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 .
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/16/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rowell (Pub No 20190132064) further in view of newly cited Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130) and newly cited Jain (Pub No 20190014542).
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach encapsulating packets to network equipment or a target device of a communications network.
The examiner relies on newly cited prior art Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130) to teach encapsulating packets and transmitting the encapsulated packets to the communication network.
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach performing carrier aggregation in response to examining a service allocation assigned to a subscriber entity associated with the user equipment.
The examiner relies on newly cited Jain which teaches carrier aggregation based on the subscription.
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) 1-4, 8, 12-13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell (Pub No 20190132064) further in view of Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130) and Jain (Pub No 20190014542)
Regarding claim 1 and 12 and 17,
Rowell teaches A device, comprising:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium; a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations, comprising: (see para [0075] [0076])
receiving, from multiple different transceiver devices of an access point device, analog radio signals; (interpreted as an over-the-air measurement system 10 is shown that comprises several antenna units 12 for receiving and transmitting radio frequency signals, see para [0051])
transforming an analog signal, of the analog radio signals, to a digital signal comprising packets of data; (interpreted as several remote radio units 14 that convert radio frequency signals into digital signals or vice versa, see para [0051])
instantiating a virtual machine configured to execute a virtual network function configured to perform a carrier aggregation procedure that aggregates spectrums (interpreted as In general, the over-the-air measurement system 10, in particular the several virtual machines 28, is configured to provide signals for different carrier aggregations, different carrier interferences and separate systems as well as combinations thereof, see para [0063]) used to communicate between a user equipment and the multiple different transceiver devices of the access point device (interpreted as The radio synchronization control unit 24 ensures that several active antenna systems 16 may be used in a synchronized manner in order to emulate several base stations which may transmit data to a device under test 26 in a synchronized manner. Accordingly, the active antenna systems 16, in particular the remote radio units 14, act as base stations. The several base stations simulated correspond to independent time shared wireless telecommunications systems like base stations which can be operated in an appropriate manner for the testing of the device under test 26. Particularly, coordinated multi-point test measurements can be performed for testing the respective properties of the device under test 26, see para [0055]. Also see device under test such as a user equipment (UE), see para [0002]))
However Rowell does not teach the different functionality being performed in a single housing;
encapsulating packets and transmitting the encapsulated packet to network equipment of a communication network; and
Bahnasy teaches the different functionality being performed in a single housing; (interpreted as It is noted that the RRH 142a-142c and BBU 140a-140c are located in the same building/location, see para [0052])
encapsulating packets; transmitting the encapsulated packet to network equipment of a communication network; and (interpreted as In some embodiments, CPRI traffic can be encapsulated over Ethernet, see para [0056]. Also see In non-access stratum signaling, signals between UEs 110 and the core network node 130 can be transparently passed through the radio access network. In some embodiments, radio access nodes 120 can interface with one or more network nodes over an internode interface, see para [0048])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system taught by Rowell with the encapsulation taught by Bahnasy with the benefit of sending packets into different networks by encapsulating to their protocol.
The examiner also argues that the claimed limitation of using a single housing performing the same functionality for the multiple devices would be merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice because it would be making integral (In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
However Rowell in view of Bahnasy does not teach carrier aggregation in response to examining a service allocation assigned to a subscriber entity associated with the user equipment;
Jain teaches carrier aggregation in response to examining a service allocation assigned to a subscriber entity associated with the user equipment; (interpreted as modem 160 having a carrier aggregation component 170 that receive UE capability information message(s) and configure carrier aggregation capabilities for one or more subscriptions 152, see para [0044])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the carrier aggregation taught by Rowell with the carrier aggregation based on the UE capability information as taught by Jain with the benefit of performing carrier aggregation only on the devices capable of using it.
Regarding claim 2,
Rowell teaches The device of claim 1, wherein the analog radio signals are received via a client interface device that is situated on-site with the access point device and is configured to interface to the multiple different transceiver devices. (interpreted as The radio synchronization control unit 24 ensures that several active antenna systems 16 may be used in a synchronized manner in order to emulate several base stations which may transmit data to a device under test 26 in a synchronized manner. Accordingly, the active antenna systems 16, in particular the remote radio units 14, act as base stations, see Rowell para [0055])
Regarding claim 3 and 13,
Rowell teaches The device of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the encapsulating of the packet comprises selecting a type of encapsulation based on a selection criterion.
Bahnasy teaches wherein the encapsulating of the packet comprises selecting a type of encapsulation based on a selection criterion. (interpreted as Once the CPRI traffic is compressed, it can be encapsulated and transmitted according to one of the two following options: D) fixed packet size (e.g. fit as many samples into one frame); or E) fixed inter-packet gap (e.g. a constant number of samples in each frame). The first option can reduce link overhead caused by frame headers/trailers, see para [0065])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system taught by Rowell with the encapsulation taught by Bahnasy with the benefit of sending packets into different networks by encapsulating to their protocol.
Regarding claim 4,
Rowell teaches The device of claim 3, however does not teach wherein the type of encapsulation is one of a group comprising: a radio-over-Ethernet encapsulation or an Ethernet encapsulation.
Bahnasy teaches wherein the type of encapsulation comprises at least one of: a radio-over-Ethernet encapsulation or an Ethernet encapsulation. (interpreted as In some embodiments, CPRI traffic can be encapsulated over Ethernet, see para [0056])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system taught by Rowell with the encapsulation taught by Bahnasy for the benefit of sending packets into different networks by encapsulating to their protocol.
Regarding claim 8,
Rowell teaches The device of claim 1, however Roswell does not teach wherein the digital signal is formatted according to a common public radio interface protocol.
Bahnasy teaches wherein the digital signal is formatted according to a common public radio interface protocol. (interpreted as In some embodiments, CPRI traffic can be encapsulated over Ethernet, see para [0056])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system taught by Rowell with the CPRI taught by Bahnasy for the benefit of using formats of a certain protocol so that different manufacturers can use a standard for communications.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell (Pub No 20190132064) further in view of Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130), Jain (Pub No 20190014542), and Rao (Pat No 9736699).
Regarding claim 5 and 14,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain teaches The device of claim 3, however do not teach wherein the type of encapsulation is determined based on a frequency of the analog signal.
Rao teaches wherein the type of encapsulation is determined based on a frequency of the analog signal (interpreted as Alternatively, packets may further be encapsulated with a simple tag for wireless hops or shorter distances, see col 17 line 35-40. Also see wherein the network device is enabled to use a WLAN frequency with a cellular protocol encapsulated in the WLAN frequency, see claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system taught by Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain with the encapsulation taught by Rao for the benefit of sending packets into different networks by encapsulating to their protocol.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell (Pub No 20190132064) further in view of Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130), Jain (Pub No 20190014542), and Pandey (Pub No 20100167762)
Regarding claim 6,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain teaches The device of claim 3, however does not teach wherein the type of encapsulation is determined based on a device identifier.
Pandey teaches wherein the type of encapsulation is determined based on a device identifier
(interpreted as technology type of the destination device. The technology type can be either a legacy device or an IMS device. If it is determined that the destination device is a legacy device, the NG MMSC can transmit the MMS message to the destination device via legacy MMS protocols. If the destination device is an IMS device, the NG MMSC can establish a second SIP session with the destination device, and transmit the MMS message to the destination IMS device via MSRP, see para [0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the encapsulation taught by Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain with the encapsulation based on the device as taught by Pandey for the benefit of sending packets into different networks by encapsulating to their protocol.
Regarding claim 7 and 16,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain teaches The device of claim 3, however does not teach wherein the type of encapsulation is a first type determined based on a second type associated with the network equipment to which the encapsulated packet is to be transmitted.
Pandey teaches wherein the type of encapsulation is a first type determined based on a second type associated with the network equipment to which the encapsulated packet is to be transmitted. (interpreted as technology type of the destination device. The technology type can be either a legacy device or an IMS device. If it is determined that the destination device is a legacy device, the NG MMSC can transmit the MMS message to the destination device via legacy MMS protocols. If the destination device is an IMS device, the NG MMSC can establish a second SIP session with the destination device, and transmit the MMS message to the destination IMS device via MSRP, see para [0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the encapsulation taught by Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain with the encapsulation based on the device as taught by Pandey for the benefit of sending packets into different networks by encapsulating to their protocol.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell (Pub No 20190132064) further in view of Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130), Jain (Pub No 20190014542), and Debenedetti (Pub No 20210367665)
Regarding claim 9,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain teaches the device of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the digital signal is formatted according to an evolved common public radio interface protocol.
Debenedetti teaches wherein the digital signal is formatted according to an evolved common public radio interface protocol (interpreted as For example, the illustrated concepts may be applied in connection with various kinds of digital signal formats, without limitation to the above-mentioned examples of the CPRI, eCPRI and Ethernet, see para [0090])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system taught by Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain with the ECPRI taught by Debenedetti for the benefit of using formats of a certain protocol so that different manufacturers can use a standard for communications.
Claim(s) 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell (Pub No 20190132064) further in view of Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130), Jain (Pub No 20190014542), and Witzel (Pub No 20190104442).
Regarding claim 10 and 18,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain teaches the device of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the virtual machine is further configured to execute a different virtual network function that performs a handover procedure that hands over service of the user equipment from a serving transceiver device to a neighbor transceiver device in response to client data received from the user equipment and network data of devices of the access point device.
Witzel teaches wherein the virtual machine is further configured to execute a different virtual network function that performs a handover procedure that hands over service of the user equipment from a serving transceiver device to a neighbor transceiver device in response to client data received from the user equipment and network data of devices of the access point device. (interpreted as the corresponding VNF-1 240 and VNF-2 245 may be deleted on/removed from the source radio base station 210. This may be initiated by the VNF manager 230 after the handing-over is completed, for example after reception of a confirmation from the target radio base station 220 that the services are continued to be provisioned to the roaming UE 200. By alternative, this may be triggered by the source radio base station 210 itself, for example after providing a clone copy of VNF-1 240 and VNF-2 245 to the VNF manager 230 or the destination radio base station 220, see Witzel para [0074])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system taught by Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain with the handover taught by Witzel for the benefit of continuing communication by using handover services to neighboring base stations.
Claim(s) 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell (Pub No 20190132064) further in view of Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130), Jain (Pub No 20190014542), and Vrzic (Pub No 20160353465)
Regarding claim 11 and 19,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain teaches the device of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the virtual machine is further configured to execute a different virtual network function that performs a load balancing procedure that mitigates imbalances of resource utilization between devices of the access point device.
Vrzic teaches wherein the virtual machine is further configured to execute a different virtual network function that performs a load balancing procedure that mitigates imbalances of resource utilization between devices of the access point device. (interpreted as For example a VNF can provide the functions of a router, switch, gateway, firewall, load balancer, server and the like, see para [0042])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system taught by Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain with the handover taught by Vrzic for the benefit of mitigating congestion/overloading by sharing load.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell (Pub No 20190132064) further in view of Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130), Umeda (Pub No 20120257588), and Stapleton (Pub No 20150256358)
Regarding claim 15,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 13, however does not teach wherein the type of encapsulation is selected based on a vendor code.
Stapleton teaches wherein the type of encapsulation is selected based on a vendor code. (interpreted as Remote Radio Heads communicate via a vendor specific protocol or a vendor specific variant of a standard protocol with the BBUs. A distributed radio network can include a combination of DRUs and RRHs. The DRUs communicate directly with the DAUs, whereas the BBUs communicates directly with the RRHs. In order to facilitate the communications of a network of BBUs, DAUs, DRUs and RRHs, the vendor specific protocol can be transported distinctly from the protocol used in the DAS, see para [0034])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system taught by Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain with the encapsulation taught by Stapleton for the benefit of transmitting in different networks
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell (Pub No 20190132064) further in view of Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130), Umeda (Pub No 20120257588), and Zaks (Pub No 20210385736)
Regarding claim 20,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain teaches The method of claim 17, however does not teach further comprising: determining, by the device, to instantiate the virtual machine in response to a determination that a latency requirement satisfies a defined threshold.
Zaks teaches further comprising: determining, by the device, to instantiate the virtual machine in response to a determination that a latency requirement satisfies a defined threshold. (interpreted as In various embodiments, techniques/processes described herein can be employed to create, delete, or determine threshold(s) or parameters (e.g., latency, power, load, etc.) in connection with a VNF related virtualization resource (VR) performance measurement (PM), or to generate a notification of a crossing of such threshold(s) by one or more related parameters (e.g., latency, power, load, or other related parameters of a Wi-Fi standard such as an IEEE standard, Wi-Fi Alliance standard, 3GPP, or other standard), see para [0026])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system taught by Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain with the handover taught by Zaks for the benefit of mitigating congestion/overloading by alerting changes in latency.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 6:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached on 571-272-3155. 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.
/BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461