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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the non-highlighted elements include overlapping subject matter and the highlighted elements are obvious variants such that the inventions are not patentably distinct”. This is not found persuasive because:
In this case, at least in part, Group I, discussed the method of allocating capacity…comprising: obtaining a capacity for each of the plurality of antenna ports;… determining, based on the throughput and the capacities, a configuration for the first antenna; dynamically selecting, based on the capacities and the configuration for the first antenna, one or more antenna ports in the plurality of antenna ports to allocate to the first antenna.
On the other hand, at least in part, Group II, discussed a system for allocating antenna ports…comprising: assess a bandwidth utilization of a first antenna in the plurality of antennas; determine, based on the bandwidth utilization of the first antenna, a configuration for the first antenna; dynamically select, based on the configuration for the first antenna, a first set of antenna ports of the radio unit to allocate to the first antenna.
Further on the other, at least in part, Group III, discussed a cellular network comprising: identify a first sector and a second sector of a cell site; assess a first throughput of a first antenna of a plurality of antennas associated with the first sector; assess a second throughput of a second antenna of the plurality of antennas associated with the second sector; dynamically select, based on the first throughput and the second throughput, a first set of antenna ports from the plurality of antenna ports to allocate to the first antenna and a second set of antenna ports from the plurality of antenna ports to allocate to the second antenna; allocate the first set of antenna ports to the first antenna; and allocate the second set of antenna ports to the second antenna.
Thus, as shown above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments that the restricted groups are not patentably distinct because some portions of the claims are obvious variants.
Furthermore, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of antennas" in fifth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to dependent claims 2-14, the claims are rejected for similar reasons by virtue of dependency on the rejected independent claim.
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) 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki (US Publication No. 20120134279) in view of Su (US Publication No. 20180041265).
As to claim 1, Tamaki teaches method for allocating capacity of a radio unit to an antenna of a cell site (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3), comprising: identifying a plurality of antenna ports of the radio unit (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0124, pp0128, plural antenna ports for the base station apparatus 102); assessing a throughput of a first antenna in the plurality of antennas (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, in the case where the antenna number is decided from #1, #2, #3 and #4, for example, when the #1, #2 and #4 antennas satisfy the estimated throughput, the physically used antenna is decided); determining, based on the throughput, a configuration for the first antenna (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, antenna connection pattern); dynamically selecting, based on the configuration for the first antenna, one or more antenna ports in the plurality of antenna ports to allocate to the first antenna (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, In deciding the antenna number, in the case where the antenna number is decided from #1, #2, #3 and #4, for example, when the #1, #2 and #4 antennas satisfy the estimated throughput, the physically used antenna is decided. In a process for selecting the antenna ports for these three antennas, three ports are needed, and pp0178); and allocating the one or more antenna ports of the radio unit to the first antenna (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, pp0042, a setting is made in which one or more antennas from among the selected antenna cluster and terminal antennas are allocated to be a transmitting/receiving antenna, and the antenna ports of the base station apparatus corresponding to the set number of distributed antenna are allocated). However, Tamaki fails to explicitly teach the concept of obtaining a capacity for each of the plurality of antenna ports.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Su teaches the concept of obtaining a capacity for each of the plurality of antenna ports (fig. 3, pp0072, pp0078, When the k antenna ports are selected from the A antenna ports, determining the throughput or capacity corresponding to each possible combination of antenna ports, pp0072, the terminal may determine a set of Q antenna ports with the maximum throughput or capacity from the A antenna ports). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaki with the teachings of Su to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing information to effectively improve a spatial resolution as well as a system capacity of a communication system (Su, pp0005).
As to claim 3, Tamaki in view of Su teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Tamaki further teaches wherein allocating the one or more antenna ports of the radio unit to the first antenna comprises: reducing a number of antenna ports of the radio unit that are allocated to the first antenna (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, When the number of ports used is larger than the number of physical antennas newly decided, the antenna port having large port number is freed).
As to claim 4, Tamaki in view of Su teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Tamaki further teaches further comprising: selecting a second antenna in the plurality of antennas (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, in the case where the antenna number is decided from #1, #2, #3 and #4, for example, when the #1, #2 and #4 antennas satisfy the estimated throughput, the physically used antenna is decided); assessing a throughput of the second antenna (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, in the case where the antenna number is decided from #1, #2, #3 and #4, for example, when the #1, #2 and #4 antennas satisfy the estimated throughput, the physically used antenna is decided); dynamically selecting, based on the throughput of the second antenna, an antenna port of the plurality of antenna ports to allocate to the second antenna; and allocating the selected antenna port to the second antenna of the plurality of antennas (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, pp0042, a setting is made in which one or more antennas from among the selected antenna cluster and terminal antennas are allocated to be a transmitting/receiving antenna, and the antenna ports of the base station apparatus corresponding to the set number of distributed antenna are allocated).
As to claim 11, Tamaki in view of Su teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Tamaki further teaches wherein assessing the throughput of the first antenna comprises: assessing an anticipated (estimated) throughput of the first antenna (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, In deciding the antenna number, in the case where the antenna number is decided from #1, #2, #3 and #4, for example, when the #1, #2 and #4 antennas satisfy the estimated throughput, the physically used antenna is decided. In a process for selecting the antenna ports for these three antennas, three ports are needed, and pp0242).
As to claim 12, Tamaki in view of Su teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Tamaki further teaches wherein assessing the throughput of the first antenna comprises: assessing a receiving (obtained) throughput of the first antenna (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, In deciding the antenna number, in the case where the antenna number is decided from #1, #2, #3 and #4, for example, when the #1, #2 and #4 antennas satisfy the estimated throughput, the physically used antenna is decided. In a process for selecting the antenna ports for these three antennas, three ports are needed, and pp0242).
As to claim 14, Tamaki in view of Su teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Tamaki further teaches wherein the first antenna is in communication with at least two radio units (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki (US Publication No. 20120134279) in view of Su (US Publication No. 20180041265) and further in view of Li et al. (US Publication No. 20120057488).
As to claim 2, Tamaki in view of Su teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. However, Tamaki fails wherein obtaining the capacity for each of the plurality of antenna ports comprises: obtaining a maximum bandwidth for each of the plurality of antenna ports.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Su teaches the concept wherein obtaining the capacity for each of the plurality of antenna ports (fig. 3, pp0072, the terminal may determine a set of Q antenna ports with the maximum throughput or capacity from the A antenna ports). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaki with the teachings of Su to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing information to effectively improve a spatial resolution as well as a system capacity of a communication system (Su, pp0005). However, they failed to explicitly teach the concept of maximum capacity as comprises: a maximum bandwidth.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Li teaches the concept of maximum capacity as comprises: a maximum bandwidth (pp0026, determining a maximum value max( R.sub.p.sup.M.sup.i) of R.sub.p.sup.M.sup.i of the first transmitting antenna port, and using a bandwidth corresponding to the max(RP) as the current bandwidth). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaki and Su with the teachings of Li to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably detecting a transmitting antenna port configuration in a communication system to reduce the complexity (Li, pp0006).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki (US Publication No. 20120134279) in view of Su (US Publication No. 20180041265) and further in view of Zander et al. (US Publication No. 20220123887).
As to claim 5, Tamaki in view of Su teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Tamaki further teaches further comprising: selecting an antenna port of the plurality of antenna ports that is allocated to a second antenna of the plurality of antennas (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, In deciding the antenna number, in the case where the antenna number is decided from #1, #2, #3 and #4, for example, when the #1, #2 and #4 antennas satisfy the estimated throughput, the physically used antenna is decided. In a process for selecting the antenna ports for these three antennas, three ports are needed, and pp0178). However, fails to teach the concept of turning off the selected antenna port.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Zander teaches the concept of turning off the selected antenna port (fig. 2, fig. 9, pp0096, pp0098, antenna port deactivated). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaki and Su with the teachings of Zander to achieve the goal of efficiently providing antenna information to increase flexibility and transmission throughput in a communication system (Zander, pp0004).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki (US Publication No. 20120134279) in view of Su (US Publication No. 20180041265) and further in view of Rofougaran (US Publication No. 20080080451).
As to claim 8, Tamaki in view of Su teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. Tamaki further teaches wherein assessing the throughput of the first antenna (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0164, In deciding the antenna number, in the case where the antenna number is decided from #1, #2, #3 and #4, for example, when the #1, #2 and #4 antennas satisfy the estimated throughput, the physically used antenna is decided. In a process for selecting the antenna ports for these three antennas, three ports are needed, and pp0178). However, fails to explicitly teach comprises: assessing a current bandwidth of the first antenna.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Rofougaran teaches the concept of assessing a current bandwidth of the first antenna (fig. 1, fig. 3A, pp0098, actual bandwidth of the appropriate antenna 504 and 503 may be design and or implementation dependent, and may be changed by dynamically tuning the appropriate antenna 504 and 503). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaki and Su with the teachings of Rofougaran to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably interfacing to a plurality of antennas and providing effective cost in a communication system (Rofougaran, pp0030).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki (US Publication No. 20120134279) in view of Su (US Publication No. 20180041265) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Publication No. 20260106707).
As to claim 13, Tamaki in view of Su teaches the limitations of the independent claim as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach further comprising: connecting the one or more antenna ports to one or more antenna power amplifiers that are connected to the first antenna.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Zhang teaches the concept of further comprising: connecting the one or more antenna ports to one or more antenna power amplifiers that are connected to the first antenna (fig. 1A, fig. 2A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaki and Su with the teachings of Zhang to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing increased data throughput and lower latency connections that promise enhanced mobile broadband services for wireless devices (Zhang, pp0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10, 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 OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
