CTNF 18/789,579 CTNF 80192 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status Claims 1–20 are pending and examined herein. 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. The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/PatentForms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be a typographical error “comprising:)” in line 2 . Appropriate correction is required. 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 Claim s 1, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Berg et al. (US 2019/0124662) . With regard to claim 1, Berg discloses a radio unit (RU) in a wireless communication system, the RU comprising: a processor (e.g., a microprocessor)(¶102) configured to: identify uplink fronthaul data to reduce a data load (method results in a reduced uplink fronthaul bit rate) (¶97) on an uplink fronthaul link (uplink signal containing data is received from the antenna)(¶65–66) , wherein the uplink fronthaul link is between the RU (radio network node 13)(¶61) and a distributed unit (DU) (wireless device 1)(¶61), process the uplink fronthaul data to obtain a set of representative values for a compression operation (uplink signal is demapped into a group of resource elements to be compressed)(¶66; ¶79), and select, based on the set of representative values, at least one encoding parameter for the compression operation (channel information in the resource elements is estimated and used in compressing the resource elements)(¶68; ¶83–85); and a transceiver (e.g., I/O interface 62)(¶105) operably coupled to the processor, the transceiver configured to transmit, to the DU, the uplink fronthaul data that is compressed based on the compression operation (compressed resource elements are transferred over the fronthaul link)(¶69; ¶93). With regard to claim 6, Berg further discloses that the processor is further configured to select an entropy coding scheme to compress the uplink fronthaul data into information bits for the compression operation (entropy coding may be used)(¶92). With regard to claim 7, Berg further discloses that the entropy coding scheme includes at least one of a context-aware variable length coding scheme supporting a 256 of block size, a Huffman coding scheme, and an arithmetic coding scheme (e.g., Huffman coding)(¶92). Claims 10, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 6, and 7, since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are explicitly or inherently taught by the above cited art . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al (US 2019/0124662) . With regard to claim 8, while the system disclosed by Berg shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed above), it fails to specifically disclose that the processor is further configured to perform a least significant bit (LSB) truncation operation to increase a ratio of compression for the compression operation. Berg does disclose that performing fronthaul compression using LSB truncation was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (¶3). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that using LSB truncation would have been a predictable variation of the compression method used by Berg and/or would have been advantageously combined with the compression method taught by Berg. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LSB truncation as an alterative to or in addition to the compression method taught by Berg since doing so would have been a known and predictable variation of the methods explicitly taught by Berg. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8, since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are explicitly or inherently taught by the above cited art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. in view of Longginou et al. (US 5,841,971) . With regard to claim 9, while the system disclosed by Berg shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed above), it fails to specifically disclose the processor further configured to select a difference coding scheme to compute residuals of the uplink fronthaul data for the compression operation. Longginou discloses a similar system for transmitting data over cellular networks (Abstract). Longginou teaches compressing data using various known compression methods including a difference coding scheme to achieve optimally compact representation of compressed data streams (6:63–65; 7:6–15). This would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Berg since it would have provided additional compression of the uplink fronthaul data using known compression methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a difference coding scheme to compute residuals of the uplink fronthaul data as an alternative to or in addition to the compression methods taught by Berg operation to optimize compression of the uplink fronthaul data. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9, since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are explicitly or inherently taught by the above cited art . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2–5, 11–14, and 20 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Barbieri et al. (US 2019/0208575) discloses a similar system including compressing fronthaul uplink information based on a compression parameter (e.g., ¶53; ¶66; ¶102). Vagner et al. (US 12,143,969) discloses a similar system including transmitting data over a fronthaul interface using modulation compression (Abstract; Summary). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON N STRANGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00. 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, Matthew Sked can be reached at 571-272-7627. 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. /AARON N STRANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/789,579 Page 2 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/789,579 Page 4 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/789,579 Page 6 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/789,579 Page 7 Art Unit: 6221
Prosecution Insights