DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 33 recites the limitation “The method of claim 31”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The method of claim 32” i.e. because claim 32 recites the “timer” that is required by claim 33. Appropriate correction is required for clarification and consistency.
Claims 41 and 53 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 41 and 53 recite the limitations “the first terminal device” and “the second terminal device”, however, it appears that these limitations were written by accident instead of “the local terminal device” and “the remote terminal device” i.e. as previously disclosed. Appropriate correction is required for clarification and consistency.
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 45 recites the limitation “The first transport equipment of claim 43”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The first transport equipment of claim 44” i.e. because claim 44 recites the “timer” that is required by claim 45. Appropriate correction is required for clarification and consistency.
Claim 52 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 52 recites the limitation “The first transport equipment of claim 50”, however, it appears that this limitation was written by accident instead of “The first transport equipment of claim 51” i.e. because claim 51 recites the “remote alignment status” that is required by claim 52. Appropriate correction is required for clarification and consistency.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 42-43, 46 and 53 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN111698708A) in view of Bruckman et al (US Pub 20170063491).
Regarding claim 42. Wang discloses a first transport equipment for a network, wherein the first transport equipment is configured to communicating with a second transport equipment in a network to transmit traffic between a local terminal device and a remote terminal device (Fig 2B, where a first transport equipment (source device 210) operates in a network (i.e. for CPRI) and where the first transport equipment (source device 210) is configured to communicate with a second transport equipment (destination device 220) in the network (i.e. for CPRI) to transmit traffic between a local terminal device (240) and a remote terminal device (250)), the first transport equipment comprising processing circuitry configured to:
receive traffic from a local terminal device intended for a remote terminal device (Fig 2B, where the first transport equipment (source device 210) receives traffic from a local terminal device (240) intended for a remote terminal device (250));
attempt to decode the traffic according to a first coding type to generate decoded traffic (Fig 2B, Fig 4, where the first transport equipment (source device 210) attempts to decode the traffic according to a first coding type (e.g. CPRI5) to generate decoded traffic (step 401));
determine an alignment status of the decoded traffic (Fig 2B, Fig 4, where the first transport equipment (source device 210) determines an alignment status of the decoded traffic (i.e. in order to detect a loss of frame LOF) (para [175]) (step 401)); and
responsive to an alignment status of the decoded traffic indicating a loss of frame, attempt to decode the traffic according to a second coding type (Fig 2B, Fig 4, where the first transport equipment (source device 210) in response to an alignment status of the decoded traffic indicating a loss of frame (LOF) (para [175]), attempts to decode the traffic according to a second coding type (e.g. CPRI3) (steps 401, 403)).
Wang fails to explicitly disclose the network being an optical network.
However, Bruckman discloses
a network being an optical network (Fig 1, where a network (20) (i.e. for CPRI) is an optical network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the network (i.e. for CPRI) as described in Wang, with the teachings of the network (20) (i.e. for CPRI) as described in Bruckman. The motivation being is that as shown a network (20) (i.e. for CPRI) can be an optical network and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the network (i.e. for CPRI) as described in Wang and have the network (i.e. for CPRI) be an optical network i.e. as an alternative so as to have the network (i.e. for CPRI) with a known technique of a known network (20) (i.e. for CPRI) for the purpose of optimally transmitting CPRI traffic by using known optical communications and which technique incorporates the benefits of using optical communications into the system which includes for example higher speeds and increased bandwidth and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. CPRI traffic) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known network (20) (i.e. for CPRI) into another similar network (i.e. for CPRI), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 43. Wang as modified by Bruckman also discloses the first transport equipment, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: attempt to decode the traffic according to a plurality of coding types in turn until it is determined that the alignment status of the decoded traffic indicates no loss of frame (Wang Fig 2B, Fig 4, where the first transport equipment (source device 210) is configured to attempt to decode the traffic according to a plurality of coding types (e.g. CPRI5, CPRI4, CPRI3) in turn until it is determined that the alignment status of the decoded traffic indicates no loss of frame (LOF) (para [175]) (step 403)).
Regarding claim 46. Wang as modified by Bruckman also discloses the first transport equipment, wherein each of the plurality of coding types comprises one or more of: RS-FEC, scrambled with a PN-5280 sequence; 64b66b coding; and 8b10b coding (Wang Fig 2B, Fig 4, where each of the plurality of coding types (e.g. CPRI5, CPRI4, CPRI3) comprises coding and it is known in the art that the coding is 8b10b coding (see Song et al (US Pub 20150304890) para [4])).
Regarding claim 53. Wang as modified by Bruckman also discloses the first transport equipment, wherein the first terminal device comprises a baseband unit (BBU) and the second terminal device comprises a remote radio unit (RRU) (Wang Fig 1, Fig 2B, Fig 4, where the local terminal device (140, 240) comprises a baseband unit (BBU) and the remote terminal device (150, 250) comprises a remote radio unit (RRU) (para [166])).
Claims 44-45 and 47-52 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN111698708A) in view of Bruckman et al (US Pub 20170063491) in further view of Anand et al (US Pat 10863386).
Regarding claim 44. Wang as modified by Bruckman fails to explicitly disclose the first transport equipment, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: responsive to a timer expiring and the alignment status indicating a loss of frame: select a next one of the plurality of coding types; attempt to decode the traffic using the next one of the plurality of coding types; and restart the timer.
However, Anand discloses
a processing circuitry is further configured to: responsive to a timer expiring and an alignment status indicating a loss of frame: select a next one of a plurality of coding types; attempt to decode traffic using the next one of the plurality of coding types; and restart the timer (Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 4, where a first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) in response to a timer (L1-SYNC timer) expiring and an alignment status indicating a loss of frame (e.g. a LOF alarm) selects a next one of a plurality of coding types (e.g. during an auto-negotiation), attempts to decode traffic using the next one of the plurality of coding types (e.g. during an auto-negotiation), and restarts the timer (L1-SYNC timer) (i.e. at states 204, 404)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first transport equipment (source device 210) as described in Wang as modified by Bruckman, with the teachings of the first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) as described in Anand. The motivation being is that as shown a first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) in response to a timer (L1-SYNC timer) expiring and an alignment status indicating a loss of frame (e.g. a LOF alarm) can select a next one of a plurality of coding types (e.g. during an auto-negotiation), can attempt to decode traffic using the next one of the plurality of coding types (e.g. during an auto-negotiation), and can restart the timer (L1-SYNC timer) (i.e. at states 204, 404) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the first transport equipment (source device 210) as described in Wang as modified by Bruckman and have the first transport equipment (source device 210) in response to a timer (L1-SYNC timer) expiring and an alignment status indicating a loss of frame (LOF) selecting a next one of the plurality of coding types (e.g. CPRI5, CPRI4, CPRI3), attempting to decode traffic using the next one of the plurality of coding types (e.g. CPRI5, CPRI4, CPRI3), and restarting the timer (L1-SYNC timer) (i.e. at states 204, 404) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the first transport equipment (source device 210) with a known technique of a known first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) for the purpose of optimally selecting a target CPRI by using a known timer and a known LOF alarm and which technique improves auto-negotiation in the system and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. first transport equipment) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) into another similar first transport equipment (source device 210), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 45. Wang as modified by Bruckman and Anand also discloses the first transport equipment, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: responsive to the alignment status of the decoded traffic indicating no loss of frame and the timer expiring, continue to use a current coding type to decode the traffic (Anand Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 4, where the first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) in response to the alignment status of the decoded traffic indicating no loss of frame (e.g. a LOF alarm) and the timer (L1-SYNC timer) expiring, continuing to use a current coding type (e.g. obtained during an auto-negotiation) to decode the traffic (i.e. at states 206 and 406)).
Regarding claim 47. Wang as modified by Bruckman fails to explicitly disclose the first transport equipment, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: transmit an indication, to the remote terminal device, of whether traffic is being received from the local terminal device.
However, Anand discloses
a processing circuitry configured to: transmit an indication, to a remote terminal device, of whether traffic is being received from a local terminal device (Fig 1, Fig 6, where a first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) is configured to transmit an indication (e.g. a LOF alarm), to a remote terminal device (Proxy Master 106, RE 108), of whether traffic is being received from a local terminal device (102) (i.e. at state 606)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first transport equipment (source device 210) as described in Wang as modified by Bruckman, with the teachings of the first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) as described in Anand. The motivation being is that as shown a first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) can transmit an indication (e.g. a LOF alarm), to a remote terminal device (Proxy Master 106, RE 108), of whether traffic is being received from a local terminal device (102) (i.e. at state 606) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the first transport equipment (source device 210) as described in Wang as modified by Bruckman and have the first transport equipment (source device 210) transmit an indication (e.g. a LOF alarm), to a remote terminal device (220, 250), of whether traffic is being received from a local terminal device (240) (i.e. at state 606) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the first transport equipment (source device 210) with a known technique of a known first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) for the purpose of optimally selecting a target CPRI by using a known timer and a known LOF alarm and which technique improves auto-negotiation in the system and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. first transport equipment) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) into another similar first transport equipment (source device 210), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 48. Wang as modified by Bruckman fails to explicitly disclose the first transport equipment, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: transmit an indication of a current alignment status and a current coding type to a second transport equipment in communication with the remote terminal device.
However, Anand discloses
a processing circuitry configured to: transmit an indication of a current alignment status and a current coding type to a second transport equipment in communication with a remote terminal device (Fig 1, Fig 6, where a first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) is configured to transmit an indication of a current alignment status (e.g. a LOF alarm) and a current coding type (e.g. obtained during an auto-negotiation) to a second transport equipment (Proxy Master 106) in communication with a remote terminal device (RE 108) (i.e. at state 606)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first transport equipment (source device 210) as described in Wang as modified by Bruckman, with the teachings of the first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) as described in Anand. The motivation being is that as shown a first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) can transmit an indication of a current alignment status (e.g. a LOF alarm) and a current coding type (e.g. obtained during an auto-negotiation) to a second transport equipment (Proxy Master 106) in communication with the remote terminal device (RE 108) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the first transport equipment (source device 210) as described in Wang as modified by Bruckman and have the first transport equipment (source device 210) transmit an indication of a current alignment status (e.g. a LOF alarm) and a current coding type (e.g. CPRI5, CPRI4, CPRI3) to a second transport equipment (220) in communication with the remote terminal device (250) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the first transport equipment (source device 210) with a known technique of a known first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) for the purpose of optimally selecting a target CPRI by using a known timer and a known LOF alarm and which technique improves auto-negotiation in the system and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. first transport equipment) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) into another similar first transport equipment (source device 210), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 49. Wang as modified by Bruckman fails to explicitly disclose the first transport equipment, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive an indication of whether traffic is being received at the second transport equipment from the remote terminal device, and responsive to the indication changing to indicate that traffic is not being received from the remote terminal device, disable an optical module configured to transmit to the local terminal device.
However, Anand discloses
a processing circuitry is configured to: receive an indication of whether traffic is being received at a second transport equipment from a remote terminal device (Fig 1, Fig 4, where a first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) is configured to receive an indication (e.g. a LOF alarm) of whether traffic is being received at a second transport equipment (Proxy Master 106) from a remote terminal device (RE 108) (i.e. at state 406)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first transport equipment (source device 210) as described in Wang as modified by Bruckman, with the teachings of the first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) as described in Anand. The motivation being is that as shown a first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) can receive an indication (e.g. a LOF alarm) of whether traffic is being received at a second transport equipment (Proxy Master 106) from a remote terminal device (RE 108) (i.e. at state 406) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the first transport equipment (source device 210) as described in Wang as modified by Bruckman and have the first transport equipment (source device 210) receive an indication (e.g. a LOF alarm) of whether traffic is being received at the second transport equipment (220) from the remote terminal device (250) (i.e. at state 406) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the first transport equipment (source device 210) with a known technique of a known first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) for the purpose of optimally selecting a target CPRI by using a known timer and a known LOF alarm and which technique improves auto-negotiation in the system and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. first transport equipment) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) into another similar first transport equipment (source device 210), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results. Furthermore, disabling an optical module/transmitter of the first transport equipment (source device 210) which transmits to the local terminal device (240) in response to the indication (e.g. a LOF alarm) indicating that traffic is not being received from the remote terminal device (250) is obvious and requires only ordinary skilled in the art to perform. This is because the concept of disabling an optical transmitter when an alarm is present is well-known in the art and is used to save power. See Tolliver (US Pub 20120301138) Fig 5 step 235.
Regarding claim 50. Wang as modified by Bruckman and Anand also discloses the first transport equipment, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: responsive to the indication changing to indicate that traffic is now being received at the second transport equipment from the remote terminal device, enable the optical module configured to transmit to the local terminal device (Wang Fig 2B, Fig 4, where the first transport equipment (source device 210) in response to the indication (e.g. a LOF alarm) indicating that traffic is now being received at the second transport equipment (220) from the remote terminal device (250) (i.e. as shown in Anand Fig 1, Fig 4), enables the optical module/transmitter of the first transport equipment (source device 210) to transmit to the local terminal device (240). See Tolliver (US Pub 20120301138) Fig 5 step 215.
Regarding claim 51. Wang as modified by Bruckman fails to explicitly disclose the first transport equipment, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive, from the second transport equipment, an indication of a remote alignment status indicating whether the second transport equipment has decoded traffic from the remote terminal device with a loss of frame, and a current remote coding type.
However, Anand discloses
a processing circuitry is configured to: receive, from a second transport equipment, an indication of a remote alignment status indicating whether a second transport equipment has decoded traffic from a remote terminal device with a loss of frame, and a current remote coding type (Fig 1, Fig 4, where a first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) is configured to receive, from a second transport equipment (Master Proxy 106), an indication of a remote alignment status indicating whether the second transport equipment (Master Proxy 106) has decoded traffic from a remote terminal device (RE 108) with a loss of frame (e.g. a LOF alarm), and a current remote coding type (e.g. obtained during an auto-negotiation) (i.e. at step 406)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first transport equipment (source device 210) as described in Wang as modified by Bruckman, with the teachings of the first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) as described in Anand. The motivation being is that as shown a first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) can receive, from a second transport equipment (Master Proxy 106), an indication of a remote alignment status indicating whether the second transport equipment (Master Proxy 106) has decoded traffic from a remote terminal device (RE 108) with a loss of frame (e.g. a LOF alarm), and a current remote coding type (e.g. obtained during an auto-negotiation) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the first transport equipment (source device 210) as described in Wang as modified by Bruckman and have the first transport equipment (source device 210) receive, from a second transport equipment (220), an indication of a remote alignment status indicating whether the second transport equipment (220) has decoded traffic from a remote terminal device (250) with a loss of frame (LOF), and a current remote coding type (e.g. CPRI5, CPRI4, CPRI3) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the first transport equipment (source device 210) with a known technique of a known first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) for the purpose of optimally selecting a target CPRI by using a known timer and a known LOF alarm and which technique improves auto-negotiation in the system and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. first transport equipment) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) into another similar first transport equipment (source device 210), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 52. Wang as modified by Bruckman and Anand also discloses the first transport equipment, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: responsive to not receiving traffic from the local terminal device, and the remote alignment status indicating that the second transport equipment has decoded traffic from the remote terminal device with no loss of frame, select the current remote coding type to encode any traffic transmitted to the local terminal device (Anand Fig 1, Fig 4, where the first transport equipment (Proxy Slave 104) in response to not receiving traffic from a local terminal device (REC 102), and the remote alignment status indicating that the second transport equipment (Master Proxy 106) has decoded traffic from the remote terminal device (RE 108) with no loss of frame (e.g. a LOF alarm), select the current remote coding type (e.g. obtained during an auto-negotiation) to encode any traffic transmitted to the local terminal device (REC 102) (i.e. at state 406)).
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30 is similar to claim 42, therefore, claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 42.
Regarding Claim 31, Claim 31 is similar to claim 43, therefore, claim 31 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 43.
Regarding Claim 32, Claim 32 is similar to claim 44, therefore, claim 32 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 44.
Regarding Claim 33, Claim 33 is similar to claim 45, therefore, claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 45.
Regarding Claim 34, Claim 34 is similar to claim 46, therefore, claim 34 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 46.
Regarding Claim 35, Claim 35 is similar to claim 47, therefore, claim 35 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 47.
Regarding Claim 36, Claim 36 is similar to claim 48, therefore, claim 36 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 48.
Regarding Claim 37, Claim 37 is similar to claim 49, therefore, claim 37 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 49.
Regarding Claim 38, Claim 38 is similar to claim 50, therefore, claim 38 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 50.
Regarding Claim 39, Claim 39 is similar to claim 51, therefore, claim 39 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 51.
Regarding Claim 40, Claim 40 is similar to claim 52, therefore, claim 40 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 52.
Regarding Claim 41, Claim 41 is similar to claim 53, therefore, claim 41 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 53.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure and not relied upon is the following:
Anand et al (US Pub 20200252980) and more specifically Fig 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634