Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 27-40 and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 27 (lines 9-10) recites "the processing resources.” Further, claim 27 (lines 1-2) recites “processing resources for physical layer (PHY) communications in a wireless network.” Furthermore, claim 27 (line 3) recites “processing resources needed.” It is unclear how "the processing resources” in claim 27 (lines 9-10) relates to “processing resources for physical layer (PHY) communications in a wireless network” in claim 27 (lines 1-2) and “processing resources needed” in claim 27 (line 3). For purposes of examination, the examiner’s interpretation of “the processing resources” is “the processing resources needed,” to be consistent with the first citation of “processing resources needed” in claim 27 (line 3). Whether the intent is for the limitation “the processing resources” to be “the processing resources needed,” or not, correction is required for claim 27 to be definite.
Claim 45 (lines 10-11) recites "the processing resources.” Further, claim 45 (lines 1-2) recites “processing resources for physical layer (PHY) communications in a wireless network.” Furthermore, claim 45 (line 4) recites “processing resources needed.” It is unclear how "the processing resources” in claim 45 (lines 10-11) relates to “processing resources for physical layer (PHY) communications in a wireless network” in claim 45 (lines 1-2) and “processing resources needed” in claim 45 (line 4). For purposes of examination, the examiner’s interpretation of “the processing resources” is “the processing resources needed,” to be consistent with the first citation of “processing resources needed” in claim 45 (line 4). Whether the intent is for the limitation “the processing resources” to be “the processing resources needed,” or not, correction is required for claim 45 to be definite.
Claims 28-40 and 46 are rejected as being dependent of rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 27, 41, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young ‘547 (US 2022/0124547, “Young ‘547”), in view of Wei ‘365 (US 2017/0272365, “Wei ‘365”), and further in view of Kim ‘028 (US 2020/0205028, “Kim ‘028”).
Regarding claims 27 and 45, Young ‘547 discloses a task resource scheduler (TRS) configured to schedule processing resources for physical layer (PHY) communications in a wireless network (FIGS. 1 and 2, para 14, 19-22, 25, and 32; orchestration system 170 determines projected resources for communication in a cellular wireless network, where the projected resources include cloud resources, transport resources, and radio access network (RAN) resources; the orchestration system reads on a TRS),
the TRS being configured to be executed on one or more processing units (FIGS. 2 and 3, para 37-38 and 46; orchestration system includes a processor 220), the one or more processing units being configured to:
estimate processing resources needed, during a subsequent second duration, for PHY communications in one or more cells of the wireless network (FIGS. 3 and 5, para 19-22, 46, 50-53, and 63-66; an orchestration system determines projected resources that are needed to occupy network capacity based on a current load and a projected future load for network resources in an upcoming time period, for cellular wireless communication; the determination of the projected resources is used to determine whether the network capacity is sufficient to meet resource requirements needed to implement an additional network slice; an upcoming time period reads on a second duration), based on:
a first transmission timing configuration for the one or more cells (FIGS. 3 and 5, para 19-22, 25, 46, 50-53, and 63-66; the orchestration system determines projected resources that are needed to occupy network capacity based on a current load and a projected future load for network resources in an upcoming time period; the network is a cellular wireless network; thus, the orchestration system determines the projected resources based on timing in the cellular wireless network),
current workload of radio units (RUs) serving the one or more cells (FIGS. 1 and 3, para 19-22, 25, 46, and 50-53; the current workload is the workload of the cellular wireless network that includes base stations 120; base stations read on radio units) and
data traffic for transmission or reception in the one or more cells (FIG. 1, para 25 and 50; downlink and uplink data transmission in the cellular wireless network).
Although Young ‘547 discloses data traffic for transmission or reception in the one or more cells, Young ‘547 does not specifically disclose information about user data traffic for transmission or reception in the one or more cells.
