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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pi et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0142136) in view of Mengwasser et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0309074).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Pi discloses a method a communications system (see figure 7) non-transitory computer medium including computer executable instructions (paragraph 8: software/hardware) comprising:
a network entity/base station (figure 7 BS1-4) including:
memory (figure 7; paragraph 8: base station has memory); and
a first processor (figure 7; paragraphs 8: base station has processor), said first processor controlling the network entity to perform the following operations:
establishing, by a network entity, a primary backhaul connection path for exchanging messages with a core network (see figure 7, BS 702 connects to network 704 via primary link (solid line) and link between Hub 706 and network 704; paragraphs 67 and 68);
establishing, by the network entity, a secondary backhaul connection path for
exchanging messages with the core network (see figure 7, BS 702 connects to network 704 via secondary link (dotted line) and link between Hub 706 and network 704; paragraphs 67 and 68), and
determining, by the network entity, whether to utilize the primary backhaul connection path or the secondary backhaul connection path for communicating with the core network based on communications with the network/node (paragraphs 67 and 68: if the link between Hub2 706b and the network is congested or disrupted…in this case, BS2 702b can connect to the network via the link between BS2 702b and Hub1 706a).
Pi does not teach the network entity/base station is a CBSD and the core network of a CBRS Domain Proxy and a test server.
However, in the field of base station communicating with core network, Mengwasser discloses the network entity/base station is a CBSD and the core network of a CBRS Domain Proxy and a test server (see figure 2 CBSD 107 communicates with CBRS Domain Proxy control system 101 with (test) server system 101A; paragraphs 27 discloses base station/network entity 107 is CBSD and vice versa, and paragraph 32 and 33 disclose CBRS domain proxy for CBSDs with server system 101A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute a known element (CBSD and CBRS domain proxy with server in Mengwasser) for another element (base station and core network in Pi) for predictable result of access and core network communication.
Regarding claims 11, all limitations of claims 1 are disclosed above. Pi further teaches wherein the primary backhaul connection path and the secondary backhaul
connection path exist concurrently (see figure 7 and paragraph 68: switching over to another path upon failure).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pi et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0142136) in view of Mengwasser et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0309074) in view of Sevndik (US Pub. No. 2023/0144939).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, all limitations of claims 1 and 12 are disclosed above. Pi does not teach but Sevndik discloses wherein the primary backhaul connection path includes fiber optic cabling, said CBSD being connected to the fiber optic cabling via a fiber optic cable termination switch; and wherein the secondary backhaul connection path includes coaxial cabling and a Cable Modem Termination System, said CBSD being connected to the coaxial cabling via a cable modem (see figure 1 and paragraph 36: communication links are coaxial cables or fiber optic cables).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute known element (coaxial cables or fiber optics cables) for predictable result of transporting signaling between communication devices.
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pi et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0142136) in view of Mengwasser et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0309074) in view of Xue (US Pub. No. 2018/0205629).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, all limitations of claims 1 and 12 are disclosed above. Pi does not teach but Xue discloses wherein said communications with the test server are ping messages transmitted from the CBSD to the test server via the primary backhaul connection path or the second backhaul connection path and ping response messages received by the CBSD from the test server (paragraphs 215 and 216).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Pi wherein said communications with the test server are ping messages transmitted from the CBSD to the test server via the primary backhaul connection path or the second backhaul connection path and ping response messages received by the CBSD from the test server.
The motivation would have been for path/device detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art Pi reference discloses a concept of a network entity having redundant paths to the core network and selecting a path based on path/link condition. Mengwasser teaches communication between network entity/CBSD device with core networking including CBRS domain proxy and system server. Claim 4’s elements of a CBSD continuously transmits ping messages to the core network, upon the CBSD failing to receive a threshold number of consecutive ping response messages, the CBSD continuously sends ping messages to the secondary path are not found in the art, or if they are found it would not have been obvious to combine with the main references.
Claims 5-10 and 15-19 are objected to allow for the same/similar reason set forth in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khawer et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0015520) disclose support for Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) Devices (CBSDs) in private enterprise networks based on spectrum access system (SAS).
Raghothaman et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0305159) discloses cloud radio access network implementing a Citizens Broadband Radio Service System.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466