DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 7-12, 17, 23-24 and 26-28, the amendments now recites a control unit that comprises an interface configured to transmit a first signal relating to a configuration of the first communication system or a different second communication system; and/or to receive a second signal relating to the configuration of the first communication system or the second communication system.
As drafted, the claims still cover any and all ways of transmitting or receiving a signal relating to a configuration of a communication system. The amended interface is not believed to add anything beyond a generic and inherent feature to the claimed control unit.
With regard to claim 1, applicant argues that the central controller of Goldhamer fails to transmit a first signal relating to a configuration of the first communication system or a different second communication system; and/or to receive a second signal relating to the configuration of the first communication system or the second communication system. Examiner respectfully traverses this argument.
Examiner first notes that every limitation above is stated in the alternative (“or”), meaning that only one of said alternatives needs to be taught for the claim to be addressed.
To this end, Goldhamer teaches a central controller that may be embodied in a computing platform such as a base station or network server (see paragraph 37). The primary purpose of this central controller is to coordinate the operation of systems such as those served by elements 102, 103 and 104 in figure 1 (see paragraphs 46-53). Paragraphs 10 and 21 make clear that the central controller sends and receives messages relating to operating parameters that may be changed via commands from the central controller. This very clearly reads on to transmit a first signal relating to a configuration of the first communication system or a different second communication system; and/or to receive a second signal relating to the configuration of the first communication system or the second communication system.
With regard to claims 3, 10 and 11, applicant further argues that Goldhamer is silent about another/second central coordinator. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive as Goldhamer’s above cited teachings clearly establish that the “nodes” (elements 102, 103, 123) also exert some degree of control over the systems (the UEs) they serve.
With regard to claim 9, applicant further argues that Goldhamer does not relate to control channels or maintaining them simultaneously. Examiner finds this unpersuasive as the above cited passages make clear that the central controller is monitoring and changing operating parameters (~control signaling) with multiple nodes at once.
With regard to claim 17, applicant further argues that Goldhamer is silent about the configuration of nodes (102, 103, 104). Examiner finds this unpersuasive as the above passages make clear that operating parameters pertaining to the systems/networks served by those nodes are monitored and adjusted based on the communication between the central controller and said nodes.
With regard to claim 23, applicant argues “the central coordinator provides instructions to the infrastructure nodes on how to adapt their operation, but this is not indicating a feature according to which the first signal that would relate to a configuration of the first communication system (see claim 1). Further, the signal should also be transmitted to a second control unit of the second communication system to request a change of a control implemented by the second control unit”. Examiner finds this unpersuasive as the operating parameters that the central controller monitors and changes for the nodes it communicates with clearly read on “configuration of a communication system”. Examiner further notes that the limitation recited in claim 23 is established as an optional limitation in claim 1, thereby not requiring patentable weight if any of the other alternative features in claim 1 are already addressed.
With regard to claim 28, applicant argues that Goldhamer is silent on peer-to-peer systems and excludes such a solution. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive as Official Notice was taken the peer-to-peer communications between base stations and user devices was well known in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 28 is silent as to the particular manner by which peer-to-peer communication would apply the control unit of claim 1. Examiner believes it obvious that a central controller such as the one recited in Goldhamer can control base stations and/or UE that engage in peer-to-peer communications (~peer to peer systems), even if the central controller itself remains in a position of hierarchal authority.
Furthermore, MPEP section 2144.03 (c) states the following:
“To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 (“[I]n the absence of any demand by appellant for the examiner to produce authority for his statement, we will not consider this contention.”). A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate. If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). See also Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1386, 59 USPQ2d at 1697 (“[T]he Board [or examiner] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings” to satisfy the substantial evidence test). If the examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in the art, the examiner must provide an affidavit or declaration setting forth specific factual statements and explanation to support the finding. See 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate. “
In accordance with MPEP guidelines, Applicant’s failure to adequately traverse Examiner’s Official Notice will be treated as an Admission of Prior Art by applicant.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Control unit configured for performing the functions recited in claims 1-3, 7-12, 17, 23-24 and 26-28.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 17, 23-24 and 26-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Specifically claims 1-3, 7-12, 17, 23-24 and 26-28 recite a control unit comprising an interface configured to transmit a first signal relating to a configuration of the first communication system or a different second communication system; and/or to receive a second signal relating to the configuration of the first communication system or the second communication system. As drafted, the claim covers any and all ways of transmitting or receiving a signal relating to a configuration of a communication system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 17, 23-24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2018/0152966 (Goldhamer).
