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 but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 8, Applicant argues that the ‘… CMTS core 208E of Andreoli-Fang is merely a connector and does not include other components let alone "a converged cable access platform, CCAP, core and a wireless core interfaced to the CCAP core ... ‘ Examiner disagrees. First, a CMTS is not merely a connector. CMTSs are networking switching apparatuses that include specialized software. Second, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Andreoli-Fang discloses the DOCSIS-side CMTS/CMTS core functionality used in an integrated DOCSIS/wireless system. Totten teaches that such cable modem system functionally may be implemented using a CCAP. That is, Andreoli Fang in view of Totten teaches the limitations to one of ordinary skill possessing ordinary creativity. In other words, Applicant’s argument that Andreoli-Fang in view Totten fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitations is unpersuasive because the arguments fail to consider or address the proposed combined teachings.
Next, Applicant argues that Totten does not disclose ‘…the core node…coupled to a remote node via an optical fiber link…’ Examiner disagrees. Totten discloses the remote node (e.g. hardline cable plant and/or 167) is linked to the headend (core) with an optical cable and to the CPE via a cable link. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Applicant argues based upon dependency. Please see arguments above and rejections below.
Regarding claims 3-7, 10-14, Applicant argues based upon dependency. Please see arguments above and rejections below.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Applicant argues similarly with regard to claim 1. Please see arguments above and rejections below.
Regarding claims 16, 17, 21, and 22, Applicant argues based upon dependency. Please see arguments above and rejections below.
Regarding claims 18, 19, 23, and 24, Applicant argues based upon dependency. Please see arguments above and rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, 12, and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-7, claim 1 claims a core node and then attempts to limit the core node by reciting ‘the remote node to communicate with a consumer premises equipment, CPE, via a cable link, and the CPE to receive wireless communication system services provided via the CCAP core.’ That is, it is unclear if Applicant is claiming that the remote node is part of the core node. If it is not, it is unclear how actions that a remote node takes would limit the core node. Claims 2-7 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, claims 11 and 12 recite ‘the tunnels’ What tunnels? The communication tunnels or some other tunnels. Appropriate action is required. Please review all of your claims.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites ‘a communication tunnels’ This is grammatically incorrect and unclear. Is there one or multiple tunnels? Please review all of your claims.
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).
Regarding claim 1, Andreoli-Fang discloses a core node of a hybrid Data over Cable Service Interface (DOCSIS) wireless communication system, 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) which communicates with CM (e.g. CPE); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard; para. 38 hybrid)
a network core; (See Andreoli-Fang para. 34; backhauling data over DOCSIS (e.g. cable services); fig. 2e; services provided to CM (e.g. CPE))
a wireless core interfaced to the network 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 and the rSC, small cell; see also fig. 11; UE connected to rSC)
the core node further communicatively coupled to a remote node via an
link; and (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 to communicate with a consumer premises equipment, CPE, and the CPE to receive wireless communication system services provided
via the core. (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);)
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.
Regarding claim 2, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten 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 Faccin (2019/0116551).
Regarding claim 3, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten discloses the core node of Claim 1. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten 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 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 discloses the core node of Claim 1.
Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten 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 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 Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Campos (2019/0149245).
Regarding claim 4, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Faccin discloses the core node of Claim 3. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten 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 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 Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Pignataro (2019/0297005).
Regarding claim 5, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Faccin discloses the core node of Claim 3. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten 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 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 Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Chapman (2013/0074138).
Regarding claim 6, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Faccin discloses the core node of Claim 3. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten 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 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).
Regarding claim 8, Andreoli-Fang discloses a method in a core node of a hybrid Data over Cable Service Interface (DOCSIS) wireless communication system 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); para. 3, 7; CMTS, cable termination system, is part of the DOCSIS standard; para. 38 hybrid)
communicating with a remote node, the remote node configured to communicate with a consumer premises equipment, 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);)
providing data-over-cable services to a consumer premises equipment, CPE,
via a core, the core interfaced to a wireless core in the core node; and (See Andreoli-Fang para. 34; backhauling data over DOCSIS (e.g. cable services); fig. 2e; services provided to CM (e.g. CPE)) (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 and the rSC, small cell; see also fig. 11; UE connected to rSC)
providing wireless communication system services to the CPE and the remote
node via the wireless core, the wireless core providing the wireless communication system services to the CPE via an interface to the core. (See Andreoli-Fang fig. 2e, 10; mobile core (e.g. wireless core) which communicates with CMTS (e.g. part of core) using an interface (the part that faces the other part that provides the connection) and provides wireless communication services to CM and the rSC, small cell; see also fig. 11; UE connected to rSC)
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 method 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.
Regarding claim 9, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten 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 Faccin (2019/0116551).
Regarding claim 10, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten discloses the method of Claim 8. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten 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 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 discloses the method of Claim 8. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten do not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless communication system services are carried over communication tunnels between a serving gateway and a mobile management entity, MME, of the wireless core and the node. However, Faccin does disclose wherein the wireless communication system services are carried over communication tunnels between a serving gateway and a mobile management entity, MME, of the wireless core and the node. (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 to include the teaching of wherein the wireless communication system services are carried over communication tunnels between a serving gateway and a mobile management entity, MME, of the wireless core and the node 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 Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Campos (2019/0149245).
Regarding claim 11, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Faccin discloses the method of Claim 10. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten 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 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 Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Pignataro (2019/0297005).
Regarding claim 12, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Faccin discloses the method of Claim 10. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten 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 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 13 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 Faccin (2019/0116551) and further in view of Chapman (2013/0074138).
Regarding claim 13, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Faccin discloses the method of Claim 10. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Faccin does not explicitly disclose wherein the tunnels include an upstream external physical interface, UEPI, and a downstream external physical interface, DEPI. However, Chapman does disclose wherein the 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 Faccin to include the teaching of wherein the 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).
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 the 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 , the core node including the core and a wireless core interfaced to the core. (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);)
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.
Regarding claim 16, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek 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 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 Faccin (2019/0116551).
Regarding claim 18, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek discloses the remote node of Claim 15. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek 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 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 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 Faccin discloses the remote node of Claim 18. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek 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 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).
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))
providing data-over-cable services to the CPE via 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))
communicating with the core node via an link, the core node including a core and a wireless core interfaced to the core; (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);)
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 an 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 a coaxial cable between the remote node (e.g. hardline cable plant) 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.
Regarding claim 21, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek 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 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 Faccin (2019/0116551).
Regarding claim 23, Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek discloses the method of Claim 20. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek do not explicitly disclose wherein providing the wireless communication services includes communicating with a node of the CPE via communication tunnels tunnels. However, Faccin does disclose wherein providing the wireless communication services includes communicating with a node of the CPE via communication tunnels. (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 Sadek to include the teaching of wherein providing the wireless communication services includes communicating with a node of the CPE via communication tunnels 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 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 Faccin discloses the method of Claim 23. Andreoli-Fang in view of Totten in view of Sadek 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 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
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