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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1-5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). See Papa (US 2019/0274105 A1) figures 1-5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Uses phrases which can be implied, such as, “Is disclosed,” (see line 1).
Uses the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims as “comprising” (see lines 1, 3 and 7); wherein (see line 9)
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation in the specification” Mhz” (see page 3 paragraphs [0010] and [0011]) seems to be improper because it is improperly constructed; it is suggested to be changed to “MHz”
The recitation in the specification” [Typically” (see page 12 paragraphs [0032]) seems to be improper because it is improperly constructed; it is suggested to be changed to “Typically”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-7 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 claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein when an update to the power management profile is not needed" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation "The method of claim 12" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein determining whether an update to the power management profile is needed further comprises" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is rejected because “a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papa (US 2019/0274105 A1) in view of Chentnik (US 2020/0343852 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Papa discloses collecting data impacting power management profile for a multiple-in, multiple-out (MIMO) antenna site (figure 1 and 4 block 401 paragraph [0011], [0023] and [0038]-[0042]); generating a power management profile based on the collected data (figure 1 and 4 block 402 paragraph [0011], [0023] and [0038]-[0042]); collecting current data to apply to the power management profile (figure 1 and 4 block 403 paragraph [0011], [0023] and [0038]-[0042]); and applying data to the power management profile and scheduling a MIMO leg's on/off schedule based on the numbers of users served and other access stations in the cell area (figure 1 and 4 block 404 paragraph [0011], [0023] and [0038]-[0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Papa doesn’t disclose performing grid-backfeeding using a battery at the antenna site. Chentnik discloses performing grid-backfeeding using a battery at the antenna site (figure 1 paragraphs [0003], and [0045]-[0046] “If deployed at a sufficient scale with optional, onboard modern battery technologies, these solar energy systems, which are capable of storing significant amounts of battery power, could back feed the Smart Grid in times of emergency, black outs, disaster, high demand situations, etc.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
415
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Papa and Chentnik are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Papa the pack feeding disclosed by Chentnik. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to use the system in times of emergency, black outs, disaster, high demand situations (see Chentnik paragraphs [0045] and [0046]). See also KSR. In the KSR case, the Court stated that in certain circumstances what is obvious to try is also obvious, such as where "there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." Regarding hindsight, the Court found that "[r]igid preventive rules that deny fact finders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it." The Court stated that "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes," analogizing an obvious invention to the fitting together of pieces to a puzzle. The Court in this regard further stated that the person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, and not "an automaton."
Regarding claim 2, Papa and disclose claim 1, Papa also discloses determining whether an update to the power management profile is needed (figure 1 and 4 block 405 paragraph [0011], [0023] and [0038]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Papa and disclose claim 2, Papa also discloses when an update to the power management profile is needed then repeating the steps of generating a power management profile based on the collected data, collecting current data to apply to the power management profile, and applying data to the power management profile and suggesting an action related to a leg of the MIMO (figure 4 block 405 Yes back to block 402, 403 and 404 paragraph [0011], [0023] and [0038]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Papa and disclose claim 1, Papa also discloses when an update to the power management profile is not needed then repeating the steps of collecting current data to apply to the power management profile, and applying data to the power management profile and suggesting an action (figure 4 block 405 No back to block 403 and 404 paragraph [0011], [0023] and [0038]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Papa and disclose claim 1, Papa also discloses considering factors that impact the electrical power usage, the factors including at least one of: a number of users serviced by the wireless fronthaul access point; distance from other wireless base stations; power consumption by individual components including power amplifiers, base stations, processors, and other system components; traditional weather pattern in the region; number of solar panels and power generated by solar panels, standby power supply and its current capacity and condition; and a scheduling algorithm that relaxes a need to keep the power amplifiers on continuously (abstract paragraph [0016], [0018], [0021], [0038]-[0039], [0044] and [0046], claims 7, 8, 15 and 17 figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Papa and disclose claim 1, Papa also discloses the generating a power management profile is based on variables including at least one of: current weather; number of users; time of the day; day of the week; effect of scheduling algorithms; and a number of solar panels needed to produce electrical energy needed based on weather pattern (abstract paragraph [0016], [0018], [0021], [0038]-[0039], [0044] and [0046], claims 7, 8, 15 and 17 figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Papa and disclose claim 1, Papa also discloses determining whether an update to the power management profile is needed further comprises updating when collected data indicates that the power management profile needs to be updated based on changes in the data that are outside of previously observed pattern, and data that is inapplicable to generate correct predictions and instructions (abstract paragraph [0046], claims 10 and 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Papa (US 20200229110 A1) discloses base station power management using solar panel and battery forecasting.
Papa (US 20210127339 A1) discloses base station power management using solar panel and battery forecasting.
Papa (US 20220312343 A1) discloses base station power management using solar panel and battery forecasting.
Kowalski (US 12323927 B2) discloses power management for integrated access and backhaul networks.
Papa (US 20170077979 A1) discloses antenna-integrated radio with wireless fronthaul.
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for WO2025184164 dated 04/09/2025.
International Search Report for WO2025184164 dated 04/09/2025.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN A TORRES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3119. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kenneth N Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/JUAN A TORRES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634