As to claim 1, Goldhamer teaches a control unit (101, fig 1) configured for controlling communication of members of a first communication system;
wherein the control unit comprises an interface to transmit a first signal relating to a configuration of the first communication system or a different second communication system; and/or to receive a second signal relating to the configuration of the first communication system or the second communication system (see paragraphs 10 and 21, Central Coordinator transmits signals relating to various protocol and configurations to one or more of elements 102-104 each corresponding to a different wireless access network).
As to claim 2, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, adapted to control the first communication system as one of a: -a wireless communication system; - an optical communication system; - a wired communication system; - a combination thereof (see paragraph 10, Central Coordinator controls elements 102-104 as well as elements under the control of those elements via wireless and/or wired connections).
As to claim 3, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein the control unit is a first control unit and is to establish a control channel with a second control unit controlling communication of members of the second communication system for transmitting the first signal and/or receiving the second signal (see figure 1 and paragraphs 46-49, any one of elements 102-104 can read on a second control unit).
As to claim 7, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein the first communication system and the second communication system overlap at least partly in space and at least one of a time, a spectrum and polarisation (see paragraphs 46-49, Central Coordinator control one or more of elements 102-104 which share a spectrum [~overlap in space, time and spectrum]).
As to claim 8, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein the configuration of a communication system relates to at least one of.- a past configuration; - a present configuration; and - a planned future configuration (see paragraphs 10, 17 and 22).
As to claim 9, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein the control unit is to transmit the first signal and/or to receive the second signal via a first control channel; wherein the control unit is to maintain at least a second control channel to transmit or receive a signal simultaneously (see paragraphs 46-49, Central Coordinator control one or more of elements 102-104 which share a spectrum [~simultaneously controlling 2 or more of said elements]).
As to claim 10, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein the control unit is a first control unit and is to transmit the first signal to a second control unit controlling the second communication system (see paragraph 46-49, any one of elements 102-104 can read on a second control unit. Note that only one of the transmissions of the first signal and the reception of the second signal require patentable weight in view of claim 1).
As to claim 11, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein the control unit is a first control unit and is to receive the second signal from a second control unit controlling the second communication system (see paragraphs 10 and 46-49, reports received from elements 102-104 which can each read on a second control unit. Note that only one of the transmissions of the first signal and the reception of the second signal require patentable weight in view of claim 1).
As to claim 12, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 10, wherein the first control unit is to transmit and/or receive the signal via a control channel to transmit and/or receive control information to adapt an operating parameter of the first communication system and/or of the second communication system (see paragraphs 10, 17 and 22, operating parameters adapted in response to reports received from elements 102-104. Note that only one of the transmissions of the first signal and the reception of the second signal require patentable weight in view of claim 1).
As to claim 17, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein the control unit is to: transmit information relating to a configuration of the second communication system with the first signal; or receive information relating to a configuration of the first communication system with the second signal (see paragraphs 10, 17 and 22, operating parameters adapted in response to reports received from elements 102-104. Note that only one of the transmissions of the first signal and the reception of the second signal require patentable weight in view of claim 1).
As to claim 23, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein the control unit is to transmit the first signal to a second control unit of the second communication system to request a change of a control implemented by the second control unit (see paragraph 17, requesting the first or second wireless node to change at least one parameter from the frequency channel and medium access parameters in the frequency channel. Note that only one of the transmissions of the first signal and the reception of the second signal require patentable weight in view of claim 1).
As to claim 24, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein a member of a communication system relates to any network element such as at least one of.- a user equipment, UE;-a base station, gNB, - an integrated access backhaul, IAB, node; - a relay; - a control unit, CU; - a functional element which is part of the decision and control loop to configure or reconfigure a communication system (see figure 1)
As to claim 26, Goldhamer further teaches the control unit of claim 1, wherein the control unit is to transmit the first signal and/or receiving the second signal using a control channel comprising at least one of:- a logical channel; - a physical channel; and - an interface or radio interface (see paragraphs 46 and 54. Note that only one of the transmission of the first signal and the reception of the second signal require patentable weight in view of claim 1)
As to claim 27, Goldhamer further teaches a base station for a communication system comprising a control unit according to claim 1 (see figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldhamer in view of Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
As to claim 28, what is explicitly lacking from Goldhamer is a peer for a peer-to-peer communication system comprising a control unit according to claim 1.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the arts for base stations and user devices such as those disclosed in figure 1 of Goldhamer to form peer to peer connections with one another.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the arts to apply this teaching to Goldhamer so as to reduce the resource burden of the various controlling nodes (Central Coordinator, base stations).
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 MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights