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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Fronthaul Message Processing Based on Keyword Type, Transport Layer, and Position of Service Data.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112 (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112 (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112, 6th except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112, 6th except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation of claim 7 that recites “a type keyword determination module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth paragraph) because it uses a generic placeholder " module" couple with the functional language “determination” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structure modifier. A review of the specification shows that a processor (see [0074] USPN 20240430054) is associated with this feature.
The limitation of claim 7 that recites “a message type determination module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth paragraph) because it uses a generic placeholder " module " couple with the functional language “determination” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structure modifier. A review of the specification shows that a processor (see [0074] USPN 20240430054) is associated with this feature.
The limitation of claim 7 that recites “a position determination module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth paragraph) because it uses a generic placeholder " module " couple with the functional language “determination” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structure modifier. A review of the specification shows that a processor (see [0074] USPN 20240430054) is associated with this feature.
The limitation of claim 7 that recites “a service data processing module” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth paragraph) because it uses a generic placeholder " module " couple with the functional language “processing” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structure modifier. A review of the specification shows that a processor (see [0074] USPN 20240430054) is associated with this feature.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 5, 11-13 are 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 5 recites the limitation “the transport layer” on line 2 which makes the claim indefinite. It’s unclear if Applicant intended to claim “the type of transport layer” or transport layer itself. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claims 11-13 are also rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 5 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 recites, “A computer readable medium comprising, having a…”
Specification recites, as follows:
[0081] The person skilled in the art will appreciate that all or some operations of the method described above, functional modules/units in the system and apparatus may be implemented as software, firmware, hardware, and suitable combinations thereof. In a hardware implementation, the division between the functional modules/units mentioned in the above description does not necessarily correspond to the division of physical components; for example, one physical component may have multiple functions, or one function or operation may be performed cooperatively by several physical components. Some or all physical components may be implemented as software executed by a processor, such as a CPU, a digital signal processor or microprocessor, or implemented as hardware, or implemented as an integrated circuit, such as an application specific integrated circuit. Such software may be distributed on a computer-readable storage medium which may include a computer storage medium (or non-transitory medium) or a communication medium (or transitory medium). As is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art, the term computer storage medium includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable medium implemented in any method or technology for storing information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data. The computer storage medium includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disc (DVD) or other optical disc storage, magnetic cartridge, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or may be any other medium used for storing the desired information and accessible by a computer. Moreover, it is well known to those ordinary skilled in the art that the communication medium typically includes a computer-readable instruction, a data structure, a program module, or other data in a modulated data signal, such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism, and may include any information delivery medium.
Applicant has provided another antecedent basis for the claim terminology “a computer readable medium”. Applicant has provided intrinsic evidence of embodiment for the term as “includes but is not limited to… ". Since the applicant fails inclusively and specifically provide antecedent basic to limit the specific statutory embodiments, “computer readable medium” belongs to the intrinsic non-statutory embodiments such as carrier signal, radio wave, light wave, and transmission medium/media.
Note that signal claims are not directed to a process since they do not cover an act or series of acts. No part of the signal is a mechanical “device” or “part.” A propagating electromagnetic signal is not a “machine” as that term is used in § 101. Signals, standing alone, are not “manufacture[s]” under the meaning of that term in § 101. A signal comprising a fluctuation in electric potential or in electromagnetic fields is not a “chemical union,” nor a gas, fluid, powder, or solid. Signals are not “composition[s] of matter.” Thus, a transitory, propagating signal is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter. (see In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d 1346 1356 n.7 (Fed. Cir 2007).
In view of the above analysis, claim 10 is ineligible for patent protection as failing to be limited to embodiments which fall within a statutory category.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (USPN 11,234,163 B1) in view of Bergenwall et al (USPN 7,330,902 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ho discloses
a fronthaul message processing method, comprising: (method for processing fronthaul message (column 8 lines 51-64, column 15 line 54 – column 16 line 49), FIG. 7
determining a type keyword of a fronthaul message according to a type of a transport layer for transmitting the fronthaul message (determine eCPRI message format of message type 0 (in-phase-quadrature, or IQ, data according to UDP for transporting (column 7 line 36 – column 8 line 22, lines 51-64), FIG. 3A
determining a type of the fronthaul message according to the type keyword (type 0 corresponds to IQ data fronthaul message (column 7 line 61 – column 8 line 22), FIG. 3A
determining a position of service data carried by the fronthaul message according to the type of the fronthaul message (for eCPRI message format of message type 0, payload begins at byte 4 (column 7 line 61 – column 8 line 22), FIG. 3A.
Ho does not expressly disclose extracting and processing the service data according to the position of the service data.
Bergenwall discloses extracting and processing the service data according to the position of the service data (receiver extract payload from packet according to payload location information provided (column 1 lines 13-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “extracting and processing the service data according to the position of the service data” as taught by Bergenwall into Ho’s system with the motivation to extract payload using location information provided by packet’s header (Bergenwall, column 1 lines 13-44).
Regarding claim 6, Ho discloses “determining a position of a sequence field of the fronthaul message according to the type of the fronthaul message; and determining information carried by the sequence field according to the position of the sequence field of the fronthaul message, and determining a sequence of transmitting the fronthaul message according to the information carried by the sequence field” determine SEQ-ID field of the fronthaul message and determine an identifier of message being carried in a series of IQ data transfer messages for transmission (column 8 lines 4-64) FIG. 7.
Ho does not expressly disclose extracting information.
Bergenwall discloses extracting information (receiver extract payload from packet according to payload location information provided (column 1 lines 13-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “extracting information” as taught by Bergenwall into Ho’s system with the motivation to extract payload using location information provided by packet’s header (Bergenwall, column 1 lines 13-44).
Regarding claim 7, Ho discloses
a message processing apparatus, comprising: (apparatus for processing fronthaul message (column 8 lines 51-64, column 15 line 54 – column 16 line 49), FIG. 9
a type key determination module, (processor, column 22 lines 1-3) configured to determine a type keyword of a fronthaul message according to a type of a transport layer for transmitting the fronthaul message (determine eCPRI message format of message type 0 (in-phase-quadrature, or IQ, data according to UDP for transporting (column 7 line 36 – column 8 line 22, lines 51-64), FIG. 3A
a message type determination module, (processor, column 22 lines 1-3) configured to determine a type of the fronthaul message according to the type keyword (determine type 0 corresponds to IQ data fronthaul message (column 7 line 61 – column 8 line 22), FIG. 3A
a position determination module, (processor, column 22 lines 1-3) configured to determine a position of service data carried by the fronthaul message according to the type of the fronthaul message (for eCPRI message format of message type 0, payload begins at byte 4 (column 7 line 61 – column 8 line 22), FIG. 3A
a service data processing module, configured to (processor, column 22 lines 1-3) for determining payload data (column 7 line 36 – column 8 line 22, lines 51-64), FIG. 3A.
Ho does not expressly disclose extracting and processing the service data according to the position of the service data.
Bergenwall discloses extracting and processing the service data according to the position of the service data (receiver extract payload from packet according to payload location information provided (column 1 lines 13-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “extracting and processing the service data according to the position of the service data” as taught by Bergenwall into Ho’s system with the motivation to extract payload using location information provided by packet’s header (Bergenwall, column 1 lines 13-44).
Regarding claim 10, Ho discloses “a computer readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, and the computer program, executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement the fronthaul message processing method according to claim 1” (memory including program code executed by processor to perform method of fronthaul message processing (column 8 lines 51-64, column 15 line 54 – column 16 line 49, column 22 lines 1-15), FIGs. 7, 9.
Claims 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho and Bergenwall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wala et al (USPN 20210083726).
Regarding claim 8, Ho discloses
a memory having at least one computer program stored thereon, the at least one computer program, executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to implement the fronthaul message processing method according to claim 1 (memory, column 22 lines 1-15 FIG. 9 #930)
at least one input/output (I/O) interface connected between the at least one processor and the memory and configured to enable information interaction between the at least one processor and the memory (interconnection within apparatus, FIG. 9, for connecting processor and memory,
Combined system of Ho and Bergenwall does not expressly disclose a fronthaul interface, comprising; at least one processor; memory,
Wala discloses a fronthaul interface, comprising (interface used for fronthaul message transmission/reception [0041, 0058], FIG. 2G,
at least one processor (processor, [0041, 0058]), FIG. 2G
memory (memory [0041, 0058], FIG. 2G
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “a fronthaul interface, comprising; at least one processor; memory” as taught by Wala into combined system of Bergenwall and Ho with the motivation process fronthaul/CPRI message via a CPRI interface (Wala, paragraph [0041, 0048-0061]).
Regarding claim 9, Wala discloses CPRI interface being a device having its own power source [0058], FIG. 2G.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 14-16 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.
Claims 5, 11-13, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Noh et al (USPN 20180242349) FIG. 10
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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 N Moore can be reached at (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 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469