of Berg et al. (WO 2021/112747 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Huh discloses: A method of operating a first open radio access network (O-RAN) unit [see figure 1B in view of ¶ 0053 - 0054, O-RAN DU in communication with O-RAN RU], comprising:
determining to transmit a message to a second O-RAN unit that comprises capability information or permission information that is associated with signal combining with across symbols at an O-RAN radio unit (O-RU);
and transmitting the message to the second O-RAN unit. [The term permission information is interpreted as any message/information that is being received by the O-RAN unit that triggers the O-RAN unit to perform or permits a certain action. As seen in the abstract of this application an O-RAN unit can be either O-RU or D-RU. Looking at ¶ 0110 of Huh, the RU sends an M-Plane message 1002 to the DU 160. Sending a message and receiving that message is interpreted as a permission information since it gives permission/instruction to the receiving end (DU) what operation to carry out. The M-Plane message (¶ 0110 of Huh) can be “…max-sections-per-symbol” indicating the maximum number of sections per symbol, “max-sections-per-slot” indicating the maximum number of sections per slot, and “max-remask-per-section” indicating the maximum number of RE masks per section”. The remask as seen in figure 6 entails a combination of symbols. In other words, the permission information (M-Plane message) tells the DU as to the RE index as seen in figure 6 and combination of symbol indexes in the horizontal axis it can use (¶ 0089 - ¶ 0090). Take for example in ¶ 0089, the second beam can be mapped to REs 606 and 609, uses RE index 6 and 9 which involves symbol combination in the horizontal direction pertaining to figure 6. After these symbols are identified, signals must be combined across these symbols since the symbols being scheduled or selected has to be used for something, that is signals. ].
At the same time the term “max” use in ¶ 0110 of Huh suggests the capability information being transmitted from the RU to the DU. In an example the term “max-remask-per-section”, implies the maximum remask as seen in figure 6 being used which involves symbol combination on the horizontal axis of figure 6. See claim 1 of Huh that also states the message being transmitted pertains to a value indicating a maximum number (interpreted as the capability of the RU and DU) of RE mask (the RE mask involves the combination of symbols as seen in figure 6).].
Claim 7 was further amended to recite signal combining across symbols which is not explicitly disclosed by Huh. However, such difference is seen in the reference of Berg. See the 14th – 16th line from the top of page 11. That is, the C-plane message will specify the PRB/RE that can be used. The REs and PRB are made up of symbols, hence selecting REs or PRB will select a set of symbols. The selection of the PRB and/or REs must be used for something, that is, signals must be combined/multiplexed across these symbols pertains to the REs and PRB. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huh’s system in view of Berg. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for scheduling information to be sent in advance [14th line on page 11 of Berg].
Claim 17 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 7.
Note to applicant:
Claims 7 and 17 limitations are also taught by ORAN-WG4.CUS.0-v02.00 (“O-RAN front haul working group, control, User and Synchronization Plane Specification”, 2019, provided by the applicant’s IDS), see at the bottom of page 74 (section 5.4.5.5), the M-Plane is a message/configuration sent between the O-RU to the O-DU which conveys the reMask.
Regarding claim 8, Huh further discloses: The method of claim 7, wherein the first O-RAN unit corresponds to the O-RU, and wherein the second O-RAN unit corresponds to an O-RAN distributed unit (O- DU). [see figure 10 and ¶ 0110, label 160 (DU) in communication with 180 (RU)].
Claim 18 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Huh further discloses: The method of claim 8, wherein the message specifies whether the O-RU is capable of signal combining across symbols. [¶ 0110, the M-Plane message indicates a max parameter of “remask”, the remask as explained in claim 1 rejection pertains to combining across symbols, this is seen as the capability as to what the RU can do/handle, this indication is sent to the DU].
Claim 19 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Huh further discloses: The method of claim 9, wherein the message specifies a maximum number of consecutive symbols that the O-RU is capable of signal combining. [¶ 0110, the M-Plane message indicates a max parameter of “remask”, the remask as explained in claim 1 rejection pertains to combining across symbols, this is seen as the capability as to what the RU can do/handle, this indication is sent to the DU].
Claim 20 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Huh further discloses: The method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving, from the O-DU in response to the message, a control plane (C-Plane) message from the O-DU that specifies whether the O-RU is permitted to signal combine consecutive symbols [¶ 0110, a C-plane message is sent from the DU to the CU for such configuration (RE mask) requested by the RU] and/or an indication of a maximum number of consecutive symbols for which signal combination is permitted. [¶ 0110, the M-Plane message indicates a max parameter of “remask”, the remask as explained in claim 1 rejection pertains to combining across consecutive symbols (see figure 6, horizontal axis), this is seen as the capability as to what the RU can do/handle, this indication is sent to the DU].
Claim 21 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Huh further discloses: The method of claim 7, wherein the second O-RAN unit corresponds to the O-RU, and wherein the first O-RAN unit corresponds to an O-RAN distributed unit (0- DU). [see figure 10 and ¶0110 and ¶ 0050 - ¶ 0051].
Claim 22 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Huh further discloses: The method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving, from the O-RU, another message that specifies whether the O-RU is capable of signal combining across symbols. [¶ 0110, the M-Plane message can be repeated and seen as another message for initial connection and is seen as a configuration easily conceivable to a person skilled in the art. See other message in table 2 of ¶ 0110].
Claim 23 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Huh further discloses: The method of claim 13, wherein the another message specifies a maximum number of consecutive symbols that the O-RU is capable of signal combining. [¶ 0110, the M-Plane message indicates a max parameter of “remask”, the remask as explained in claim 1 rejection pertains to combining across consecutive symbols (see figure 6, horizontal axis), this is seen as the capability as to what the RU can do/handle, this indication is sent to the DU].
Claim 24 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Huh further discloses: The method of claim 12, wherein the message specifies whether the 0- RU is permitted to signal combine consecutive symbols and/or an indication of a maximum number of consecutive symbols for which signal combination is permitted. [¶ 0110, the M-Plane message indicates a max parameter of “remask”, the remask as explained in claim 1 rejection pertains to combining across consecutive symbols (see figure 6, horizontal axis), this is seen as the capability as to what the RU can do/handle, this indication is sent to the DU].
Claim 25 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Huh further discloses: The method of claim 7, wherein the transmitting transmits the message via management plane (M-Plane) signaling or control plane (C-Plane) signaling. [¶ 0110, the M-plane message is being used between the Ru and DU also a C-plane message is issued from the DU to the RU].
Claim 26 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463