DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/25/24 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/20/26 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/23/24. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: each limitation should have an indent. See MPEP 608.01(m) and 37 CFR 1.75(i). Appropriate correction is required. Claims 15-18 are objected to for their dependency.
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.
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 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.
As per claims 6 and 7, the claims each recite the term “the defined sleep duration” in line 4 of each claim. While this term may be related to the “sleep duration extension” of parent claim 5, the language within dependent claims 6 and 7 does not cure the confusion for the reader, as it is unclear whether the prior term is being further defined or a new, unintroduced, term is being used.
As per claims 17 and 18, the claims each recite the term “the defined sleep duration” in line 4 of each claim. While this term may be related to the “sleep duration extension” of parent claim 16, the language within dependent claims 17 and 18 does not cure the confusion for the reader, as it is unclear whether the prior term is being further defined or a new, unintroduced, term is being used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 8-16 are allowed.
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claims 1 and 12 each recite similar features. Claim 1 defines a method from the perspective of an O-DU, while claim 12 defines a method from the perspective of an O-RU. The O-DU and O-RU, respectively, interoperate with each other in the field of the invention. Specifically, each claim recites certain functionality that is not taught or suggested by the cited prior art. Claim 1, for instance, recites (with emphasis added), “receiving, by the O-DU from a higher layer network function, a request to reconfigure an antenna array; based on the configuration capability information from the O-RU and based on the request to reconfigure the antenna array from the higher layer network function, determining, by the O-DU, a sleep mode type and/or a TRx control method supported by the O-RU.” (Claim 12 recites a similar feature, where information received by the O-RU is defined by this process.)
As noted in WG4 (see NPL #16 cited on IDS dated 4/20/26, pgs. 17-19), Kumar (‘337, see PTO-892, specifically fig. 2b and its associated disclosure of the reference), and Nakata (WO reference from PTO-892, see fig. 3 and its associated disclosure), performing a NETCONF client/server request process across an M-Plane is known within the relevant art, where the O-RU functions as the server and the O-DU (and sometimes SMO, or higher layer function, as well) perform as the client (see WG4, pg. 18, fig. 5.1.2-1, and pg. 131, sections 15.4.2 and 15.4.3, where beamforming is seen as an antenna array configuration). The cited references further teach determining a TRx control and/or sleep method at the O-DU and transferring a command to the O-RU (see Nakata, figs. 2, 4, and 9; see WG4 section 15.3.2, pg. 125). However, the cited references do not adequately teach or suggest making such a determination based upon both capability information from the O-RU (see limitation 1) and a request to reconfigure an array from a higher layer function (e.g., SMO or RIC) as recited by the claims. These two coupled conditions are not fairly taught within the prior art. Therefore, the claims are allowable over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference, Garyantes et al. (US PG Pub 20240214927), teaches ST4 command type messaging between an O-DU and O-RU (see fig. 4a and its associated disclosure).
The reference, Farhoodi et al. (US PG Pub 20240073815), teaches O-DU [Wingdings font/0xDF][Wingdings font/0xE0] messaging over the M-Plane (see fig. 2 and its associated disclosure).
The reference, Sinha et al. (US PG Pub 20240063851), teaches DU and RU capability messaging exchange for beamforming (see fig. 4 and its associated disclosure).
The reference, Ahmed et al. (US PG Pub 20210385686), teaches O-DU, O-RU, and O-RU controller messaging over the M-Plane and O1 interfaces (see fig. 1 and its associated disclosure).
The reference, Lee et al. (NPL cited on PTO-892), teaches an open fronthaul interface (M-Plane) between an O-DU and O-RU (see fig. 2), which utilizes the NETCONF protocol (see fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul H. Masur whose telephone number is (571)270-7297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 4:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached at (571) 270-3667. 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.
/Paul H. Masur/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights