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 have been fully considered.
Applicant has amended the claims and argued those amendments. Examiner agrees that the amendments overcome the previous rejection as written. However, new art teaches these limitations. Please see the rejections below. All previous arguments are incorporated by reference.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840).
Regarding claim 1, Andreoli-Fang discloses a core node configured to communicate with a remote node, the core node comprising: (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node))
comprising a cable access platform, core having a wireless core, the core node configured to provide consumer premises equipment, CPE, with data-over-cable services and wireless communication system services via the cable access platform core; and (See Andreoli-Fang fig. 2e, 10; mobile core (e.g. wireless core) which communicates with CMTS (e.g. part of core) and provides wireless communication services to CM (e.g. CPE) and the rSC, small cell; see also fig. 11; UE connected to rSC; para. 30, 31; DOCSIS (e.g. data-over-cable service) backhauling small cell traffic which includes 5G, 4G, LTE, etc. (e.g. wireless communication services))
the core node further configured to communicate with a remote node via an link, (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard)
the remote node configured to communicate with the CPE via a link to provide the data-over-cable services and wireless communication system services to the CPE. (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard); para. 31; wired link/cable; para. 30; small cell 4G, 5G, etc. (e.g. wireless comm system services); para. 30, 31; DOCSIS (e.g. data-over-cable service) backhauling small cell traffic which includes 5G, 4G, LTE, etc. (e.g. wireless communication services)) )
Andreoli-Fang discloses using hybrid fiber coax (HFC). (See Andreoli-Fang
para. 38) Andreoli-Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein the remote node is
connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to a CPE
via a cable link and using CCAP in the core. However, Totten does disclose wherein
the remote node is connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to a CPE via a cable link and using CCAP in the core. (See Totten fig. 1, 2,
para. 10, 12, 17; 163A, optical fibre between headend CMTS (e.g. core nodes) and
remote node (e.g. hardline cable plant and/or 167) and a coaxial cable between
the remote node (e.g. hardline cable plant and/or 167) and the modem (e.g. CPE);
para. 39; implemented as converged cable access platform, CCAP) Therefore it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang to include the teaching of wherein the remote
node is connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to
a CPE via a cable link and using CCAP in the core of Totten with the motivation being to
provide high-speed connectivity that is scalable and cost effective (as opposed to laying
completely new fiber) and further to allow for broad service availability with lower
latency and reducing maintenance costs and further to unify formerly separate services
which reduces operational costs, enhances network performance and increases
scalability.
Andreoli-Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented. However, Ulm does disclose wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented. (See Ulm para. 43, fig. 2a; ICCAP platform integrates CMTS) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang to include the teaching of wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented of Ulm with the motivation being to integrate CMTS and other cable-access functions with carrier grade redundancy and high availability and further to reduce inter-device latency.
Regarding claim 2, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm discloses the core node of Claim 1, wherein the wireless communication system services include at least one of Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) New Radio (NR) services, 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) services and Wi-Fi services. (See Andreoli-Fang fig. 10; LTE; para. 30; 4G, LTE, 5G, WiFi)
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551).
Regarding claim 3, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm discloses the core node of Claim 1. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless core includes a user plane unit and a control plane unit configured to communicate with the remote node via tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services. However, Faccin does disclose wherein the wireless core includes a user plane unit and a control plane unit configured to communicate with the remote node via communication tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services. (See Faccin para. 58, fig. 2; secure tunnels established and connect control plane and user plane to UPF, user plane function, and AMF, access and mobility management function (e.g. control plane); remote node is in non-3GPP access network) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm to include the teaching of wherein the wireless core includes a user plane unit and a control plane unit configured to communicate with the remote node via communication tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services of Faccin with the motivation being to allow for connectivity over an untrusted network (See Faccin para. 58) and further to conform to the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money.
Regarding claim 7, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm discloses the core node of Claim 1.
Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless core includes a serving gateway and a mobile management entity, MME, configured to communicate with the node via communication tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services. However, Faccin does disclose wherein the wireless core includes a serving gateway and a mobile management entity, MME, configured to communicate with the node via communication tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services. (See Faccin fig. 3, 5, para. 58, 59; 3GPP access includes MME; EPC includes PGW, packet data network gateway, which serves the device (e.g. serving gateway); para. 58; tunnels) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm to include the teaching of wherein the wireless core includes a serving gateway and a mobile management entity, MME, configured to communicate with the node via communication tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services of Faccin with the motivation being to allow for connectivity over an untrusted network (See Faccin para. 58) and further to conform to the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money and further to allow for standardized connectivity in different 3GPP networks which increases connectivity and reduces delay while increasing throughput.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Campos (2019/0149245).
Regarding claim 4, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin discloses the core node of Claim 3. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core. However, Campos does disclose wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core. (See Campos para. 112; Ethernet switch in CCAP) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Faccin to include the teaching of wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core of Campos with the motivation being to allow for connectivity to different types of networks and further to allow for the widely utilized Ethernet standard which saves time and money and further to allow for increased connectivity.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Pignataro (2019/0297005).
Regarding claim 5, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin discloses the core node of Claim 3. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin does not explicitly disclose wherein the tunnels include a remote PHY pseudowire, PW, of the CCAP core. However, Pignataro does disclose wherein the tunnels include a remote PHY pseudowire, PW, of the CCAP core. (See Pignataro para. 14; PW, CCAP core and R-PHY) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin to include the teaching of wherein the tunnels include a remote PHY pseudowire, PW, of the CCAP core of Pignataro with the motivation being to allow for connectivity over an untrusted network and further to conform to the established standards which saves time and money and further to work with networks that already utilize PW which provides compatibility.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Chapman (2013/0074138).
Regarding claim 6, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin discloses the core node of Claim 3. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication tunnels include an upstream external physical interface, UEPI, and a downstream external physical interface, DEPI. However, Chapman does disclose wherein the communication tunnels include an upstream external physical interface, UEPI, and a downstream external physical interface, DEPI. (See Chapman fig. 2; DEPI, UEPI to and from CMTS core) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin to include the teaching of wherein the communication tunnels include an upstream external physical interface, UEPI, and a downstream external physical interface, DEPI of Chapman with the motivation being to allow for modular architecture which allows for flexibility in network design and further to reduce hardware complexity and further to allow for the foundations of the R-PHY architecture to allow cable operators to build more flexible, scalable, high-performance, and cost effective networks for delivering modern services.
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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840).
Regarding claim 8, Andreoli-Fang discloses a method in a core node configured to communicate with a remote node, the method comprising: (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node))
communicating with the remote node via an link, (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard)
the remote node configured to communicate with a consumer premises equipment, CPE, via a link; (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard); para. 31; wired link/cable; para. 30; small cell 4G, 5G, etc. (e.g. wireless comm system services); para. 30, 31; DOCSIS (e.g. data-over-cable service) backhauling small cell traffic which includes 5G, 4G, LTE, etc. (e.g. wireless communication services)) )
providing data-over-cable services and wireless communication system services
to the CPE via a cable access platform core having a wireless core; and (See Andreoli-Fang fig. 2e, 10; mobile core (e.g. wireless core) which communicates with CMTS (e.g. part of core) and provides wireless communication services to CM (e.g. CPE) and the rSC, small cell; see also fig. 11; UE connected to rSC; para. 30, 31; DOCSIS (e.g. data-over-cable service) backhauling small cell traffic which includes 5G, 4G, LTE, etc. (e.g. wireless communication services))
providing via the remote node, the data-over-cable services and the wireless communication system services to the CPE. (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard); para. 31; wired link/cable; para. 30; small cell 4G, 5G, etc. (e.g. wireless comm system services); para. 30, 31; DOCSIS (e.g. data-over-cable service) backhauling small cell traffic which includes 5G, 4G, LTE, etc. (e.g. wireless communication services)) )
Andreoli-Fang discloses using hybrid fiber coax (HFC). (See Andreoli-Fang
para. 38) Andreoli-Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein the remote node is
connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to a CPE
via a cable link and using CCAP in the core. However, Totten does disclose wherein
the remote node is connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to a CPE via a cable link and using CCAP in the core. (See Totten fig. 1, 2,
para. 10, 12, 17; 163A, optical fibre between headend CMTS (e.g. core nodes) and
remote node (e.g. hardline cable plant and/or 167) and a coaxial cable between
the remote node (e.g. hardline cable plant and/or 167) and the modem (e.g. CPE);
para. 39; implemented as converged cable access platform, CCAP) Therefore it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang to include the teaching of wherein the remote
node is connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to
a CPE via a cable link and using CCAP in the core of Totten with the motivation being to
provide high-speed connectivity that is scalable and cost effective (as opposed to laying
completely new fiber) and further to allow for broad service availability with lower
latency and reducing maintenance costs and further to unify formerly separate services
which reduces operational costs, enhances network performance and increases
scalability.
Andreoli-Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented. However, Ulm does disclose wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented. (See Ulm para. 43, fig. 2a; ICCAP platform integrates CMTS) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang to include the teaching of wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented of Ulm with the motivation being to integrate CMTS and other cable-access functions with carrier grade redundancy and high availability and further to reduce inter-device latency.
Regarding claim 9, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm discloses the method of Claim 8, wherein the wireless communication system services include at least one of Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) New Radio (NR) services, 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) services and Wi-Fi services. (See Andreoli-Fang fig. 10; LTE; para. 30; 4G, LTE, 5G, WiFi)
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551).
Regarding claim 10, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm discloses the method of Claim 8. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless core includes a user plane unit and a control plane unit configured to communicate with the remote node via tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services. However, Faccin does disclose wherein the wireless core includes a user plane unit and a control plane unit configured to communicate with the remote node via tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services. (See Faccin para. 58, fig. 2; secure tunnels established and connect control plane and user plane to UPF, user plane function, and AMF, access and mobility management function (e.g. control plane); remote node is in non-3GPP access network) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm to include the teaching of wherein the wireless core includes a user plane unit and a control plane unit configured to communicate with the remote node via tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services of Faccin with the motivation being to allow for connectivity over an untrusted network (See Faccin para. 58) and further to conform to the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money.
Regarding claim 14, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm discloses the method of Claim 8.
Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless core includes a serving gateway and a mobile management entity, MME, configured to communicate with the node via communication tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services. However, Faccin does disclose wherein the wireless core includes a serving gateway and a mobile management entity, MME, configured to communicate with the node via communication tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services. (See Faccin fig. 3, 5, para. 58, 59; 3GPP access includes MME; EPC includes PGW, packet data network gateway, which serves the device (e.g. serving gateway); para. 58; tunnels) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm to include the teaching of wherein the wireless core includes a serving gateway and a mobile management entity, MME, configured to communicate with the node via communication tunnels to provide the wireless communication system services of Faccin with the motivation being to allow for connectivity over an untrusted network (See Faccin para. 58) and further to conform to the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money and further to allow for standardized connectivity in different 3GPP networks which increases connectivity and reduces delay while increasing throughput.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Campos (2019/0149245).
Regarding claim 11, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin discloses the method of Claim 10. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core. However, Campos does disclose wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core. (See Campos para. 112; Ethernet switch in CCAP) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Faccin to include the teaching of wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core of Campos with the motivation being to allow for connectivity to different types of networks and further to allow for the widely utilized Ethernet standard which saves time and money and further to allow for increased connectivity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Pignataro (2019/0297005).
Regarding claim 12, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin discloses the method of Claim 10. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin does not explicitly disclose wherein the tunnels include a remote PHY pseudowire, PW, of the CCAP core. However, Pignataro does disclose wherein the tunnels include a remote PHY pseudowire, PW, of the CCAP core. (See Pignataro para. 14; PW, CCAP core and R-PHY) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin to include the teaching of wherein the tunnels include a remote PHY pseudowire, PW, of the CCAP core of Pignataro with the motivation being to allow for connectivity over an untrusted network and further to conform to the established standards which saves time and money and further to work with networks that already utilize PW which provides compatibility.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Chapman (2013/0074138).
Regarding claim 13, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin discloses the method of Claim 10. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication tunnels include an upstream external physical interface, UEPI, and a downstream external physical interface, DEPI. However, Chapman does disclose wherein the communication tunnels include an upstream external physical interface, UEPI, and a downstream external physical interface, DEPI. (See Chapman fig. 2; DEPI, UEPI to and from CMTS core) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Ulm in view of Faccin to include the teaching of wherein the communication tunnels include an upstream external physical interface, UEPI, and a downstream external physical interface, DEPI of Chapman with the motivation being to allow for modular architecture which allows for flexibility in network design and further to reduce hardware complexity and further to allow for the foundations of the R-PHY architecture to allow cable operators to build more flexible, scalable, high-performance, and cost effective networks for delivering modern services.
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.
Claims 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Sadek (2015/0063148) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840).
Regarding claim 15, Andreoli-Fang discloses a remote node configured to communicate with a core node, the remote node comprising: (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE))
remote physical, R-PHY, equipment configured to provide data-over-cable
services to consumer premises equipment, CPE,; and (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; RPD, remote physical device which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE) using DOCSIS; see para. 3; Data Over Cable Service (DOCSIS))
the remote node communicatively coupled to the core node via an link, (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard)
the core node comprising a cable access platform having a wireless core, (See Andreoli-Fang fig. 2e, 10; mobile core (e.g. wireless core) which communicates with CMTS (e.g. part of core) and provides wireless communication services to CM (e.g. CPE) and the rSC, small cell; see also fig. 11; UE connected to rSC; para. 30, 31; DOCSIS (e.g. data-over-cable service) backhauling small cell traffic which includes 5G, 4G, LTE, etc. (e.g. wireless communication services))
the core node configured to provide the CPE with the data-over-cable services and the wireless communication system services. (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard); para. 31; wired link/cable; para. 30; small cell 4G, 5G, etc. (e.g. wireless comm system services); para. 30, 31; DOCSIS (e.g. data-over-cable service) backhauling small cell traffic which includes 5G, 4G, LTE, etc. (e.g. wireless communication services)) )
Andreoli-Fang discloses using hybrid fiber coax (HFC). (See Andreoli-Fang para. 38) Andreoli-Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein the remote node is connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to a CPE via a cable link. However, Totten does disclose wherein the remote node is connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to a CPE via a cable link. (See Totten fig. 1, 2, para. 10, 12, 17; 163A, optical fibre between headend CMTS (e.g. core nodes) and remote node (e.g. hardline cable plant and/or 167) and a coaxial cable between the remote node (e.g. hardline cable plant and/or 167) and the modem (e.g. CPE); para. 39; implemented as converged cable access platform, CCAP) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang to include the teaching of wherein the remote node is connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to a CPE via a cable link in the core of Totten with the motivation being to provide high-speed connectivity that is scalable and cost effective (as opposed to laying completely new fiber) and further to allow for broad service availability with lower latency and reducing maintenance costs and further to unify formerly separate services which reduces operational costs, enhances network performance and increases scalability.
Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten do not explicitly disclose radio equipment in communication with a backbone and configured to provide wireless communication system services to the small cell. However, Sadek does disclose radio equipment in communication with a backbone and configured to provide wireless communication system services to the small cell. (See Sadek fig. 16, para. 41; macro cell managing via backhaul small cell; fig. 11 combination of network entity and base station is radio equipment) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten to include the teaching of radio equipment in communication with a backbone and configured to provide wireless communication system services to the small cell of Sadek with the motivation being to reduce interference and further to coordinate transmission to maximize limited wireless resources and further to increase coverage area.
Andreoli-Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented. However, Ulm does disclose wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented. (See Ulm para. 43, fig. 2a; ICCAP platform integrates CMTS) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang to include the teaching of wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented of Ulm with the motivation being to integrate CMTS and other cable-access functions with carrier grade redundancy and high availability and further to reduce inter-device latency.
Regarding claim 16, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm discloses the remote node of Claim 15, wherein the wireless communication system services include at least one of Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) New Radio (NR) services, 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) services and Wi-Fi services. (See Andreoli-Fang fig. 10; LTE; para. 30; 4G, LTE, 5G, WiFi )
Regarding claim 17, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm discloses the remote node of Claim 15, wherein the radio equipment includes radio base station equipment configured to process wireless communication system data carried in part over an over-the-air radio frequency, RF, link. (See Sadek fig. 16, 1, para. 4-5; macro cell has a wireless interface (RF) which carries wireless system data to devices such as UEs) The motivation being to provide a large number of users over a certain geographical area wireless coverage (See Sadek para. 5) and further to allow for implementations that require broader wireless coverage.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Sadek (2015/0063148) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551).
Regarding claim 18, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm discloses the remote node of Claim 15.
Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm do not explicitly disclose wherein the radio equipment includes a radio unit multiplexer configured to communicate with a node via a tunnel to provide the wireless communication services. However, Faccin does disclose wherein the radio equipment includes a radio unit multiplexer configured to communicate with a node via a tunnel to provide the wireless communication services. (See Faccin para. 58, fig. 2; secure tunnels established and connect control plane and user plane to UPF, user plane function, and AMF, access and mobility management function (e.g. control plane); remote node is in non-3GPP access network; multiple tunnels (e.g. multiplexing with a multiplexer for radio resources)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm to include the teaching of wherein the radio equipment includes a radio unit multiplexer configured to communicate with a node via a tunnel to provide the wireless communication services of Faccin with the motivation being to allow for connectivity over an untrusted network (See Faccin para. 58) and further to conform to the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Sadek (2015/0063148) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Campos (2019/0149245).
Regarding claim 19, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm in view of Faccin discloses the remote node of Claim 18. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm in view of Faccin do not explicitly disclose wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core. However, Campos does disclose wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core. (See Campos para. 112; Ethernet switch in CCAP) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm in view of Faccin to include the teaching of wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core of Campos with the motivation being to allow for connectivity to different types of networks and further to allow for the widely utilized Ethernet standard which saves time and money and further to allow for increased connectivity.
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.
Claims 20, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Sadek (2015/0063148) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840).
Regarding claim 20, Andreoli-Fang discloses a method in a remote node configured to communicate with a core node, the method comprising: (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE))
communicating with the core node via an link, (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard)
the core node comprising a cable access platform having a wireless core, (See Andreoli-Fang fig. 2e, 10; mobile core (e.g. wireless core) which communicates with CMTS (e.g. part of core) and provides wireless communication services to CM (e.g. CPE) and the rSC, small cell; see also fig. 11; UE connected to rSC; para. 30, 31; DOCSIS (e.g. data-over-cable service) backhauling small cell traffic which includes 5G, 4G, LTE, etc. (e.g. wireless communication services))
providing data-over-cable services to consumer premises equipment, CPE,
to remote physical, R-PHY, equipment; and (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; RPD, remote physical device which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE) using DOCSIS; see para. 3; Data Over Cable Service (DOCSIS))
the wireless communication system services being provided to the CPE via the R-PHY equipment. (See Andreoli-Fang fig 2e, 3, para. 42; CMTS w/gateway and Mobile core (e.g. a core node) which communicates with RPD, remote physical device (e.g. remote node) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard); para. 31; wired link/cable; para. 30; small cell 4G, 5G, etc. (e.g. wireless comm system services); para. 30, 31; DOCSIS (e.g. data-over-cable service) backhauling small cell traffic which includes 5G, 4G, LTE, etc. (e.g. wireless communication services)) )
Andreoli-Fang discloses using hybrid fiber coax (HFC). (See Andreoli-Fang para. 38) Andreoli-Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein the remote node is connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to a CPE via a cable link. However, Totten does disclose wherein the remote node is connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to a CPE via a cable link. (See Totten fig. 1, 2, para. 10, 12, 17; 163A, optical fibre between headend CMTS (e.g. core nodes) and remote node (e.g. hardline cable plant and/or 167) and a coaxial cable between the remote node (e.g. hardline cable plant and/or 167) and the modem (e.g. CPE); para. 39; implemented as converged cable access platform, CCAP) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang to include the teaching of wherein the remote node is connected to the core node via a optical fiber, the remote node is connected to a CPE via a cable link in the core of Totten with the motivation being to provide high-speed connectivity that is scalable and cost effective (as opposed to laying completely new fiber) and further to allow for broad service availability with lower latency and reducing maintenance costs and further to unify formerly separate services which reduces operational costs, enhances network performance and increases scalability.
Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten do not explicitly disclose radio equipment in communication with a backbone and configured to provide wireless communication system services to the small cell. However, Sadek does disclose radio equipment in communication with a backbone and configured to provide wireless communication system services to the small cell. (See Sadek fig. 16, para. 41; macro cell managing via backhaul small cell; fig. 11 combination of network entity and base station is radio equipment) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten to include the teaching of radio equipment in communication with a backbone and configured to provide wireless communication system services to the small cell of Sadek with the motivation being to reduce interference and further to coordinate transmission to maximize limited wireless resources and further to increase coverage area.
Andreoli-Fang does not explicitly disclose wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented. However, Ulm does disclose wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented. (See Ulm para. 43, fig. 2a; ICCAP platform integrates CMTS) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang to include the teaching of wherein an I-CCAP platform is implemented of Ulm with the motivation being to integrate CMTS and other cable-access functions with carrier grade redundancy and high availability and further to reduce inter-device latency.
Regarding claim 21, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm discloses the method of Claim 20, wherein the wireless communication system services include at least one of Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) New Radio (NR) services, 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) services and Wi-Fi services. (See Andreoli-Fang fig. 10; LTE; para. 30; 4G, LTE, 5G, WiFi )
Regarding claim 22, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm discloses the method of Claim 20, wherein providing the wireless communication system services includes processing wireless communication system data carried in part over an over-the-air radio frequency, RF, link via of radio base station equipment. (See Sadek fig. 16, 1, para. 4-5; macro cell has a wireless interface (RF) which carries wireless system data to devices such as UEs) The motivation being to provide a large number of users over a certain geographical area wireless coverage (See Sadek para. 5) and further to allow for implementations that require broader wireless coverage.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Sadek (2015/0063148) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551).
Regarding claim 23, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm discloses the method of Claim 20.
Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm do not explicitly disclose wherein the radio equipment includes a radio unit multiplexer configured to communicate with a node via a tunnel to provide the wireless communication services. However, Faccin does disclose wherein the radio equipment includes a radio unit multiplexer configured to communicate with a node via a tunnel to provide the wireless communication services. (See Faccin para. 58, fig. 2; secure tunnels established and connect control plane and user plane to UPF, user plane function, and AMF, access and mobility management function (e.g. control plane); remote node is in non-3GPP access network; multiple tunnels (e.g. multiplexing with a multiplexer for radio resources)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm to include the teaching of wherein the radio equipment includes a radio unit multiplexer configured to communicate with a node via a tunnel to provide the wireless communication services of Faccin with the motivation being to allow for connectivity over an untrusted network (See Faccin para. 58) and further to conform to the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreoli-Fang (2020/0275464) and further in view of Totten (2014/0282783) and further in view of Sadek (2015/0063148) and further in view of Ulm (2020/0287840) and further in view of Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Campos (2019/0149245).
Regarding claim 24, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm in view of Faccin discloses the method of Claim 23. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm in view of Faccin do not explicitly disclose wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core. However, Campos does disclose wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core. (See Campos para. 112; Ethernet switch in CCAP) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek in view of Ulm in view of Faccin to include the teaching of wherein the connection includes an Ethernet switch of the CCAP core of Campos with the motivation being to allow for connectivity to different types of networks and further to allow for the widely utilized Ethernet standard which saves time and money and further to allow for increased connectivity.
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 STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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 D Vu can be reached at (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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights