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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 26, 2026 has been entered.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
See independent claim 1 that uses the words “module”, “modules”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 2023/0067773) in view of Krishnamachari (US 10,433,260).
As to claim 1, Chun discloses an open radio access network (0-RAN) radio unit (RU) (0-RU) system for multiple carriers and multiple frequency bands based on an O-RAN standard (see at least figure 5), the O-RAN RU system comprising an O-RU digital part 200 and one or more smart antenna modules 250, wherein the O-RU digital part 200 comprises: a fronthaul transport layer 210 configured to transmit and receive a signal to and from a distributed unit (DU) 164; a low physical layer (Low PHY) 212 configured to process a signal according to an O-RAN division standard received through the fronthaul transport layer 210; a digital front end (DFE) 214 configured to perform digital-to-analog conversion on a signal transmitted by the low physical layer (see “DAC” in block 214); and a first radio frequency (RF) interface 320 configured to transmit and receive a signal to and from the smart antenna module 250, each of the one or more smart antenna modules comprises: a second RF interface 230 configured to transmit and receive a signal to and from the O-RU digital part 200; and a radio frequency front end (RF FE) 240, 252 connected between one or more antennas 256 and the second RF interface 230 and configured to process an RF signal, and the first RF interface 230 and the second RF interface are connected by a transmission line (see the transmission line with legend “Optic” in figure 5).
Chun further discloses that the O-RU digital part 200 (see at least figure 5) comprises a first controller 218 for controlling the fronthaul transport layer 210, the low physical layer 212, the DFE 214, and the first RF interface 320, but fails to disclose that the smart antenna module 250 comprises a second controller for controlling the second RF interface 230 and the RF FE 240, 252, wherein the second controller of each of the plurality of smart antenna modules controls a signal output level and transmits information about each of the plurality of smart antenna modules to the first controller such that the first controller controls the plurality of smart antenna modules.
Krishnamachari discloses that a smart antenna module 414 (see at least figure 4) comprises a second controller 428 for controlling beam forming operation of the smart antenna module 414, wherein the second controller 428 of the smart antenna modules 414 controls a signal output level and transmits information about the smart antenna module 414 to a first controller 416 such that the first controller 416 controls the smart antenna modules. See column 5 line 55 to column 6 line 18. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Krishnamachari to Chun, in order to ensure that each of the smart antenna modules 250 transmits signals at a desired power level.
As to claim 7, Chun discloses that the transmission line is an optical cable, and the first RF interface and the second RF interface include optical converters. See the transmission line with legend “Optic” in figure 5, paragraphs [0015], [0055].
As to claim 8, Chun fails to disclose that the transmission line is a coaxial cable, and the first RF interface and the second RF interface include dividers. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary communication medium to be used between the O-RU digital part 200 and the smart antenna module 250. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact that the transmission line is a coaxial cable, and the first RF interface and the second RF interface include dividers. The examiner takes Official Notice that using a coaxial cable with dividers is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chun as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as high bandwidth, resistance to interference.
As to claim 9, Chun discloses that the transmission line is an Ethernet cable (see paragraphs [0015], [0050], [0051]), but fails to disclose that the first RF interface 210 and the second RF interface 230 include Ethernet switches. The examiner takes Official Notice that such an Ethernet switch is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chun as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as enhance network performance, security, and scalability.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun view of Krishnamachari (US 10,433,260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wren (US 2004/0229562).
As to claim 3, the combination of Chun and Krishnamachari fails to disclose the first controller is configured to remotely monitor a status of the second controller and control the second controller in real time. Wren discloses that a first controller 428 (see figure 6) is configured to remotely monitor a status of a second controller 220 (see figure 2) and control the second controller 220 in real time (see paragraphs [0044], [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Wren to the combination of Chun and Krishnamachari, in order to avoid packet collision (as suggested by Wren at paragraph [0036]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun view of Krishnamachari (US 10,433,260), and Wren (US 2004/0229562) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Huang (US 2022/0159689).
As to claim 4, the modified Chun fails to disclose that the smart antenna module is configured to operate only when data is transmitted to the smart antenna module by the second controller. Huang discloses that a smart antenna module is configured to operate only when data is transmitted to the smart antenna module by a controller (see paragraph [0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Huang to the modified Chun, in order to reduce power consumption (as suggested by Huang at paragraph [0084]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun view of Krishnamachari (US 10,433,260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeda (US 2023/0030066).
As to claim 5, the modified Chun fails to disclose that the second controller is configured to pre-set a ratio of signal power level for each multi-frequency band or multi-carrier received from the DU. Takeda discloses that a user equipment is configured to pre-set a ratio of signal power level for each multi-frequency band or multi- carrier (see paragraph [0289]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Takeda to the modified Chun, in order to ensure that the sum of the transmission power of a plurality of carriers does not exceed a maximum transmission power (as suggested by Takeda at paragraph [0289]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Chun and Takeda discloses controlling the signal power level so that a signal of a specific carrier does not exceed a preset ratio (see Takeda, paragraph [0289]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun view of Krishnamachari (US 10,433,260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uedo (US 2003/0064681).
As to claim 10, the combination of Chun and Krishnamachari fails to disclose that the smart antenna module further comprises a wireless modem for communicating with the first controller of the O- RU digital part. Uedo discloses a processor 2 (see at least figure 1) wirelessly communicates with a second processor 22 (see paragraph [0011]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Uedo to the combination of Chun and Krishnamachari, in order to control the processing of communication (as suggested by Uedo, paragraph [0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buel (US 2019/0150004) discloses smart antenna module 614 (see figure 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646