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 .
This communication is response to claims filed on 02/29/24.
Claims 1-23 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement’s
4. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 02/29/24 & 05/15/25 have being considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Priority
5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawing
6. The drawings filed on 02/29/24 are accepted by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
7. 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.
8. 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a PDU MAC (PCELL MAC) module is configured to...”, “sDU MAC (SCELL MAC) module is configured…”, “a MAC module”, DU MAC module…”, “ pDU MAC module is configured to…”, “sDU MAC Module” in claims 1 & 3.
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 (Figure 10, Paragraphs 0149-0155) 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.
Specification Objections
9. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
10. Claims 1-8 recites, "a pDU MAC (PCELL MAC) module, a sDU MAC (SCELL MAC) module, a MAC module, a peer DU MAC module, a pDU MAC module & a sDU MAC module" and the specification fails to have antecedent basis for the terms in the claims. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Appropriate Correction is required.
Claims Objections
11. Claims 1-23 are objected to because of minor informalities:
12. Claim 1, in part, recites, “…DUs, CUs (in line 2); UEs, SCELLS (in line 6); pDU MAC (PCELL MAC) (in line 7) . For clarity, it is suggested to fully describe an acronym when reciting for the first time in the claim.
13. Claim 3 (DL); Clam 6 (PUCCH, HARQ); Claim 8 (GTP); Claim 11 (SFN); Claim 15 (CA); Claim 18 (UE-ID, CRNTI) are also objected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
14. Claims 2-23 are also objected since they are depend upon objected independent claim set forth above.
15. Claim 1, in part, recites, “…CU/DU/gNB… & ….DU/vDU….” in line 2 & in line 11 respectively. It is suggested to clarify the use of words instead of “/”.
16. Claim 23 is also objected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
17. Claims 2-23 are also objected since they are depend upon objected independent claim set forth above.
18. Claim 1, in part, recites, “…each CU/DU/gNB…” in line 4. Since it is recited for the first time in the claim, for clarity it is suggested to change “each CU/DU/gNB” to “The each CU/DU/gNB”.
19. Claim 2, in part, recites, “…the cells…” in line 2. Since it is recited for the first time in the claim, for clarity it is suggested to change “the cells” to “cells”. OR For consistency and clarification with “SCELLs” recited in claim 1, line 7, it is suggested to change “the cells” in line 2, to “the SCELLs”.
20. Claims 21 & 23 are also objected for the same reason as claim 2 above.
21. Claims 2-23 are also objected since they are depend upon objected independent claim set forth above.
22. Claim 8, in part, recites, “configured combine” in line 1. It’s suggested to amend it to: “configure to combine”
23. Claims 9-12 are also objected since they are depend upon objected independent claim set forth above.
24. Claim 7, in part, recites, “…the user data and Scell modification procedures” in line 2. Since it is recited for the first time in the claim, for clarity it is suggested to change “the user data and Scell modification procedures” to “a user data and Scell modification procedures”.
25. Claim 17, in part, recites, “…to, on bring up” in line 1. It’s suggested to correct the grammar.
26. Claim 18 is also objected since they are depend upon objected independent claim set forth above
27. The examiner encourages the applicants to go over the whole claims thoroughly to avoid minor informalities as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
28. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
29. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majmundar et al. (hereinafter referred as Majmundar) US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0160940 A1, in view of Kotaru et al. (hereinafter referred as Kotaru) US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0408377 A1.
Regarding claim 1: Majmundar discloses a cellular communication system (See Abstract, a system that facilitates monitoring communication between a network node device and a communication device) comprising:
a group of gNBs, DUs, and CUs, each with multiple sectors, communicating with a set of UEs (See FIG. 3B & Para. 0047; CU A, CU B, DU A, DU B, DU C, UE A, UE B);
each CU/DU/gNB being configured to be physically located at a same place or different places (See FIG. 2 & Para. 0045; gNB-CU and gNB-DU are located at the same place (i.e., gNB (CU-DU)));
each of the set of UEs comprising a plurality of SCELLs running in different DUs, whereby a pDU MAC (PCELL MAC) module is configured to operate in one DU and a sDU MAC (SCELL MAC) module is configured to operate in a different one of the Dus (See Para. 0051; The X.sub.mac interface may consist of a control plane part, X.sub.mac-C, and user plane part, X.sub.mac-U. When configured to operate in inter-site mode, the MAC at one of the DUs (for example, the DU that hosts the PCell), is designated as the primary MAC, and the MACs at other DUs in inter-site operation are designated as secondary MACs); and
a MAC module in each DU is configured to exchange a message with a peer DU MAC module for a seamless data transfer for supporting inter DU/vDU carrier aggregation for a UE of the set of UEs (See 0054; the MAC at one DU (e.g., 434A) is designated as the primary MAC, while the MAC at the peer DU (e.g., 434B) is designated as the secondary MAC. For example, in the case of inter-site CA, the MAC associated with the PCell carrier is designated as the primary MAC, while the MAC associated with a SCell carrier is designated as the secondary MAC. In some embodiments, the primary MAC (e.g., 434A) controls of the secondary MAC (e.g., 434B) via the X.sub.mac interface 422).
Majmundar does not explicitly disclose each CU/DU/gNB being configured to operate in a separate server or a same server.
However, Kotaru from the same field of endeavor discloses each CU/DU/gNB being configured to operate in a separate server or a same server (See Para. 0041 & 0046; The CU 222 and DU 220 software can be collocated on the same server site. One or more of the DU 220, CU 222, MC 224, and cloud server 226 may collectively or separately be implementations of the centralized controller 199).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include each CU/DU/gNB being configured to operate in a separate server or a same server as taught by Kotaru in the system of Majmundar to provides implementations of systems and methods for centralized control of radio unit transmission power (See Para. 0002; lines 2-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
30. Claims 2-23 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
31. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Krasilnikov et al. 2024/0114070 A1 (Title: Distributed and synchronized network core for radio-based networks) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Kok et al. 2025/0193730 A1 (Title: Reassigning a network address of a distributed UNIT) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Tang et al. 2025/0037032 A1 (Title: Apparatus and method for multi-stage machine learning with cascaded models) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469