Wei ‘365 teaches information about user data traffic for transmission or reception in the one or more cells (FIGS. 1 and 2A, para 20, 28-36, and 44; a baseband unit (BBU) implements admission control policy for incoming data traffic, and further manages network resources; the admission control policy is based on whether the data is delay sensitive or not delay sensitive, and based on available computational resources; implementation of the admission control policy results in processing the data locally, depending on the data type and when sufficient computing resources are available; thus, allocated processing resources are determined based on the type of the incoming data traffic being received; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Young ‘547’s TRS that schedules processing resources, to include Wei ‘365’s allocated processing resources that are determined based on the type of the incoming data traffic. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently control network data flow and effectively utilize network resources (Wei ‘365, para 3).
Although Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 discloses information about user data traffic for transmission or reception in the one or more cells, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 does not specifically disclose user data traffic scheduled for transmission or reception in the one or more cells during a first duration which precedes the second duration by at least a scheduling delay associated with the processing resources. Further, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 does not specifically disclose send, to a resource management function, a request for the estimated processing resources during the second duration.
Kim ‘028 teaches user data traffic scheduled for transmission or reception in the one or more cells during a first duration which precedes the second duration by at least a scheduling delay associated with the processing resources (FIG. 6, para 57-58, 60, and 62; a packet is provided by an RLC layer of a terminal for transmission on the uplink; the terminal transmits to a base station a request for uplink resources for a data packet; the terminal receives radio resource allocation information after a scheduling delay for the data packet; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art); and
send, to a resource management function, a request for the estimated processing resources during the second duration (FIG. 6, para 57-58, 60, and 62; the terminal transmits to the base station another request for uplink resources for another data packet after receiving the radio resource allocation information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547 and Wei ‘365, to include Kim ‘028’s request for uplink resources for another data packet. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device for resource allocation in a wireless communication system (Kim ‘028, para 4-7).
Regarding claim 41, Young ‘547 discloses a processing system for physical layer (PHY) communications in a wireless network (FIGS. 1 and 2, para 14, 19-22, 25, and 32; orchestration system 170 determines projected resources for communication in a cellular wireless network, where the projected resources include cloud resources, transport resources, and radio access network (RAN) resources; the orchestration system reads on a TRS), the processing system including:
a plurality of processing units (FIGS. 2 and 3, para 37-39 and 46; orchestration system includes a processor 220 that contains a family of processors); and
one or more memories storing executable instructions (FIGS. 2 and 3, para 37-39 and 46; orchestration system includes a memory 230 that stores instructions executable by the processor) corresponding to:
a resource management function arranged to allocate the processing units for software tasks associated with the PHY communications (FIGS. 1 and 2, para 14, 19-22, 25, and 32; orchestration system allocates cloud and other resources to implement a network slice in the wireless network, where each network slice is software-defined); and
a PHY task resource scheduler (TRS) (FIGS. 1 and 2, para 14, 19-22, 25, and 32; orchestration system 170 determines projected resources for communication in a wireless network, using cellular wireless signals, where the projected resources include cloud resources, transport resources and radio access network (RAN) resources; the orchestration system reads on a TRS),
wherein execution of the instructions by the processing units configures the TRS (FIGS. 2 and 3, para 37-39 and 46; orchestration system includes a memory 230 that stores instructions executable by the processor) to:
estimate processing resources needed, during a subsequent second duration, for PHY communications in one or more cells of the wireless network (FIGS. 3 and 5, para 19-22, 46, 50-53, and 63-66; an orchestration system determines projected resources that are needed to occupy network capacity based on a current load and a projected future load for network resources in an upcoming time period, for cellular wireless communication; the determination of the projected resources is used to determine whether the network capacity is sufficient to meet resource requirements needed to implement an additional network slice; an upcoming time period reads on a second duration), based on:
a first transmission timing configuration for the one or more cells (FIGS. 3 and 5, para 19-22, 25, 46, 50-53, and 63-66; the orchestration system determines projected resources that are needed to occupy network capacity based on a current load and a projected future load for network resources in an upcoming time period; the network is a cellular wireless network; thus, the orchestration system determines the projected resources based on timing in the cellular wireless network),
current workload of radio units (RUs) serving the one or more cells (FIGS. 1 and 3, para 19-22, 25, 46, and 50-53; the current workload is the workload of the cellular wireless network that includes base stations 120; base stations read on radio units), and
data traffic for transmission or reception in the one or more cells (FIG. 1, para 25 and 50; downlink and uplink data transmission in the cellular wireless network).
