DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application field on 02/27/2024, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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, 5, 7, 11, 15 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,608,734B2, Barbieri et al. (hereinafter,“Barbieri”)Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
In response to claim 1,
Barbieri teaches a system for use in a distributed radio access network (RAN), the system comprising: a baseband unit (BBU); a cluster of remote radio units (RRUs) (claim 1, paragraphs 1-3 teach this limitation); and
an orchestration module (claims 1 and 13, paragraph 1, it can be seen from these claims that the BBU contains functionality/a module to perform orchestration);
wherein the cluster of RRUs and BBU communicate with each other over a fronthaul link using an adaptive protocol (claim 1, paragraph 4, utilizing a front link an adaptive fronthaul protocol teaches this limitation);
wherein the cluster of RRUs is configured to appear as a single base station to a plurality of mobile terminals in connection with providing wireless service to the plurality of mobile terminals (claim 11 teaches this limitation); and
wherein the orchestration module is configured to configure the cluster of RRUs so that a first RRU of the cluster of RRUs transmits first data to a first mobile terminal included in the plurality of mobile terminals and a second RRU of the cluster of RRUs transmits second data to a second mobile terminal included in the plurality of mobile terminals during a same time period using a same frequency (claim 13 teaches this limitation (Note: the BBU contains the orchestration module)).
In response to claims 5 and 15,
Barbieri teaches wherein the orchestration module is configured to cause the system to transmit at least some data to at least one mobile terminal using multiple RRUs (claim 10, using a BBU with a cluster RRUs to communicating teaches this limitation).
In response to claims 7 and 17
Barbieri teaches wherein the BBU comprises the orchestration module (claims 1 and 13, paragraph 1, it can be seen from these claims that the BBU contains functionality/a module to perform orchestration).
In response to claim 11,
Barbieri teaches a method performed using a system comprising a baseband unit (BBU), a cluster of remote radio units (RRUs) (claim 1, paragraphs 1-3 teach this limitation), and
an orchestration module (claims 1 and 13, paragraph 1, it can be seen from these claims that the BBU contains functionality/a module to perform orchestration), the method comprising:
using an adaptive protocol for communications between the cluster of RRUs and the BBU over a fronthaul link (claim 1, paragraph 4, utilizing a front link an adaptive fronthaul protocol teaches this limitation);
configuring the cluster of RRUs to appear as a single base station to a plurality of mobile terminals in connection with providing wireless service to the plurality of mobile terminals (claim 11 teaches this limitation); and
using the orchestration module to configure the cluster of RRUs so that a first RRU of the cluster of RRUs transmits first data to a first mobile terminal included in the plurality of mobile terminals and a second RRU of the cluster of RRUs transmits second data to a second mobile terminal included in the plurality of mobile terminals during a same time period using a same frequency (claim 13 teaches this limitation (Note: the BBU contains the orchestration module)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 16 and 18-20 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.
As for claims 2 and 12, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues and there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the orchestration module is configured to configure the cluster of RRUs so that the first RRU transmits the first data to the first mobile terminal and the second RRU transmits the second data to the second mobile terminal during the same time period using the same frequency if the first RRU is separated from the second RRU by a distance so that interference between transmission of the first data by the first RRU and transmission of the second data by the second RRU is below a predetermined level.”
The closest prior art in the record BITRAN et al. (WO2008078311) teaches on page 4, paragraph 5 to page 5, paragraph 2 about using a radio frequency unit and a baseband processing circuit for establishing long range and shorth range wireless communication between a base station and a wireless device, but he fails to teach the above cited limitations.
As for claims 3 and 13, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues and there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the orchestration module is configured to configure the cluster of RRUs so that the first RRU transmits first data to the first mobile terminal and the second RRU transmits the second data to the second mobile terminal during the same time period using the same frequency by using beam shaping to reduce interference between transmission of the first data by the first RRU and transmission of the second data by the second RRU.”
The closest prior art in the record BITRAN et al. (WO2008078311) teaches on page 4, paragraph 5 to page 5, paragraph 2 about using a radio frequency unit and a baseband processing circuit for establishing long range and shorth range wireless communication between a base station and a wireless device, but he fails to teach the above cited limitations.
As for claims 4 and 14, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues and there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the orchestration module is configured to configure the cluster of RRUs so that the first RRU transmits the first data to the first mobile terminal and the second RRU transmits the second data to the second mobile terminal during the same time period using the same frequency based on radio measurements performed by the cluster of RRUs.”
The closest prior art in the record BITRAN et al. (WO2008078311) teaches on page 4, paragraph 5 to page 5, paragraph 2 about using a radio frequency unit and a baseband processing circuit for establishing long range and shorth range wireless communication between a base station and a wireless device, but he fails to teach the above cited limitations.
As for claims 6 and 16, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues and there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein at least one RRU in the cluster of RRUs is a logical RRU included in a compound RRU comprising multiple logical RRUs.”
The closest prior art in the record BITRAN et al. (WO2008078311) teaches on page 4, paragraph 5 to page 5, paragraph 2 about using a radio frequency unit and a baseband processing circuit for establishing long range and shorth range wireless communication between a base station and a wireless device, but he fails to teach the above cited limitations.
As for claims 8 and 18, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues and there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation ”wherein the BBU does not comprise the orchestration module.”
The closest prior art in the record BITRAN et al. (WO2008078311) teaches on page 4, paragraph 5 to page 5, paragraph 2 about using a radio frequency unit and a baseband processing circuit for establishing long range and shorth range wireless communication between a base station and a wireless device, but he fails to teach the above cited limitations.
As for claims 9 and 19, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues and there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the adaptive protocol comprises a packet-based protocol with at least one of non-guaranteed in-order packet delivery and non-guaranteed packet delivery.”
The closest prior art in the record BITRAN et al. (WO2008078311) teaches on page 4, paragraph 5 to page 5, paragraph 2 about using a radio frequency unit and a baseband processing circuit for establishing long range and shorth range wireless communication between a base station and a wireless device, but he fails to teach the above cited limitations.
As for claims 10 and 20, these claims are objected, because these claims don’t have double patenting issues and there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the system is configured so that the adaptive protocol provides mechanisms for at least one of the BBU and the cluster of RRUs to react to changes in an environment in which the system is deployed.”
The closest prior art in the record BITRAN et al. (WO2008078311) teaches on page 4, paragraph 5 to page 5, paragraph 2 about using a radio frequency unit and a baseband processing circuit for establishing long range and shorth range wireless communication between a base station and a wireless device, but he fails to teach the above cited limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent 9553954……………column 4, lines 10-56.
20160134357…………………paragraph 16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 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, 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466