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 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. 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: uplink allocation map component in claim 1,5,6,15, and 19.
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 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 4,11, and 19 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.
The term “substantially fixed rate” in claims 4,11, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially fixed rate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree of the “fixed rate” cannot be ascertained because the term “substantially” is not defined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/423087 (reference application referred to as A087). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1: Claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 1 of A087, except claim 1 of A078 uses “user plane data” and “discontinuous transmit state” instead of “control plane data” and “discontinuous receive state”, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the control plane data and discontinuous receive state are obvious variants of user plane data and discontinuous transmit state of A087.
Re claim 2: Claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 2 of A087.
Claim 3: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 3 of A087.
Claim 4: Claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 4 of 087.
Claim 5: Claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 5 of 087.
Claim 6: Claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 6 of 087.
Claim 7: Claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 7 of 087.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,8,9,15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by He (US 20230300742).
Re claim 1:
He discloses a radio unit for radio frequency communications, comprising (Fig. 2):
an input configured to receive a plurality of packets, at least one of the packets including control plane data (Para.[088] The UE 110 can include the UE-CU component 614 that receives and processes the separate control information from the gNB 120 at a control-plane protocol layer to then process the on-off operations of the power control mechanism by activating / deactivating CCs or BWPs on the access link based on the detected control information from the gNB 120 and Para.[0069] data (e.g., packet data) received);
one or more receive paths configured to receive one or more radio frequency signals from one or more antennas (Fig.2 and Para.[0048] The baseband circuitry 204 can include one or more baseband processors or control logic to process baseband signals received from a receive signal path of the RF circuitry 206) and
an uplink allocation map component configured to receive the control plane data and determine a discontinuous receive state for each of the one or more receive paths based on the control plane data (Para.[088] The UE 110 can include the UE-CU component 614 that receives and processes the separate control information from the gNB 120 at a control-plane protocol layer to then process the on-off operations of the power control mechanism by activating / deactivating CCs or BWPs on the access link based on the detected control information from the gNB 120 and Para. [0113] As one example, reserved’ symbols can be scheduled by the base station 120 for SMR-UEs 170a thru 170c to transmit periodic uplink signals (e.g., a scheduling request (SR) transmission, control information for SMR-CCs activation/deactivation operations, or other UL). For example, a DRX trigger signal 910, 930, 940, 960 can be a DCI format as a DRX trigger DCI format that includes a bitmap field (e.g., BW indicator field or the like) indicating the symbols or slots for DRX operation to not be applied at and the SMR 170 is powered on / activated. The DRX trigger signal 910, 930, 940, 960 can be configured to control the DRX monitoring cycle in a DCI format for one or more SMRs based on subsets of CCs of a plurality of CCs or a BWP based on at least one bit of the bitmap. The DRX trigger DCI can be configured with a DRX monitoring occasion for the DRX cycle and DRX monitoring occasion can be configured by RRC signaling prior to a first slot of the DRX).
Re claim 2:
He discloses the radio unit of Claim 1, wherein each of the one or more receive paths is further configured to turn on and turn off based on the corresponding discontinuous receive state (Para.[088] The UE 110 can include the UE-CU component 614 that receives and processes the separate control information from the gNB 120 at a control-plane protocol layer to then process the on-off operations of the power control mechanism by activating / deactivating CCs or BWPs on the access link based on the detected control information from the gNB 120 and Para. [0113] As one example, reserved’ symbols can be scheduled by the base station 120 for SMR-UEs 170a thru 170c to transmit periodic uplink signals (e.g., a scheduling request (SR) transmission, control information for SMR-CCs activation/deactivation operations, or other UL). For example, a DRX trigger signal 910, 930, 940, 960 can be a DCI format as a DRX trigger DCI format that includes a bitmap field (e.g., BW indicator field or the like) indicating the symbols or slots for DRX operation to not be applied at and the SMR 170 is powered on / activated. The DRX trigger signal 910, 930, 940, 960 can be configured to control the DRX monitoring cycle in a DCI format for one or more SMRs based on subsets of CCs of a plurality of CCs or a BWP based on at least one bit of the bitmap. The DRX trigger DCI can be configured with a DRX monitoring occasion for the DRX cycle and DRX monitoring occasion can be configured by RRC signaling prior to a first slot of the DRX).
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1. He further discloses a distributed unit configured to output a plurality of packets, at least one of the packets including control plane data; one or more antennas configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signals; and a radio unit configured to receive the packets from the distributed unit and to receive the RF signals from the one or more antennas based on the control plane data (Fig.2 and Para.[0088] The UE-DU component 616 can receive and send data via a data of a user-plane protocol layer in direct communication with a base station or indirectly via a smart repeater).
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Claim(s) 3,4,10,11,17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20230300742) in view of Kainulainen (US 20230239715).
Re claim 3:
As discussed above, He meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
He further discloses the radio unit of Claim 1, further comprising: (Fig.2 and Para.[0048] The baseband circuitry 204 can include one or more baseband processors or control logic to process baseband signals received from a receive signal path of the RF circuitry 206 and Para.[088] The UE 110 can include the UE-CU component 614 that receives and processes the separate control information from the gNB 120 at a control-plane protocol layer).
He does not explicitly disclose a data jitter buffer configured to receive data
Kainulainen discloses a data jitter buffer configured to receive data (Fig.4 ref. 416 and 418).
He and Kainulainen are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He to include buffering as taught by Kainulainen in order to improve efficiency and flexibility in communicating (Kainulainen Para.[0089]).
Re claim 4:
As discussed above, He in view of Kainulainen meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
He does not explicitly disclose the radio unit of Claim 3, wherein the data jitter buffer is further configured to provide the control plane data at a substantially fixed rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that providing data at a substantially fixed rate is well known in the art. Xu (US 20070019579) is further evidence relied upon to show a constant rate (Para.[0025] As described before, if a constant lower bit rate is required by the receiver, this may be provided by buffering the received bursts).
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Claim(s) 5,12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20230300742) in view of Watts (US 20230328650).
Re claim 5:
As discussed above, He meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
He does not explicitly disclose the radio unit of Claim 1, wherein the uplink allocation map component is further configured to set the discontinuous receive state in one of a first discontinuous receive state in which the corresponding receive path is to be turned off in response to absence of the control plane data or a second discontinuous receive state in which the corresponding receive path is to be turned on in response to the control plane data indicating that there are radio frequency signals to be received.
Watts discloses the radio unit of Claim 1, wherein the uplink allocation map component is further configured to set the discontinuous receive state in one of a first discontinuous receive state in which the corresponding receive path is to be turned off in response to absence of the control plane data (the alternative has been addressed below) or
a second discontinuous receive state in which the corresponding receive path is to be turned on in response to the control plane data indicating that there are radio frequency signals to be received (Para.[0031] access device 107 may transmit a control plane message to end device 130. The control plane message may include data to initiate the setup a DRX-free network slice and enable end device 130 to receive prospective downlink data via a radio communication link with access device 107).
He and Watts are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He to include turning on a receive path based on a signal as taught by Watts in order to improve latency (Watts Abstact).
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 6,13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20230300742) in view of Cherian (US 20220312347).
Re claim 6:
As discussed above, He meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
He further discloses the radio unit of Claim 1, wherein: each of the one or more receive paths comprises a low noise amplifier coupled to a corresponding one of the one or more antennas, and the uplink allocation map component is further configured to (Para.[0063] In some aspects, the FEM circuitry 208 can include a TX/RX switch to switch between transmit mode and receive mode operation. The FEM circuitry can include a receive signal path and a transmit signal path. The receive signal path of the FEM circuitry can include an LNA to amplify received RF signals and provide the amplified received RF signals as an output (e.g., to the RF circuitry 206)).
He does not explicitly disclose provide the discontinuous receive states to the one or more low noise amplifiers.
Cherian discloses provide the discontinuous receive states to the one or more low noise amplifiers (Para.[0123] In some implementations, the UE 115 may perform one or more LNA AGC management decisions based on one or more states or power saving modes of the UE 115. For example, the UE 115 may make LNA AGC management decisions based on a discontinuous reception (DRx) mode and Para.[0124] On the other hand, if the SUB1 enters a CDRx mode or a sleep mode (e.g., a usleep mode), the UE 115 may either suspend control of the LNA 505 or may give control of the gain for the LNA 505 to the SUB2 depending on a length or duration of the CDRx mode or the sleep mode).
He and Cherian are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He to include provide DRX states to an LNA as taught by Cherian in order to improve LNA management (Cherian Para.[0005]).
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20230300742) in view of Song (US 20230337268).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above, He meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
He further discloses the radio unit of Claim 1, wherein the input is further configured to receive the packets from a distributed unit (Para.[0088] The UE-DU component 616 can receive and send data via a data of a user-plane protocol layer in direct communication with a base station or indirectly via a smart repeater).
He does not explicitly disclose via Ethernet.
Song discloses via Ethernet (Para.[0051] Connections may, through, for example, Ethernet, be made between the O-DU and the RIC, between the O-CU-CP and the RIC, and between the O-CU-UP and the RIC).
He and Song are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He to include via Ethernet as taught by Song in order to use a well-known communication standard and efficiently allocate resources (Song Para.[0130]).
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Khurana (US 20160105810) shows control plane signaling triggering monitoring and DRX.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights