CTNF 18/790,332 CTNF 84352 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 19 is directed towards a computer program. 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, 5, 6, 11, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Stephenne (WO 2019234478 A1.) Regarding claim 1 , Stephenne discloses an apparatus (see Stephenne, fig. 4 item 102) comprising: a processor (see Stephenne, ¶[0018]) configured to: receive a first set of fronthaul data associated with a first radio access technology (see Stephenne, fig. 5 500) , receive a second set of fronthaul data associated with a second radio access technology different from the first radio access technology (see Stephenne, fig. 5 504) , and determine, based at least on the first set of fronthaul data and the second set of fronthaul data (see Stephenne, fig. 5 508 510 516 510) , whether to utilize one or more radio chains of at least two radio chains for spectrum sharing between at least the first radio access technology and the second radio access technology (see Stephenne, fig. 5 508 510 516 510) . Regarding claims 18 and 19, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 5 . The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit the first set of fronthaul data to a first radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination, and transmit the second set of fronthaul data to a second radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination (see Stephenne, fig. 5 508 510 516 510) . Regarding claim 6 . The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determination is based on at least one of: one or more uplink random-access channel processing requirements, one or more downlink waveforms requested to be transmitted (see Stephenne, ¶[0059,60] , a peak-to-average power ratio requirement for transmitting the one or more downlink waveforms, or one or more downlink transmission power requirements for transmitting the one or more downlink waveforms. Regarding claim 11 . The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive an indication for initiating the determination and initiate the determination based on receiving the indication (see Stephenne, fig. 5 500 504) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenne in view of ROSA et al ( US 20140050113 A1 hereinafter “ROSA “) . Regarding claim 2 , the apparatus of claim 1, Stephenne fails to specifically discloses wherein the processor is further configured to activate at least one deactivated radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination. In the same field of endeavor, Rosa discloses wherein the processor is further configured to activate at least one deactivated radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination (see Rosa, fig. 4 steps S5 S4). Given that each of Stephenne and Rosa disclose managing radio resources, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stephenne by activating at least one deactivated radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination, thereby creating a more efficient system. Regarding claim 3 , the apparatus of claim 1, Stephenne fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to deactivate at least one radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination (see Rosa, fig. 4 steps S5 S4). In the same field of endeavor, wherein the processor is further configured to deactivate at least one radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination. Given that each of Stephenne and Rosa disclose managing radio resources, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stephenne by deactivating at least one radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination, thereby creating a more efficient system . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenne in view of Moe et al ( WO 2012053952 A1 hereinafter “Moe“) . Regarding claim 4 , the apparatus of claim 1, Stephenne fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the first set of fronthaul data and the second set of fronthaul data to one radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination. In the same field of endeavor, Moe discloses discloses transmit the first set of fronthaul data and the second set of fronthaul data to one radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination (see Moe, fig. 7, page 13 lines 15 – 35) It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stephenne by transmiting the first set of fronthaul data and the second set of fronthaul data to one radio chain of the at least two radio chains based on the determination, thereby creating a more efficient system. Regarding claim 12 , the apparatus of claim 1, Stephenne fails to specifically disclose further comprising a radio unit shared between at least the first radio access technology and the second radio access technology. In the same field of endeavor, Moe discloses a radio unit shared between at least the first radio access technology and the second radio access technology (see Moe, fig. 7 shared MUX and R1). See motivation to combine above. Regarding claim 14 , the apparatus of claim 1, Moe discloses wherein the first set of fronthaul data and the second set of fronthaul data are received from a single distributed unit (see Moe, fig. 7 shared MUX and R1). See motivation to combine above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenne in view of Isogawa et al ( US 20190116524 A1 hereinafter “Isogawa“) . Regarding claim 13 , the apparatus of claim 1, Stephenne fails to specifically disclose wherein the first set of fronthaul data is received from a first distributed unit associated with the first radio access technology, and wherein the second set of fronthaul data is received from a second distributed unit associated with the second radio access technology. In the same field of endeavor, Isogawa discloses wherein the first set of fronthaul data is received from a first distributed unit associated with the first radio access technology, and wherein the second set of fronthaul data is received from a second distributed unit associated with the second radio access technology (see Isogawa, fig. 1 4G-DU and 5G DU) . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stephenne such that wherein the first set of fronthaul data is received from a first distributed unit associated with the first radio access technology, and wherein the second set of fronthaul data is received from a second distributed unit associated with the second radio access technology, thereby providing access to 4G and 5G devices. Regarding claim 16 the apparatus of claim 1, Stephenne fails to disclose wherein the first radio access technology comprises a fourth generation, 4G, radio access technology, and the second radio access technology comprises a fifth generation, 5G, radio access technology. Isogawa discloses wherein the first radio access technology comprises a fourth generation, 4G, radio access technology, and the second radio access technology comprises a fifth generation, 5G, radio access technology (see Isogawa, fig. 1 4G-DU and 5G DU). See motivation to combine above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenne in view of Tran et al ( US 20210112425 A1 hereinafter “Tran“) . Regarding claim 15 , the apparatus of claim 1, Stephenne fails to disclose wherein the first radio access technology comprises a fifth generation, 5G, radio access technology, and the second radio access technology comprises a sixth generation, 6G, radio access technology. In the same field of endeavor, Tran discloses wherein the first radio access technology comprises a fifth generation, 5G, radio access technology, and the second radio access technology comprises a sixth generation, 6G, radio access technology. [0486] A baseband board may be provided to perform all baseband functions specific to an antenna. The baseband board may include DPD and CFR functions, as well as self-test routines and modules, as well as handling for one or more channels of MIMO, or one or more channels of multiple radio access technologies, e.g., 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, 6G UMTS, LTE, and the like). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran such that wherein the first radio access technology comprises a fifth generation, 5G, radio access technology, and the second radio access technology comprises a sixth generation, 6G, radio access technology, thereby providing access to 5G and 6G devices. Regarding claim 17, the limitations are rejected by the citations cited in the rejection of claim 15 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7, 8, 9 and 10 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5144. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PM M-F. 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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-8004. 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. /VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/790,332 Page 2 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/790,332 Page 3 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/790,332 Page 4 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/790,332 Page 5 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/790,332 Page 6 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/790,332 Page 7 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/790,332 Page 8 Art Unit: 3648
Prosecution Insights