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 08/14/26, 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Bahnasy (Pub No 20200100130), Jain (Pub No 20190014542), Chanclou (Pub No 20160143016), and Muller (Pub No 20210195521).
Regarding claim 1,
The applicant argues that the prior art Rowell does not teach receiving from a user equipment.
However, in further review of the prior art, the examiner disagrees because Rowell teaches receiving radio frequency signals from a device under test and that the device under test can be a user equipment. Rowell states:
[0065] In a similar manner, the device under test 26 may transmit signals corresponding to different telecommunication standards wherein these signals relating to the different telecommunication standards are received by the appropriate active antenna systems 16. The signals received are processed by the remote radio units 14, in particular digitized, and analyzed by the baseband unit 18 in an appropriate manner.
[0002] In the state of the art, over-the-air measurement systems are known which are used to characterize the over-the-air characteristics of a device under test such as a user equipment (UE) or a customer premises equipment (CPE), for instance a mobile phone, a smartphone or a tablet. Usually, the over-the-air measurement systems used may perform test measurements for characterizing certain properties of the device under test with regard to a certain telecommunication standard, for instance a Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard, 5G also called Next Generation Mobile Networks (NGMN), Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM), Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) and so on. These different telecommunication standards are typically measured by testing the receiving and/or transmitting properties of the device under test with regard to the dedicated telecommunication standard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the above as teaching “receiving from a user equipment”
Regarding claim 1,
Applicants argue that the prior art does not teach multiple different transceiver devices are separate from the single housing. Applicant also argues that the rationale is insufficient.
However, the examiner disagrees because Roswell teaches multiple transceivers (see 12 fig. below) being separate units. Roswell even states that these separate units are receiving/transmitting to the remote radio unit 14, therefore they are separate from the RRU/BBU. Furthermore, the examiner disagrees that the rationale is insufficient because the combination of the RRU and BBU in a single housing does not add functionality.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “service allocation assigned to a subscriber entity” and the service allocation (e.g. service level the subscriber is entitled to).
However, the examiner disagrees because the primary reference already teaches performing carrier aggregation, however, does not perform carrier aggregation based on the service allocation assigned to a subscriber entity. Jain teaches performing carrier aggregation based on a subscription service. The service allocation of the subscriber/UE is interpreted as being the subscription of the UE. Jain states:
[0054] At block 408, the method 400 may transmit, by the UE to a network entity, a UE capability information message with carrier aggregation information on the subscription that is determined to be DDS subscription. For example, the UE 110 may execute the power saving component 150 to transmit, to a network entity 105, a UE capability information message 156 with carrier aggregation information on the subscription 152 that is determined to be DDS subscription.
[0049] At block 304, the method 300 may perform, by the UE 110, a carrier aggregation power saving mode procedure for the one of the plurality of subscriptions based on a determination that the one of the plurality of subscriptions is configured as the DDS or the non-DDS. For example, the UE 110 may execute power saving component 150 to perform a carrier aggregation power saving mode procedure 154 for the one of the plurality of subscriptions 152 based on a determination that the one of the plurality of subscriptions 152 is configured as the DDS or the non-DDS. FIGS. 3 and 4 describe example carrier aggregation power saving mode procedures 154 that the UE 110 may execute power saving component 150 to perform.
In the above citation, the UE has a service subscription which is equivalent to the service allocation assigned to the subscriber (e.g. UE). While the subscription service is not a service level as argued by the applicant but the claim does not require the service allocation being a service level. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the above as reading upon the limitation “carrier aggregation based on a service allocation assigned to a subscriber entity”.
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), Jain (Pub No 20190014542), Chanclou (Pub No 20160143016), and Muller (Pub No 20210195521)
Regarding claims 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 sent from a user equipment wherein the multiple different transceiver devices are separate from the device; (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]. Also see separate from RRH units 14. Device under test such as a user equipment (UE), see para [0002]. See device under test 26 sending radio frequency signals to antennas 12 fig. 1. See antenna units 12 separate from the remote radio unit 14, fig. 1).
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 encapsulating packets and transmitting the encapsulated packet to network equipment of a communication network; and
Bahnasy teaches 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.
Rowell teaches carrier aggregation however, Rowell in view of Bahnasy does not teach carrier aggregation is 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 in view of Bahnasy 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.
However, Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain do not teach a single housing containing the device.
Chanclou teaches a single housing containing the device; (interpreted as the RRU and the BBU are operated in a single unit, see para [0013])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the RRU BBU taught by Rowell in view of Bahnasy and Jain with the single housing for the RRU and BBU as taught by Chanclou with the motivation being to reduce delay by having a single unit instead of two communicating units.
The examiner also argues that the claimed limitation of using a single housing performing the same functionality for the multiple devices would 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, Jain, and Chanclou do not teach executing by the virtual network function to perform the aggregation.
Muller teaches executing by the virtual network function to perform the aggregation; (interpreted as Virtual Network Function (VNF) is responsible for handling specific network functions that run in one or more virtual machines 1340 on top of hardware networking infrastructure 1330 and corresponds to application 1320, see para [0177]. Carrier aggregation para [0096])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the virtual machine performing carrier aggregation taught by Rowell in view of Bahnasy, Jain, and Chanclou with the VNF handing the network functions of the virtual machine as taught by Muller since it is known in the art to use VNF inside virtual machines to as software for performing functions.
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 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), Chanclou (Pub No 20160143016), and Rao (Pat No 9736699).
Regarding claim 5 and 14,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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), Chanclou (Pub No 20160143016), Muller (Pub No 20210195521), and Pandey (Pub No 20100167762)
Regarding claim 6,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller with the encapsulation based on the device as taught by Pandey for the benefit of sending packets into different networks by encapsulating their protocol.
Regarding claim 7 and 16,
Rowell, in view of Bahnasy, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller with the encapsulation based on the device as taught by Pandey for the benefit of sending packets into different networks by encapsulating 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), Chanclou (Pub No 20160143016), Muller (Pub No 20210195521), and Debenedetti (Pub No 20210367665)
Regarding claim 9,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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), Chanclou (Pub No 20160143016), Muller (Pub No 20210195521), and Witzel (Pub No 20190104442).
Regarding claim 10 and 18,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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), Chanclou (Pub No 20160143016), Muller (Pub No 20210195521), and Vrzic (Pub No 20160353465)
Regarding claim 11 and 19,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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), Jain (Pub No 20190014542), Chanclou (Pub No 20160143016), Muller (Pub No 20210195521), and Stapleton (Pub No 20150256358)
Regarding claim 15,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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), Jain (Pub No 20190014542), Chanclou (Pub No 20160143016), Muller (Pub No 20210195521), Umeda (Pub No 20120257588), and Peitzer (Pub No 20190366208)
Regarding claim 20,
Rowell in view of Bahnasy, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller 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.
Peitzer 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 If the latencies go over the latency threshold, the network nodes can instantiate VMs closer to the UEs (e.g., at network nodes 506 and 508), see para [0052]
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, Jain, Chanclou, and Muller with the handover taught by Peitzer 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
Prosecution Insights