Although Young ‘547 discloses data traffic for transmission or reception in the one or more cells, Young ‘547 does not specifically disclose information about user data traffic for transmission or reception in the one or more cells.
Wei ‘365 teaches information about user data traffic for transmission or reception in the one or more cells (FIGS. 1 and 2A, para 20, 28-36, and 44; a baseband unit (BBU) implements admission control policy for incoming data traffic, and further manages network resources; the admission control policy is based on whether the data is delay sensitive or not delay sensitive, and based on available computational resources; implementation of the admission control policy results in processing the data locally, depending on the data type and when sufficient computing resources are available; thus, allocated processing resources are determined based on the type of the incoming data traffic being received; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Young ‘547’s processing system for PHY communications, to include Wei ‘365’s allocated processing resources that are determined based on the type of the incoming data traffic. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently control network data flow and effectively utilize network resources (Wei ‘365, para 3).
Although Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 discloses information about user data traffic for transmission or reception in the one or more cells, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 does not specifically disclose user data traffic scheduled for transmission or reception in the one or more cells during a first duration which precedes the second duration by at least a scheduling delay associated with the processing resources. Further, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 does not specifically disclose send, to a resource management function, a request for the estimated processing resources during the second duration.
Kim ‘028 teaches user data traffic scheduled for transmission or reception in the one or more cells during a first duration which precedes the second duration by at least a scheduling delay associated with the processing resources (FIG. 6, para 57-58, 60, and 62; a packet is provided by an RLC layer of a terminal for transmission on the uplink; the terminal transmits to a base station a request for uplink resources for a data packet; the terminal receives radio resource allocation information after a scheduling delay for the data packet; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art); and
send, to a resource management function, a request for the estimated processing resources during the second duration (FIG. 6, para 57-58, 60, and 62; the terminal transmits to the base station another request for uplink resources for another data packet after receiving the radio resource allocation information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined processing system of Young ‘547 and Wei ‘365, to include Kim ‘028’s request for uplink resources for another data packet. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device for resource allocation in a wireless communication system (Kim ‘028, para 4-7).
6. Claims 28-29, 42, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young ‘547, in view of Wei ‘365, further in view of Kim ‘028, and further in view of Xu ‘258 (US 2020/0382258, “Xu ‘258”).
Regarding claims 28, 42, and 46, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 27, 41, and 45, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 does not specifically disclose wherein, for each cell, the first transmission timing configuration includes one or more of the following: time-division duplexing configuration of a plurality of slots in each subframe; relative or absolute timing of an initial slot in each subframe; and relative or absolute timing of an initial symbol in each slot.
Xu ‘258 teaches wherein, for each cell, the first transmission timing configuration includes one or more of the following: time-division duplexing configuration of a plurality of slots in each subframe (FIG. 1, para 46-48; TDD configuration is a time configuration for slots and subframes, where subframes consist of slots; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
relative or absolute timing of an initial slot in each subframe; and
relative or absolute timing of an initial symbol in each slot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547, Wei ‘365, and Kim ‘028, to include Xu ‘258’s TDD configuration that is a time configuration for slots and subframes, where subframes consist of slots. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure reliable communication (Xu ‘258, para 3).
Regarding claim 29, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 27, as outlined above.
Further, Kim ‘028 teaches the request is sent at least the scheduling delay before the second duration (FIG. 6, para 57-58, 60, and 62; a packet is provided by an RLC layer of a terminal for transmission on the uplink; the terminal transmits to a base station a request for uplink resources for a data packet; the terminal receives radio resource allocation information after a scheduling delay for the data packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547, Wei ‘365, and Kim ‘028, to further include Kim ‘028’s terminal receives radio resource allocation information after a scheduling delay for the data packet. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device for resource allocation in a wireless communication system (Kim ‘028, para 4-7).
However, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 does not specifically disclose wherein: the first duration includes a plurality of slots.
Xu ‘258 teaches wherein: the first duration includes a plurality of slots (FIG. 1, para 46-48; TDD configuration is a time configuration for slots and subframes, where subframes consist of slots).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547, Wei ‘365, and Kim ‘028, to include Xu ‘258’s TDD configuration that is a time configuration for slots and subframes, where subframes consist of slots. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure reliable communication (Xu ‘258, para 3).
7. Claims 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young ‘547, in view of Wei ‘365, further in view of Kim ‘028, and further in view of Hong ‘881 (US 2012/0320881, “Hong ‘881”).
Regarding claim 30, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 27, as outlined above.
However, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 does not specifically disclose wherein the second duration is based on hard real-time deadlines associated with the transmission or reception in the one or more cells by the RUs.
Hong ‘881 teaches wherein the second duration is based on hard real-time deadlines associated with the transmission or reception in the one or more cells by the RUs (para 7-9 and 61; in order to ensure real-time transmission, in communication between a node and a device, a guaranteed time slot (GTS) period does not exceed a maximum allowable latency; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547, Wei ‘365, and Kim ‘028, to include Hong ‘881’s guaranteed time slot (GTS) period that does not exceed a maximum allowable latency. The motivation for doing so would have been to address the limited utilization of network bandwidth in case of the IEEE 802.15.4 standard (Hong ‘881, para 5-6).
8. Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young ‘547, in view of Wei ‘365, further in view of Kim ‘028, and further in view of Chen ‘559 (US 2019/0075559, “Chen ‘559”).
Regarding claim 34, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 27, as outlined above.
However, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 does not specifically disclose wherein estimating the processing resources needed is further based on one of the following: information about user data traffic scheduled for transmission or reception in the one or more cells during a plurality of durations before the first duration; or estimated processing resources needed during a plurality of durations before the second duration.
Chen ‘559 teaches wherein estimating the processing resources needed is further based on one of the following:
information about user data traffic scheduled for transmission or reception in the one or more cells during a plurality of durations before the first duration; or
estimated processing resources needed during a plurality of durations before the second duration (FIG. 6, para 7-9 and 61; a terminal device receives messages from other terminal devices, where the messages communicate historical resource occupation by the other terminal devices; the terminal device performs analysis of the received information and selects resources to use in the next period; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547, Wei ‘365, and Kim ‘028, to include Chen ‘559’s selects resources to use in the next period based on historical resource occupation. The motivation for doing so would have been to implement reliable communication between vehicles through more effective transmission resource scheduling (Chen ‘559, para 7).
9. Claims 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young ‘547, in view of Wei ‘365, further in view of Kim ‘028, and further in view of Park ‘618 (US 2018/0343618, “Park ‘618”).
Regarding claim 35, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 27, as outlined above.
However, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 does not specifically disclose wherein estimating the processing resources needed comprises estimating the processing resources needed in each particular cell based on: a cost in processing resources per unit of data traffic, for each signal or channel associated with the user data traffic; and a number of traffic units for each signal or channel in the particular cell.
Park ‘618 teaches wherein estimating the processing resources needed comprises estimating the processing resources needed in each particular cell based on:
a cost in processing resources per unit of data traffic, for each signal or channel associated with the user data traffic; and a number of traffic units for each signal or channel in the particular cell (para 100-101; total consumption energy resource required for data transmission, for each communication interface, is determined by multiplying transmission consumption energy per unit of data with the amount of data; thus, the total consumption energy resource required for data transmission, for each communication interface, is determined by multiplying transmission consumption energy per unit of data with the number of data units; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547, Wei ‘365, and Kim ‘028, to include Park ‘618’s total consumption energy resource required for data transmission, for each communication interface, that is determined by multiplying transmission consumption energy per unit of data with the number of data units. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a need for an electronic device capable of reducing energy consumption and preventing communication disconnection when a communication connection is established using multiple communication interfaces and a communication connection method of the electronic device (Park ‘618, para 8).
10. Claims 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young ‘547, in view of Wei ‘365, further in view of Kim ‘028, and further in view of Hu ‘500 (US US2023/0031500, “Hu ‘500”).
Regarding claim 38, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 27, as outlined above.
Further, Young ‘547 teaches wherein: the one or more cells include a plurality of cells (FIG. 1, para 21-22 and 25; the cellular network includes multiple base stations that communicate with UE devices over cellular wireless signals).
Furthermore, Kim ‘028 teaches the method further comprises sending, to a cell management function (FIG. 6, para 57-58, 60, and 62; the terminal transmits to the base station another request for uplink resources for another data packet after receiving the radio resource allocation information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547, Wei ‘365, and Kim ‘028, to further include Kim ‘028’s another request for uplink resources for another data packet after receiving the radio resource allocation information. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device for resource allocation in a wireless communication system (Kim ‘028, para 4-7).
Although Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 discloses the method further comprises sending, to a cell management function, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 does not specifically disclose sending one or more of the following: information about estimated processing resources needed in each slot of a subframe for each of the cells; and a transmission timing offset to be applied to at least one of the cells.
Hu ‘500 teaches sending one or more of the following:
information about estimated processing resources needed in each slot of a subframe for each of the cells; and
a transmission timing offset to be applied to at least one of the cells (para 273; sending of a timing offset for a cell; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547, Wei ‘365, and Kim ‘028, to include Hu ‘500’s timing offset for a cell. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce a delay in handing over a serving frequency of a terminal device (Hu ‘500, para 4-6).
11. Claims 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young ‘547, in view of Wei ‘365, further in view of Kim ‘028, and further in view of Tarchala ‘800 (US 2022/0086800, “Tarchala ‘800”).
Regarding claim 43, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 41, as outlined above.
However, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 does not specifically disclose wherein the processing units are one of the following: graphics processing units (GPUs); Intel x86 processors or equivalent; or reduced instruction set computing (RISC) processors.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tarchala ‘800 teaches wherein the processing units are one of the following: graphics processing units (GPUs) (para 36; GPU circuitry; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
Intel x86 processors or equivalent; or
reduced instruction set computing (RISC) processors (para 36; RISC processor; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547, Wei ‘365, and Kim ‘028, to include Tarchala ‘800’s GPU circuitry and RISC processor. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a need for a system that provides coordination between multiple parties over a wireless communication network (Tarchala ‘800, FIG. 1, para 1, 19, and 27).
12. Claims 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young ‘547, in view of Wei ‘365, further in view of Kim ‘028, and further in view of Bhandari ‘870 (US 2021/0266870, “Bhandari ‘870”).
Regarding claim 44, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 41, as outlined above.
Further, Young ‘547 teaches a wireless network comprising:
a plurality of radio units (RUs) each serving one or more cells in the wireless network (FIG. 1, para 21-22 and 25; a cellular wireless network includes base stations that wirelessly communicate with UE devices; base stations read on radio units).
However, Young ‘547 in combination with Wei ‘365 and Kim ‘028 does not specifically disclose one or more virtualized distributed units (vDUs), wherein: each vDU is communicatively coupled to a different one or more of the RUs; and each vDU includes the processing system of claim 41.
Bhandari ‘870 teaches one or more virtualized distributed units (vDUs) (FIG. 14, para 94, 115, and 118-119; a network includes vDUs and RUs), wherein:
each vDU is communicatively coupled to a different one or more of the RUs (FIG. 14, para 118-119; vDUs are communicatively coupled with RUs; as seen in FIG. 14, each vDU is coupled to a different RU); and
each vDU includes the processing system (FIG. 19, para 136; a system includes processors) of claim 41.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined TRS of Young ‘547, Wei ‘365, and Kim ‘028, to include Bhandari ‘870’s network that includes vDUs and RUs. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a computer implementation method for resource isolation in wireless communication systems (Bhandari ‘870, para 5-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 31-33, 36-37, and 39-40 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights