CTFR 18/705,919 CTFR 90785 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment This Office action is in response to communications filed on 5/26/2026. Claims 1 and 23-24 have been amended. Claims 19-22 and 25-67 have been cancelled. Claims 1-18 and 23-24 are pending. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed applicant argues, in substance: a) In pages 6-8 of the response filed, applicant argues that Aarflot et al. (US 20110032910 A1, hereinafter Aarflot) fails to teach or disclose the claimed limitations of “determining a RAN protocol stack to use for the first interface based on the indicated capabilities of the first unit and the second unit” because “Aarflot describes REC/RE negotiation for a common CPRI revision, where each node proposes a supported revision and the interface proceeds only if a common revision exists” which is allegedly “not the same as […] receiving a notification that indicates protocol-stack capabilities, determining a RAN protocol stack according to the capabilities of both units, and configuring the first interface according to the determined stack.” In response to argument (a), the examiner respectfully disagrees. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard. Although claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The claimed limitations recite “receiving a first notification from the second unit, the first notification indicating one or more RAN protocol stack capabilities of the second unit.” Under the BRI standard, the claimed notification indicating a capability may include a notification of a protocol stack that the second unit supports. Aarflot, in ¶[0094] discloses transmitting, from a first node (i.e., “each node proposes”), “the highest protocol revision that it supports ” (underline for emphasis). Therefore, Aarflot discloses receiving a first notification from the second unit, the first notification indicating one or more RAN protocol stack capabilities of the second unit. Aarflot then discloses in ¶[0094] that a node that receives the notification determines to “step back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision”, accordingly, Aarflot discloses “determining a RAN protocol stack to use” which is based on the notification, where the notification, as shown above, indicates one or more RAN protocol stack capabilities of the second unit . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-18 and 23-24 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. Regarding claim 1, the limitations recite “the indicated capabilities of the first unit and the second unit.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “indicated capabilities of the first unit.” At most, the claims support “indicating one or more RAN protocol stack capabilities of the second unit” (page 2, lines 5-6) but not for the first unit. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as based on capabilities of the first unit and the indicated capabilities of the second unit. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (A)(1) as being anticipated by Aarflot et al. (US 20110032910 A1, hereinafter Aarflot) . Regarding claim 1, Aarflot discloses a method of operating a first unit in a radio access network (RAN), to configure a first interface with a second unit in the RAN (¶[0004], "The radio access network (RAN) covers a geographical area which is divided into cell areas, with each cell area being served by a radio base station"; ¶[0005], "A distributed radio base station includes the radio equipment control (REC) and the radio equipment (RE)"; ¶[0094], "one or both of the REC and RE can use multiple revisions of the CPRI interface, a common revision must be found before trying to extract the conveyed C&M link"), wherein the first unit is capable of using one or more RAN protocol stacks for the first interface to the second unit (¶[0094], "one or both of the REC and RE can use multiple revisions of the CPRI interface" (CPRI is a well-known protocol stack, see "Common Public Radio Interface", IEEE802.org, page 5)), the method comprising: receiving a first notification from the second unit, the first notification indicating one or more RAN protocol stack capabilities of the second unit for use over the first interface to the first unit (¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports. The node with the proposed highest revision steps back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision, lower than the other node's (if possible). If one node proposes a revision lower than the lowest revision supported by the other node, no common protocol is available, and the start-up fails. If both nodes propose the same revision, the start-up proceeds using that proposed protocol revision"); determining a RAN protocol stack to use for the first interface based on the indicated capabilities of the first unit and the second unit (¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports. The node with the proposed highest revision steps back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision, lower than the other node's (if possible). If one node proposes a revision lower than the lowest revision supported by the other node, no common protocol is available, and the start-up fails. If both nodes propose the same revision, the start-up proceeds using that proposed protocol revision"); and configuring the first interface with the second unit according to the determined RAN protocol stack (¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports. The node with the proposed highest revision steps back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision, lower than the other node's (if possible). If one node proposes a revision lower than the lowest revision supported by the other node, no common protocol is available, and the start-up fails. If both nodes propose the same revision, the start-up proceeds using that proposed protocol revision"). Regarding claim 2, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of determining the RAN protocol stack to use comprises selecting a RAN protocol stack that is common to the one or more capabilities of the first unit and the one or more capabilities of the second unit (¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports. The node with the proposed highest revision steps back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision, lower than the other node's (if possible). If one node proposes a revision lower than the lowest revision supported by the other node, no common protocol is available, and the start-up fails. If both nodes propose the same revision, the start-up proceeds using that proposed protocol revision"). Regarding claim 3, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein, in the event that a plurality of RAN protocol stacks are common to first unit and the second unit, the step of determining the RAN protocol stack to use comprises selecting the RAN protocol stack in the plurality of RAN protocol stacks that satisfies a predefined criterion (¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports. The node with the proposed highest revision steps back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision, lower than the other node's (if possible)"). Regarding claim 4, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the predefined criterion is satisfied by the RAN protocol stack with one of: the highest data rate, the highest throughput, the highest layer split, or the highest functional level (¶[0095], "For both links, each node proposes the fastest possible bit rate it supports, i.e., the fastest bit rate supported for fast C&M and the fastest bit rate supported for slow C&M. The unit with the highest proposed bit rate steps back to the bit rate proposed by the other node (if possible) or proposes another bit rate lower than that proposed by the other node (if possible). Of course, if no common C&M fast and slow bit rates are found, the start-up fails. If neither the fast or slow C&M link is set-up, the CPRI interface is a "passive link," which can be used in parallel with another interface with has a C&M link, e.g., when the C&M carrying interface does not have enough space for all AxCs to be transferred"; ¶[0096], "If the fast and slow C&M link speeds are agreed, the start-up proceeds to a vendor-specific negotiation state. During this state, the higher level applications in the REC and RE negotiate the CPRI usage"). Regarding claim 5, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each RAN protocol stack that the first unit and/or the second unit is capable of using comprises one or more of: a Lower Layer Split (LLS) fronthaul protocol; a High Layer Split (HLS) midhaul protocol; a proprietary open-RAN (O-RAN) protocol; and a standard O-RAN protocol (¶[0094], "one or both of the REC and RE can use multiple revisions of the CPRI interface" (LLS fronthaul protocol)). Regarding claim 6, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more RAN protocol stack capabilities comprise one or more of: a capability to use a Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) protocol, a capability to use an enhanced- CPRI (eCPRI) protocol, and one or more supported CPRI options (¶[0094], "one or both of the REC and RE can use multiple revisions of the CPRI interface" ). Regarding claim 7, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first notification further comprises any of: a capability of the second unit to convert traffic according to one RAN protocol stack to another RAN protocol stack, a version number for any RAN protocol stack that the second unit is capable of using, information indicating a function or type of the second unit, operator information indicating a network operator associated with the second unit, and administrative information (¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports"). Regarding claim 8, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: sending a second notification to the second unit, the second notification indicating the one or more RAN protocol stack capabilities of the first unit (¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports. The node with the proposed highest revision steps back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision, lower than the other node's (if possible). If one node proposes a revision lower than the lowest revision supported by the other node, no common protocol is available, and the start-up fails. If both nodes propose the same revision, the start-up proceeds using that proposed protocol revision"). Regarding claim 9, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the second notification further comprises any of: a capability of the first unit to convert traffic according to one RAN protocol stack to another RAN protocol stack, a version number for any RAN protocol stack that the first unit is capable of using, information indicating a function or type of the first unit, operator information indicating a network operator associated with the first unit, and administrative information (¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports. The node with the proposed highest revision steps back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision, lower than the other node's (if possible). If one node proposes a revision lower than the lowest revision supported by the other node, no common protocol is available, and the start-up fails. If both nodes propose the same revision, the start-up proceeds using that proposed protocol revision"). Regarding claim 10, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first notification is received using an Ethernet-based protocol (¶[0069], "The Control and Management (C&M) data are either sent as in band signaling (for time critical signaling data) or by layer 3 protocols that reside on top of appropriate layer 2 protocols. Two different layer 2 protocols--High Data Level Link Control (HDLC) 46 and Ethernet 48 are supported by the CPRI"; ¶[0093], "When the RE reaches synchronization, it starts to transmit over the CPRI interface to the REC at the same line bit rate that it successfully received at"). Regarding claim 11, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first notification is received via an electrical or optical connection between the first unit and the second unit (¶[0069], "The Control and Management (C&M) data are either sent as in band signaling (for time critical signaling data) or by layer 3 protocols that reside on top of appropriate layer 2 protocols. Two different layer 2 protocols--High Data Level Link Control (HDLC) 46 and Ethernet 48 are supported by the CPRI"; ¶[0093], "When the RE reaches synchronization, it starts to transmit over the CPRI interface to the REC at the same line bit rate that it successfully received at"). Regarding claim 12, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method is performed any of: when the first unit is activated; when the second unit is activated; when the first unit is initially physically connected to the second unit; if a link to the second unit or another unit in the RAN fails or is disconnected (¶[0058], " the simplest networked topology includes an REC coupled to at least two REs with at least one of the REs being connected between the REC and the other RE"; ¶[0091], "The start-up of the CPRI interface requires minimal start-up information at the REC and RE nodes, i.e., start-up is plug-and-play."). Regarding claim 13, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first unit is a baseband unit (BBU) (¶[0005], "The radio equipment control (REC) performs baseband signal processing") and the second unit is one of a radio unit and a gateway node (¶[0005], "each radio equipment (RE) converts between baseband and radio frequencies and transmits and receives signals over one or more antennas. Each RE serves a certain geographic area, sector, or cell. Separate, dedicated optical and/or electrical links connect the radio equipment control (REC) to each of the plural remote radio equipment (RE)"). Regarding claim 14, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first unit is a radio unit (¶[0005], "radio equipment control (REC)") and the second unit is one of a baseband unit (BBU) and a gateway node (¶[0005], "each radio equipment (RE) converts between baseband and radio frequencies and transmits and receives signals over one or more antennas. Each RE serves a certain geographic area, sector, or cell. Separate, dedicated optical and/or electrical links connect the radio equipment control (REC) to each of the plural remote radio equipment (RE)"). Regarding claim 15, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first unit is a gateway node (¶[0005], "each radio equipment (RE) converts between baseband and radio frequencies and transmits and receives signals over one or more antennas. Each RE serves a certain geographic area, sector, or cell. Separate, dedicated optical and/or electrical links connect the radio equipment control (REC) to each of the plural remote radio equipment (RE)"). Regarding claim 16, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 15, wherein the gateway node is to establish a second interface with a third unit in the RAN to enable communications between the second unit and the third unit via the gateway node (¶[0005], "each radio equipment (RE) converts between baseband and radio frequencies and transmits and receives signals over one or more antennas. Each RE serves a certain geographic area, sector, or cell. Separate, dedicated optical and/or electrical links connect the radio equipment control (REC) to each of the plural remote radio equipment (RE)"). Regarding claim 17, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the first unit is one of a radio unit and a baseband unit (BBU) (¶[0005], "radio equipment control (REC)") and the second unit is the other one of the radio unit and the BBU (¶[0005], "each radio equipment (RE) converts between baseband and radio frequencies and transmits and receives signals over one or more antennas. Each RE serves a certain geographic area, sector, or cell. Separate, dedicated optical and/or electrical links connect the radio equipment control (REC) to each of the plural remote radio equipment (RE)"). Regarding claim 18, Aarflot discloses the method as claimed in claim 16, wherein the method further comprises: receiving a third notification from the third unit, the third notification indicating one or more RAN protocol stack capabilities of the second unit for use over the second interface (¶[0092], "Although described in the context of a start-up between the REC and an RE, the same procedures may be applied for a start-up between to Res" - see also Figs. 2D, 2E, and 2F for possible configurations; ¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports. The node with the proposed highest revision steps back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision, lower than the other node's (if possible). If one node proposes a revision lower than the lowest revision supported by the other node, no common protocol is available, and the start-up fails. If both nodes propose the same revision, the start-up proceeds using that proposed protocol revision"); determining a RAN protocol stack to use for the second interface with the third unit according to the one or more RAN protocol stack capabilities of the first unit and the one or more RAN protocol stack capabilities of the third unit (¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports. The node with the proposed highest revision steps back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision, lower than the other node's (if possible). If one node proposes a revision lower than the lowest revision supported by the other node, no common protocol is available, and the start-up fails. If both nodes propose the same revision, the start-up proceeds using that proposed protocol revision"); and establishing the second interface with the third unit according to the determined RAN protocol stack (¶[0094], "The REC and RE negotiate as follows: each node proposes the highest protocol revision that it supports. The node with the proposed highest revision steps back to the same revision as the other node (if possible) or proposes another revision, lower than the other node's (if possible). If one node proposes a revision lower than the lowest revision supported by the other node, no common protocol is available, and the start-up fails. If both nodes propose the same revision, the start-up proceeds using that proposed protocol revision"). Regarding claim 23, Aarflot discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, on execution by a suitable computer or processor, cause the computer or the processor to execute operations (¶[0049], "Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the functions of those blocks may be implemented using individual hardware circuits, using software programs and data, in conjunction with a suitably programmed digital microprocessor or general purpose computer, using application specific integrated circuitry (ASIC), and/or using one or more digital signal processors (DSPs)" - memory to store instructions executed by the processor inherent in computer systems). The remaining limitations of claim 23 are similar in scope to those of claim 1. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Regarding claim 24, Aarflot discloses a first unit for use in a radio access network (RAN) to configure a first interface with a second unit in the RAN (¶[0004], "The radio access network (RAN) covers a geographical area which is divided into cell areas, with each cell area being served by a radio base station"; ¶[0005], "A distributed radio base station includes the radio equipment control (REC) and the radio equipment (RE)"; ¶[0094], "one or both of the REC and RE can use multiple revisions of the CPRI interface, a common revision must be found before trying to extract the conveyed C&M link"). Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM EST. 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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. /BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/705,919 Page 2 Art Unit: 2446
Prosecution Insights