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 use the word “unit” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
processor that performs: by a communication function reconfiguration unit
processor performs, by an energy saving information notification unit
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites “computer-readable medium”; which covers transitory and non-transitory medium. A transitory medium is non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2022/0407664 A1.
Claims 1, 12 and 13:
Wang discloses a radio access network control apparatus that controls O-RAN including O-RU as radio unit, comprising at least one processor that performs: by a communication function reconfiguration unit, reconfiguring at least one of hardware and software of at least one of transmitter circuit and receiver circuit in the O-RU (See paras 99, 120 and 123, O-RU configuring RU/cell).
With regards to claim 13, a computer-readable medium storing a radio access network control program (See para 52, program on computer-readable memory)
Claim 2:
Wang discloses that the communication function reconfiguration unit reconfigures at least one of hardware and software of at least one of the transmitter circuit and the receiver circuit in accordance with change in antenna configuration of the O-RU (See paras 99, 120 and 123, O-RU configuring RU/cell).
Claim 4:
Wang discloses at least a portion of the communication function reconfiguration unit is provided in at least one of the SMO and the Non-RT RIC, and generates policy or necessary information for reconfiguration of the O-RU based on information collected concerning the O-RU (See para 99 and 120, cell can be activated/deactivated through O-RU based on the cell load).
Claim 5:
Wang discloses at least a portion of the communication function reconfiguration unit is provided in the Near-RT RIC (Near-Real Time RAN Intelligent Controller) (See fig. 8, Energy saving rApp 803), and reconfigures the O-RU through the E2 interface (See paras 99 and 132, cell activation/deactivation at the E2 node through O-RU. Also see para 64, “The E2 Node 104 is a logical node terminating the E2 interface” and para 85, “Reporting of cell activation and deactivation status from E2 node(s) to near-RT RIC, through E2 interfaces”).
Claim 6:
Wang discloses that the reconfiguration by the communication function reconfiguration unit includes deactivating at least a portion of at least one of the transmitter circuit and the receiver circuit in the O-RU (See para 99 and 120, cell can be activated/deactivated through O-RU based on the cell load).
Claim 7:
Wang discloses that the at least one processor performs, by an energy saving information notification unit, causing the O-RU to notify energy saving information concerning energy saving mode that the O-RU can support (See paras 99 and 120, for energy saving activating and deactivating RU/Cells through O-RU), and
the communication function reconfiguration unit reconfigures at least one of hardware and software of at least one of the transmitter circuit and the receiver circuit in the O-RU in accordance with the energy saving mode (See paras 99 and 120, for energy saving activating and deactivating RU/Cells through O-RU).
Claim 9:
Wang discloses that the energy saving information includes whether the communication function of the O-RU during the energy saving mode can be deactivated (See paras 99 and 120, for energy saving activating and deactivating RU/Cells through O-RU).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Ying et al. US 2024/0214272 A1.
Claim 3:
Wang doesn’t disclose at least a portion of the communication function reconfiguration unit is provided in at least one of the SMO (Service Management and Orchestration) and the Non-RT RIC (Non-Real Time RAN Intelligent Controller), and reconfigures the O-RU through at least one of the Open Fronthaul and the O1 interface.
Ying discloses at least a portion of the communication function reconfiguration unit is provided in at least one of the SMO (Service Management and Orchestration) and the Non-RT RIC (Non-Real Time RAN Intelligent Controller), and reconfigures the O-RU through at least one of the Open Fronthaul and the O1 interface (See para 162, “The Open Fronthaul M-plane interface between the SMO 2602 and the O-RAN Radio Unit (O-RU) 2616 supports the O-RU 2616 management in the O-RAN hybrid model. The Open Fronthaul M-plane 20) interface is an optional interface to the SMO 2602 that is included for backward compatibility purposes, and is intended for management of the O-RU 2616 in hybrid mode only. The management architecture of flat mode and its relation to the O1 interface for the O-RU 2616 is for future study. The O-RU 2616 termination of the O1 interface towards the SMO 2602”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wang with the teachings of Ying to improve the method disclosed by Wang by including the feature of reconfiguration unit in SMO and reconfigures through Fronthaul and O1 interface. The motivation to combine would have been to make it backward compatible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10-11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHIM S BHATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
HASHIM S. BHATTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475