DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication(s) filed on 07/31/2024. Claims 1-18, of which claims 1 and 12 are independent, were pending in this application and are considered below.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of the Applicant's indication of National Stage Application of International Application No. PCT/US24/38578 filed on July 18, 2024, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/514,420, filed on July 19, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 have been considered and made of record by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: There is no antecedent basis for the limitation “Radio Remote Unit (RU)” in the specification. It is recommended to replace the limitation with --Radio Unit (RU)--.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The terms “RAN deployment 100” and “cellular deployment 100” (¶[0002]) are different parts, but same reference character are used to designate both. It is noted that cellular deployment includes the RAN plus the Core Network, working together to deliver service. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 USC § 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Examiner Note: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) made technical changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112 that only apply to patent applications filed on or after on September 16, 2012.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Regarding claim 1, claim recites the limitation “a plurality of RUs” (line 3 of claim 1), which is vague because it is not clear whether it is the same as or different from already recited limitation “a plurality of RUs” (line 3 of claim 1). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the plurality of RUs--.
Claim also recites the limitation “RU-specific information” (line 9 of claim 1), which is vague because it is not clear whether it is the same as or different from already recited limitation “RU-specific information” (line 7 of claim 1). It is recommended to replace the limitation with phrase --the RU-specific information--.
Regarding claim 9, claim recites the limitation “orienting the-corresponding one of the plurality of RUs at an interim location” (line of claim Y), which term “interim location” makes it vague and indefinite. It is not clear what term “orienting the-corresponding one of the plurality of RUs at an interim location” is referring because claim 1, which claim 9 is dependent upon, already recites “mounting a plurality of RUs, each at a designated location”. Furthermore, the specification merely disclose: “Once in place, in step 310, the technician may orient RU 110 so that it is oriented approximately to its boresight direction as designated in the RF design. In doing so, the technician may have articulated mount 215 set so that RU 110 may be rotated in three degrees of freedom. The technician may then use handle 225 to manipulate RU 110 to its approximate desired orientation and then tighten articulated mount 215 to fix the RU 110 at its interim orientation.” (¶0017] – emphasis added). There is no mention of interim location. The aforesaid issue leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, claim recites the limitation “the measuring plane”” (line 1 of claim 18). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation “claim 11” (line 1 of claim 18) with phrase --claim 12--.
Regarding claims 2-8 and 10-11, claims are rejected due to their dependency to the rejected claim 1.
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 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:
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The foregoing obviousness inquiry requires an expansive and flexible approach, not a rigid approach demanding express teachings, suggestions and motivations to combine prior art teachings. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 97 (US 2007). The rationale supporting a conclusion of obviousness should be made explicit for review, but the rationale does not require precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the claim. Id. at 1396. A rejection can rely on inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Id. Obviousness rejections are not limited to showing the obviousness of solutions to the problems Applicant was trying to solve. Id. at 1397. Rather, one can show obviousness of a claim by establishing the obviousness of any solution to any known problem in the field of endeavor and addressed by a patent application's subject matter. Id. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, but is possessed of ordinary creativity. Id. One of ordinary skill could find alternative uses for prior art elements beyond the elements' primary purposes and fit prior art teachings together like a puzzle. Id. A combination of prior art teachings does not require absolute predictability. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals Inc., 81 USPQ2d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006). All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success. Id.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0171607 A1 to Al-Mufti et al. (see IDS) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0306064 A1 to Abedini et al. (see IDS)
Regarding claim 1, Al-Mufti et al. disclose a method for registering a plurality of RUs (Radio Units) in a RAN (Radio Access Network) deployment, comprising: mounting a plurality of RUs (¶[0027]: ”The radio(s) may be mounted, for example, on the ceiling of hallways and/or rooms.”, ¶[0048]: “determine location of at least one radio to be installed. This may be … performed using ... a heat map”, ¶[0053], Fig. lA and 1C), each at a designated location according to an RF (Radio Frequency) design (¶[0040]: “determine geo-location data for the radio”; ¶[0041]); obtaining RU-specific information corresponding to each of the plurality of RUs from an information device mechanically coupled to the RU (¶[0036]: “the object recognition software ... include ... QR reader software ... automatically identify radios .. and determine an identifier uniquely associated with a specific radio”); recording, for each of the plurality of RUs, the RU location, the RU orientation, and RU-specific information (¶0042]: “store the identifier and/or the geo-location data of the radio in the radio.”). Al-Mufti et al. disclose as stated above except for expressly teaching orienting each of the plurality of RUs according to the RF design; and measuring an RU location and RU orientation of each of the plurality of RU.
However, Abedini et al. disclose orienting each of the plurality of RUs according to the RF design (¶[0090], ¶[0098], ¶[0103], Figs. 5A-5B: a repeater performs mechanical beam steering based on a mechanical beam steering configuration); and measuring an RU location and RU orientation of each of the plurality of RU (¶¶[0101]-[0102], Fig. 5B: the repeater performs measurements for different mechanically adjusted azimuth positions of the repeater, and for different mechanically adjusted elevation angles of the repeater). It is desirable to accurately determine the location of radios used in a system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teaching of Abedini et al. to modify the system and method of Al-Mufti et al. in order to utilize a radio as a relay station that can relay transmission for other radios, as suggested by Abedini et al. (¶[0039]), to further enhance radio transmission.
Regarding claim 4, Al-Mufti et al. in view of Abedini et al. disclose as stated above. Al-Mufti et al. disclose wherein the information device involves a QR code, and wherein obtaining RU-specific information comprises: taking an image of the QR code with the information capture device; and extracting the RU-specific information from a website directed to by the QR code; and recording the RU-specific information (¶[0036]: “object recognition software can be programmed with ... identifier(s) (e.g., quick response (QR) code(s)) ... The identifier(s) may be reflective, raised, or recessed so as to be recognizable in the point cloud. Optionally, the object recognition software may also include character recognition software (e.g. ... QR reader software) and thus may automatically identify radios (and determine an identifier uniquely associated with a specific radio if such an identifier was imaged when creating the point cloud). The point cloud may be stored and analyzed in a server, e.g., in a cloud system or local network.”).
Regarding claim 5, Al-Mufti et al. in view of Abedini et al. disclose as stated above. wherein the information device involves a QR code image of the QR code (¶[0036]: “object recognition software can be programmed with ... identifier(s) (e.g., quick response (QR) code(s)) ... The identifier(s) may be reflective, raised, or recessed so as to be recognizable in the point cloud. Optionally, the object recognition software may also include character recognition software (e.g. ... QR reader software) and thus may automatically identify radios (and determine an identifier uniquely associated with a specific radio if such an identifier was imaged when creating the point cloud). The point cloud may be stored and analyzed in a server, e.g., in a cloud system or local network.”). Al-Mufti et al. in view of Abedini et al. disclose all the limitations, as stated above, except for using QR code instead of NFC device. However, using NFC device merely define one of several straightforward possibilities which the skilled person would select, depending on the circumstances, in order to solve the problem posed. Furthermore, such replacement appears to present no unexpected technological advances in the art. Because NFC and QR codes both provide instant, contactless access to digital information. Under KSR the known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives and is considered obvious. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try to choose from a finites number of ways to have contactless access to digital information, as suggested by KSR, to reach at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Al-Mufti et al. in view of Abedini et al. disclose as stated above. Al-Mufti et al. also disclose wherein the recording comprises: sending the RU location, RU orientation, and RU-specific information for each of the RUs to a central server (¶[0043]: communicate the identifier and/or geo-location data of the radio to a system, e.g., a modeling system and/or a controller of a shared spectrum system, e.g., a SAS system).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Mufti et al. in view of Abedini et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0272701 A1 to Hannan et al. (see IDS)
Regarding claim 11, Al-Mufti et al. in view of Abedini et al. disclose as stated above, except for expressly teaching compiling the RU location, RU orientation, and RU-specific information for each of the RUs; and submitting a registration grant request corresponding to each of the RUs to a SAS (Spectrum Allocation Service).
Hannan et al. disclose compiling the RU location, RU orientation, and RU-specific information for each of the RUs; and submitting a registration grant request corresponding to each of the RUs to a SAS (Spectrum Allocation Service) (¶[0023]: "A radio network (RN) means at least one baseband unit (BBU(s)), at least one network radio (NR(s)), and at least one transmission point (TP(s))"; ¶[0046]: "TP data means ... TP geographic location, desired transmit power level ... antenna down tilt angle, and/or antenna azimuthal angle."; ¶[0051]: "The SAS 104 is configured to control when the radio(s) 106 can transmit in shared spectrum, the maximum transmit power level ... in which each of the radio(s) 106 may transmit."; ¶[0112] : “the maximum transmit power level for each of the one or more available frequency spectrum may be received in response to a grant request transmitted to a SAS.”). It is desirable to allocate frequency spectrum and maximum transmission power to component(s) of a radio network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teaching of Hannan et al. to modify the system and method of Al-Mufti et al. in view of Abedini et al., in order to further maximize transmission power to radios, as suggested by Hannan et al. (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-3 and 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 12-17 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Examiner's note: As applied to the claims above, the specific columns, line numbers, and figures in the references has been cited for the Applicant’s convenience. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the particular limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant is respectfully requested to fully consider the references, in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner, in preparing responses. Applicant(s) are reminded that MPEP 2123 I. states: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Reliance on the US Pre-Grant Publication (PG PUB) of this application, which is not part of the image file wrapper of the patent application, in the prosecution is improper. All references in the reply to the office action are to be made to the latest version on record of the patent application as filed not as published. The latest version on record of the patent application means the patent application as originally filed and modified by previously entered amendment(s).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Kim et al. (US 20190327594 A1) disclose: measuring an RU location and RU orientation of each of the plurality of RUs (¶[0096]: "The sensors used when the first electronic device 100 or the second electronic device 300 acquires the sensing information such as the 3D coordinate, the tile, the vibration, the movement direction, and the like, are not limited to such sensors as the acceleration sensor, the tilt sensor, the gyroscope, the GPS, the light sensor, and the like, and thus various sensors such as a pupil (or gaze) detection sensor or a brainwave detection sensor, and the like, capable of acquiring information regarding a state of the first electronic device 100 or the second electronic device 300 may also be used.)"); obtaining device-specific information corresponding to each of the electronic device from an information device mechanically coupled to the electronic device (¶[0096]: "The first electronic device 100 or the second electronic device 300 may acquire information such as a 3D coordinate, tilt, vibration, movement direction, and the like, of the first electronic device 100 or the second electronic device 300 by using sensors such as an acceleration sensor 161, a tilt sensor 163, a gyroscope 162, a GPS (not shown), and a light sensor (not shown)").
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nader Bolourchi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8064. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 to 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah S. Wang, SPE can be reached on (571) 272-9018. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO web-based Video Conferencing and Collaboration Tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. See MPEP § 502.03. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122 and will not initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail. The internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization may be submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.
The following is a sample authorization form, which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
“The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with any practitioner of record or acting in a representative capacity in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail is hereby withdrawn.”
To facilitate processing of the internet communication authorization or withdraw of authorization, the Office strongly encourages use of Form PTO/SB/439, filed via EFS-Web. The Form is available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
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.
/Nader Bolourchi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights