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 .
Art Unit- Location
The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2642.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2024 and 12/10/2025 are in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, have been considered by the Examiner, and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jayawardene et al Patent Application No. :( US 2019/0320494 A1) hereinafter referred as Jayawardene.
For claim 1, Jayawardene teaches a small cell (fig. 9) (Paragraph [0263]-[0264]) apparatus comprising: a port to interface with a coaxial cable, the coaxial cable configured to transmit a signal from a radio unit (RU) (Paragraphs [0042] and [0051]); an impedance matching component (716) configured to sufficiently match the signal (Paragraph [0212], lines 16-20 ); a diplexer (714) configured to separate the signal into a separated signal (Paragraph [0212], lines 16-20 ); a signal converter (708 and 710) configured to increase and/or decrease the separated signal to an emission signal at an emission frequency (Paragraph [0212], lines 1-16); a transceiver node configured to map the emission signal to two or more multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) layers(Paragraph [0212], lines 9-16); and an antenna configured to transmit the two or more MIMO layers (Paragraph [0218], lines 1-12).
For claim 2, Jayawardene teaches the apparatus, wherein the RU is a single RU (Paragraph [0253], lines 1-6).
For claim 3, Jayawardene teaches the apparatus, wherein the coaxial cable further comprises a tap (Paragraph [0221], lines 1-9).
For claim 5, Jayawardene teaches the apparatus, further comprising a switch, wherein the switch is configured to activate a path to provide a feedback signal from the antenna through a receiving (Rx) path and to activate a path to provide a transmission signal from the transceiver node to the antenna (Paragraph [0308]-[0309], lines 1-18).
For claim 6, Jayawardene teaches the apparatus, wherein the coaxial cable transmits up to a 2400 MHz wideband spectrum (Paragraph [0198], lines 5-8).
For claim 8, Jayawardene teaches the apparatus, wherein the two or more MIMO layers are mapped based on channel quality feedback from a destination back to the small cell apparatus (Paragraphs [0297], lines 5-8).
For claim 9, Jayawardene teaches a network architecture comprising:
two or more small cell apparatus (same rejection applied above to claim 1);
a single RU configured to transmit a signal over coaxial cable to the two or more small cell apparatus (Paragraphs [0034], lines 1-11).
For claim 10, Jayawardene teaches the network architecture, wherein the two or more small cell apparatus comprise two or more coverage clusters (Paragraphs [0007], lines 13-17).
For claim 11, Jayawardene teaches the network architecture, wherein the two or more coverage clusters each comprise two or more small cell apparatus (Paragraphs [0193], lines 1-13) .
For claim 13, Jayawardene teaches a method of transmitting a signal, the method comprising:
receiving a signal from a coaxial cable at a port of a small cell apparatus from a radio unit (RU) (Paragraphs [0042] and [0051]);
matching an impedance of the signal (716);
separating the signal into a separated signal (Paragraph [0235], lines 1-9);
increasing and/or decreasing the separated signal to an emission signal at an emission frequency(Paragraph [0212], lines 1-16);
mapping the emission signal to two or more multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) layers (Paragraph [0212], lines 9-16); and
transmitting the two or more MIMO layers from an antenna (Paragraph [0218], lines 1-12).
For claim 14, Jayawardene teaches a method, wherein the RU is a single RU (Paragraph [0253], lines 1-6).
For claim 15, Jayawardene teaches a method, wherein the coaxial cable further comprises a tap (Paragraph [0221], lines 1-9).
For claim 17, Jayawardene teaches a method, activating a path to provide a feedback signal from the antenna through a receiving (Rx) path or activating a path to provide a transmission signal from the antenna (Paragraph [0308]-[0309], lines 1-18).
For claim 18, Jayawardene teaches a method, wherein the coaxial cable transmits up to a 2400 MHz wideband spectrum (Paragraph [0198], lines 5-8).
For claim 20, Jayawardene teaches a method, wherein the two or more MIMO layers are mapped based on channel quality feedback from a destination back to the small cell (Paragraphs [0297], lines 5-8) .
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:
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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. 1-3, 6-11, 13-15, 18 and 20
Claims 4, 7, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Jayawardene et al Patent Application No. :( US 2019/0320494 A1) hereinafter referred as Jayawardene, in view of Ban et al US Patent Application No.:( US 2019/0214733 B1) hereinafter referred as Ban.
For claim 4, Jayawardene disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the low noise amplifier (LNA) configured to amplify the separated signal as recited in claim 4.
Ban from the same or analogous art teaches the low noise amplifier (LNA) configured to amplify the separated signal (paragraph [0052], lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the low noise amplifier (LNA) configured to amplify the separated signal as taught by Ban into the apparatus and method for enabling mobility of a user device in an enhanced wireless network of Jayawardene.
The low noise amplifier (LNA) configured to amplify the separated signal can be modify/implemented by combining the low noise amplifier (LNA) configured to amplify the separated signal with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Ban into the apparatus and method for enabling mobility of a user device in an enhanced wireless network of Jayawardene. As disclosed in Ban, the motivation for the combination would be to use the unique characteristic of these amplifiers is that they minimize additional noise while amplifying the weak signals. The primary function of an LNA is to decrease the noise figure (NF). The NF is a measure of degradation of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), caused by components in a signal chain becoming more efficient and reliable for a better communication.
For claim 7, Jayawardene disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the impedance matching component comprises a matching for loads in a 50-75Ω range as recited in claim 7.
Ban from the same or analogous art teaches the impedance matching component comprises a matching for loads in a 50-75Ω range (paragraph [0055], lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the impedance matching component comprises a matching for loads in a 50-75Ω range as taught by Ban into the apparatus and method for enabling mobility of a user device in an enhanced wireless network of Jayawardene.
The impedance matching component comprises a matching for loads in a 50-75Ω range can be modify/implemented by combining the impedance matching component comprises a matching for loads in a 50-75Ω range with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Ban into the apparatus and method for enabling mobility of a user device in an enhanced wireless network of Jayawardene. As disclosed in Ban, the motivation for the combination would be to use the impedance matching , transmission line and load impedances are aligned for a maximum power for a better communication becoming more efficient and reliable.
For claim 16, Jayawardene disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the amplifying the separated signal via a low noise amplifier (LNA)as recited in claim 16.
Ban from the same or analogous art teaches the amplifying the separated signal via a low noise amplifier (LNA) (paragraph [0052], lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the amplifying the separated signal via a low noise amplifier (LNA)as taught by Ban into the apparatus and method for enabling mobility of a user device in an enhanced wireless network of Jayawardene.
The amplifying the separated signal via a low noise amplifier (LNA)can be modify/implemented by combining the amplifying the separated signal via a low noise amplifier (LNA) with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Ban into the apparatus and method for enabling mobility of a user device in an enhanced wireless network of Jayawardene. As disclosed in Ban, the motivation for the combination would be to use the unique characteristic of these amplifiers is that they minimize additional noise while amplifying the weak signals. The primary function of an LNA is to decrease the noise figure (NF). The NF is a measure of degradation of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), caused by components in a signal chain becoming more efficient and reliable for a better communication.
For claim 19, Jayawardene disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the impedance matching component comprises a matching for loads in a 50-75Ω range as recited in claim 19.
Ban from the same or analogous art teaches the impedance matching component comprises a matching for loads in a 50-75Ω range (paragraph [0055], lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the impedance matching component comprises a matching for loads in a 50-75Ω range as taught by Ban into the apparatus and method for enabling mobility of a user device in an enhanced wireless network of Jayawardene.
The impedance matching component comprises a matching for loads in a 50-75Ω range can be modify/implemented by combining the impedance matching component comprises a matching for loads in a 50-75Ω range with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Ban into the apparatus and method for enabling mobility of a user device in an enhanced wireless network of Jayawardene. As disclosed in Ban, the motivation for the combination would be to use the impedance matching , transmission line and load impedances are aligned for a maximum power for a better communication becoming more efficient and reliable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is shown in the following table:
US-20240056033-A1
PEHLKE; David Richard
US-20220175254-A1
HUI; Xiaonan
US-20170343695-A1
STETSON; John B.
US-20160022146-A1
Piron; Cameron
US-20060232492-A1
Sawatani; Takuma
US-20210153124-A1
PANDEY; Nirmal
US-D512053-S
Smith; Paul
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH AREVALO whose telephone number is (571)270-3121. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571)272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH AREVALO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights