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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0330855 A1) in view of Chu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2007/0004394 A1) and Baldini et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0233923 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a system comprising: a cellular communication antenna (Li et al. teaches in paragraph [0059] that the base station includes a plurality of antennas); and a radio unit (RU) coupled to the cellular communication antenna (Li et al. teaches in paragraph [0053] the RU 140 may be referred to as a base station 102), the RU configured to: retrieve status data of the RU (Li et al. teaches in the paragraph [0111 and FIG. 18] that the UE transmits a layer 1 measurement report to the base station, i.e. that RU); the measurement report includes a reception beam identifier. The differences between Li et al. and the claimed invention are (a) Li et al. does not teach organizing the report in a table, and (b) Li et al. does not teach and object unit identifier. Chu et al. teaches in FIG. 5 a table with rows and columns. Each row has a unique ID, in this case the communication ID, so that the data can be easily indexed and retrieved. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Chu et al. with the system of Li et al. because a table format is a familiar format used by human to present data. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to organize report in a table format with a unique identifier, as taught by Chu et al., in the system of Li et al.
The combination of Li et al. and Chu et al. still fails to teach an object unit identifier. In the case of the combination of Li et al. and Chu et al., the measurement is performed by the UE on the RU. Baldini et al. teaches in paragraph [0009] to obtain a UE profile associated with the UE. The UE profile includes a UE identifier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Baldini et al. with the modified system of Li et al. and Chu et al. because a UE identifier uniquely identifies a UE, and the UE is the critical element associated with the report. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the file the UE identifier which is part of the UE profile, as taught by Baldini et al., in the modified system of Li et al. and Chu et al.
Regarding claim 2, the measurement report of Li et al. describes the transmitter characteristics of the RU.
Regarding claim 3, Li et al. teaches in FIG. 8 L1-RSRP (layer 1 reference signal received power).
Regarding claim 4, since the status data is of the RU, it is obvious to include in the status data the measurement object so that the data can be proper interpreted.
Regarding claim 5, Baldini et al. teaches in paragraph [0070] a UE type identifier. It is obvious to include a type identifier as part of the data so that the data can be properly interpreted.
Regarding claim 10, Chu et al. teaches in FIG. 6 a row and column format.
Claim 14 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1 because an apparatus implies the method of using it.
Regarding claim 17, since the status data is of the RU, it is obvious to include in the status data the measurement object so that the data can be proper interpreted.
Regarding claim 18, Baldini et al. teaches in paragraph [0070] a UE type identifier. It is obvious to include a type identifier as part of the data so that the data can be properly interpreted.
Regarding claim 19, Li et al. teaches in paragraph [0041] using computer-readable medium for storing executable code, which, when executed, implements a process.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 20230016889 A1).
Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19. The difference between Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. and the claimed invention is that Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. do not teach writing a start time and an end time corresponding to the status data stored in each row of the plurality of rows. Zhang et al. teaches in paragraphs [0154]-[0155] that a measurement record may include as parameters measurement start time and measurement duration. The measurement end time is simply the start time plus the duration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Zhang et al. with the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. because the information gives a detailed and complete description of the measurement. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include measurement start time and measurement duration (or end time), as taught by Zhang et al., in the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. teaches in paragraph [0151] to write null in a field that has no value or “not applicable”.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Hendry (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2025/0227271 A1).
Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19. The difference between Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. and the claimed invention is that Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. do not teach that the RU is configured to write, to each row of the plurality of rows, a report information type label and a report information value. Hendry teaches in paragraph [0187] that a file can use a type-length-value (TLV) structure. A measurement report in this format consists of a plurality of measurements (a row represents a measurement) and each measurement comprises a plurality of TLV entities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Hendry with the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. because such format is suitable for computer manipulation and for transmission to other computer devices. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a TLV structure, as taught by Hendry, in the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Balmakhtar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0292196 A1).
Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19. The difference between Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. and the claimed invention is that Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. do not teach that the RU is configured to transmit the file to a remote orchestrator over a network connection. Balmakhtar et al. teaches in FIG. 3 a wireless communication network comprising an orchestrator 332 which coordinate and manage the network elements of the network. Balmakhtar et al. teaches in paragraph [0032] that the network elements transfer reports to the orchestrator so that the orchestrator can have enough information to coordinate and manage the network elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Balmakhtar et al. with the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. because transferring information to the orchestrator help the orchestrator to better manage the network. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit the file to an orchestrator, as taught by Balmakhtar et al., in the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Furlong et al. (U.S. Patent 12,493,583 B1).
Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19. The difference between Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. and the claimed invention is that Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. do not teach that the file stores the status data in a comma separated format. Furlong et al. teaches in col. 13, lines 22-24 that a data file can be stored in a comma separated values (CSV) format. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Furlong et al. with the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent format for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a comma separated format to store the status data, as taught by Furlong et al., in the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Fairchild (“BZX79C2V2-BZX79C56—Zener diodes”, Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. 2007).
Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19. The difference between Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. and the claimed invention is that Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. do not teach that the column labels labeling columns of the row and column format. Fairchild teaches on page 1 a table listing the electrical characteristics of various Zener devices. The table has a fixed number of columns (in this case there are 10 columns) and the column labels label the column and contains column formats. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Fairchild with the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. because the labels enable the readers to have a precise interpretation of the numerical data. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to label the columns with column format, as taught by Fairchild, in the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19 above, and further in view of Qian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0342286 A1) and Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0016889 A1).
Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-5, 10, 14 and 17-19. The difference between Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. and the claimed invention is that Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. do not teach do not teach that the plurality of rows of the file have a plurality of different numbers of columns, each row of the plurality of rows storing one or more attribute-value pairs. Qian et al. teaches in paragraph [0027] JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file and in paragraph [0032] that a JSON file consists of attribute-value pairs. Zhang et al. teaches in paragraph [0151] to write null in a field that has no value or “not applicable”. It is understood that some fields have no meaning. For example, if the received signal is so weak that the received power is zero, the signal-to-noise ratio has no meaning. The field can be indicated as null. When this is written in a JSON file format, the fields with value null can be omitted. The result is a file have a plurality of different number of columns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Qian et al. and Zhang et al. with the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al. because JSON file is human-readable and a computer-language-independent data format. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a JSON file and omit inapplicable fields, as taught by Qian et al. and Zhang et al., in the modified system of Li et al., Chu et al. and Baldini et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that Li contains no reference to a measurement group and Chu does not remedy this deficiency and is not alleged to do so. The argument is not persuasive. During prosecution, claims are given broadest reasonable interpretation and the plain meaning of claim terms. Li et al. teaches in FIG. 18 that the UE sends measurement report to the base station. The measurement report comprises a group of measurement and read on the limitation.
The Applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks:
Paragraph 9 of Baldini is cited as disclosing “an object unit identifier corresponding to the measurement group.” In particular, the UE identifier is alleged to correspond to the object unit identifier (Office Action, p. 3, citing paragraph 9). However, (1) the UE identifier is not described as having any relationship to a measurement group, (2) the UE identifier is not described as being “assigned to values from the status data stored in each row of the plurality of rows.”
The argument is not persuasive. The measurement is performed and sent by the UE and it is obvious to identifier the measurement data with the UE to properly interpret the measurement data.
The Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks:
With respect to claim 12, paragraph 151 of Zhang is cited to reject the claim. However, paragraph 151 references only an association identifier (AID) which may include null fields. However, Zhang contains no reference to a row and column format and much less references "the RU is configured to write null values to positions in the row and column format for which the status data does not include corresponding information." Zhang does not disclose this element that Zhang alone is relied upon as disclosing. The rejection of claim 13 alleges that Qian discloses that a signal with weak signal power may be recorded with a null signal strength (Office Action, p. 8). However, this does not indicate that no information available or has no meaning: the null value indicates information a weak signal. Qian therefore likewise fails to disclose the elements of claim 12.
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Chu et al. teaches in FIG. 6 a row and column format.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl23 June 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights