DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - Nonstatutory Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
4. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The following table summarizes the correspondence between limitations of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 and limitations of claim 1 of the present application.
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976
Claim 1 of the Present Application
A system, comprising:
a radio unit comprising a digital front end chain;
a tap point disposed within the digital front end chain, wherein the tap point is configured to time align a signal at the tap point with a system time of the radio unit;
a first hardware component that is configured to selectively read the signal at the tap point to produce a read signal;
[AltContent: ]
a second hardware component that is configured to store the read signal; and
a third hardware component configured to transform the read signal from a time domain of the radio unit to a frequency domain of the radio unit before the second hardware component stores the read signal
wherein the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit.
A system, comprising:
a radio unit comprising a digital front end chain;
a tap point disposed within the digital front end chain, wherein the tap point is configured to time align a signal at the tap point with a system time of the radio unit;
first hardware that is configured to selectively read the signal at the tap point to produce a read signal,
wherein the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit; and
second hardware that is configured to store the read signal.
Therefore, the system of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 teaches the system of claim 1 of the present application.
5. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 states that the read signal is transformed from a time domain of the radio unit to a frequency domain of the radio unit. Therefore, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 teaches claim 2 of the present application, which states that the read signal is represented in a time domain of the radio unit, because the read signal of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 was initially represented in the time domain of the radio unit.
6. Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 states that the third hardware component is configured to transform the read signal from a time domain of the radio unit to a frequency domain of the radio unit before the second hardware component stores the read signal. Therefore, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 teaches claim 3 of the present application.
7. Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The following table summarizes the correspondence between limitations of claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 and limitations of claim 16 of the present application.
Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976
Claim 16 of the Present Application
An apparatus, comprising:
a first hardware component that is configured to selectively read a signal from a tap point that is disposed within a digital front end chain of a radio unit to produce a read signal,
wherein the signal is time aligned at the tap point on a system time of the radio unit;
[AltContent: ]
a second hardware component that is configured to store the read signal; and
a third hardware component configured to transform the read signal from a time domain of the radio unit to a frequency domain of the [AltContent: ]radio unit before the second hardware component stores the read signal
wherein the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit.
An apparatus, comprising:
a first hardware component that is configured to selectively read a signal from a tap
point that is disposed within a digital front end chain of a radio unit to produce a read signal,
wherein the signal is time aligned at the tap point on a system time of the radio unit, and
wherein the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit; and
a second hardware component that is configured to store the read signal.
Therefore, the apparatus of claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 teaches the apparatus of claim 16 of the present application.
8. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 in view of Oikawa (US 2008/0008146).
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 does not teach the following feature of claim 1 of the present application: “wherein the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit.”
In contrast, Oikawa teaches a radio network controller 100 that is configured to receive and store frames of a transmitted data signal (Fig. 9; ¶11, 101 and 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 such that the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of receiving a transmitted data signal (Oikawa; ¶11).
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 in view of Oikawa teaches claim 3 of the present application because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 states that the third hardware component is configured to transform the read signal from a time domain of the radio unit to a frequency domain of the radio unit before the second hardware component stores the read signal.
9. Claims 2 and 4-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 in view of Oikawa, respectively.
Dependent claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976, in view of Oikawa, correspond to dependent claims 2 and 4-8, respectively, of the present application. Therefore, claims 2 and 4-8 of the present application are obvious over claims 2-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 in view of Oikawa, respectively.
10. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 in view of Oikawa.
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 does not teach the following feature of claim 9 of the present application: “wherein the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit.”
In contrast, Oikawa teaches a radio network controller 100 that is configured to receive and store frames of a transmitted data signal (Fig. 9; ¶11, 101 and 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 such that the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of receiving a transmitted data signal (Oikawa; ¶11).
11. Claims 10-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 in view of Oikawa, respectively.
Dependent claims 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976, in view of Oikawa, correspond to dependent claims 10-15, respectively, of the present application. Therefore, claims 10-15 of the present application are obvious over claims 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 in view of Oikawa, respectively.
12. Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 in view of Oikawa.
Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 does not teach the following feature of claim 16 of the present application: “wherein the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit.”
In contrast, Oikawa teaches a radio network controller 100 that is configured to receive and store frames of a transmitted data signal (Fig. 9; ¶11, 101 and 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 such that the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of receiving a transmitted data signal (Oikawa; ¶11).
13. Claims 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 in view of Oikawa, respectively.
Dependent claims 17-18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976, in view of Oikawa, correspond to dependent claims 17-19, respectively, of the present application. Therefore, claims 17-19 of the present application are obvious over claims 17-18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,188,976 in view of Oikawa, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 12, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Najatian et al. (US 2014/0219144 – hereinafter “Najatian”) in view of Oikawa.
Per claim 1, Najatian teaches a system, comprising:
a radio unit (Fig. 6; radio node 600; ¶36) comprising a digital front end chain (Fig. 6; branches 604, 606; ¶36);
a tap point (Fig. 6; positions of tapping means 608; ¶37) disposed within the digital front end chain, wherein the tap point is configured to time align a signal at the tap point with a system time of the radio unit (The timing of the tapped signals from each branch 604, 606 may be determined in relation to a reference clock. If the timing of the tapped signals indicates a timing misalignment, a transmission delay of at least one of the branches 604, 606 may be adjusted (¶32 and 39));
first hardware (Fig. 6; tapping means 608; ¶37) that is configured to selectively read the signal at the tap point to produce a read signal (The tapping means 608 are configured to tap a generated signal from each branch 604, 606 (Fig. 6; ¶37)); and
second hardware (Fig. 6; control unit 610; ¶42-43) that is configured to store the read signal (The control unit 610 includes a memory M for storing information related to a computer program which, when executed by a processor P connected to the memory M, causes the radio node 600 to perform the timing misalignment determination (¶42-43)).
However, Najatian does not explicitly teach the system wherein the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit.
In contrast, Oikawa teaches a radio network controller 100 that is configured to receive and store frames of a transmitted data signal. The time of each received frame may be determined (Fig. 9; ¶11, 101 and 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Najatian such that the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of receiving a transmitted data signal comprising frames (Oikawa; ¶11, 101, and 155).
Per claim 2, Najatian in view of Oikawa teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the read signal is represented in a time domain of the radio unit (The tapped signals are represented in the time domain (Najatian; ¶39)).
Per claim 5, Najatian in view of Oikawa teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second hardware is configured to store the read signal as a stored signal, and further comprising: third hardware that is configured to determine a performance metric of the radio unit based on the stored signal (The control unit 610 includes circuitry for storing the read signal and determining whether the timing alignment between the branches 604, 606 exceeds a preset limit which would indicate misalignment (Najatian; ¶40)).
Per claim 6, Najatian in view of Oikawa teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the performance metric a health assessment metric, an early failure metric, a no fault found event capture, a black box flight recorder metric, a soft failure metric (An unacceptable timing alignment would indicate a timing misalignment (Najatian; ¶40)), or an aging metric.
Per claim 7, Najatian in view of Oikawa teaches the system of claim 5, further comprising: fourth hardware that is configured to alter operation of the radio unit based on the performance metric (The control unit 601 is configured to adjust a transmission delay of at least one of the branches 604, 606 based on the determined timing alignment (Najatian; ¶39-40)).
Per claim 9, Najatian teaches a method, comprising:
identifying, by a system comprising at least one processor, a tap point (Fig. 6; positions of tapping means 608; ¶37) disposed within a digital front end chain (Fig. 6; branches 604, 606; ¶36) of a radio unit (Fig. 6; radio node 600; ¶36), wherein the tap point is configured to time align a signal at the tap point with a system time of the radio unit (The timing of the tapped signals from each branch 604, 606 may be determined in relation to a reference clock. If the timing of the tapped signals indicates a timing misalignment, a transmission delay of at least one of the branches 604, 606 may be adjusted (¶32 and 39));
selectively reading, by the system, a signal from the tap point to produce a read signal (The tapping means 608 are configured to read signals from the tap points (¶37)); and
storing, by the system, the read signal (The control unit 610 includes a memory M for storing information related to a computer program which, when executed by a processor P connected to the memory M, causes the radio node 600 to perform the timing misalignment determination (¶42-43)).
However, Najatian does not explicitly teach the method wherein the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit.
In contrast, Oikawa teaches a radio network controller 100 that is configured to receive and store frames of a transmitted data signal. The time of each received frame may be determined (Fig. 9; ¶11, 101 and 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Najatian such that the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of receiving a transmitted data signal comprising frames (Oikawa; ¶11, 101, and 155).
Per claim 12, Najatian in view of Oikawa teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the tap point is disposed to capture an error signal transmitted through the digital front end chain (An error signal, such as a mistimed tapped signal, would be detected at the tap point (Najatian; ¶39)).
Per claim 14, Najatian in view of Oikawa teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the signal is a first signal, wherein the tap point is a first tap point that corresponds to a first antenna of the radio unit, and further comprising: reading, by the system, a second signal from a second tap point that is disposed within the digital front end chain and that corresponds to a second antenna of the radio unit (Each branch 604, 606 includes a tap point (Najatian; ¶36-37)).
Per claim 15, Najatian in view of Oikawa teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising: reading, by the system, the first signal concurrently with reading the second signal (The tapping means 608 are configured to tap signals simultaneously (Najatian; ¶9 and 37)).
Per claim 16, Najatian teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a first hardware component (Fig. 6; tapping means 608; ¶37) that is configured to selectively read a signal from a tap point (Fig. 6; positions of tapping means 608; ¶37) that is disposed within a digital front end chain (Fig. 6; branches 604, 606; ¶36) of a radio unit (Fig. 6; radio node 600; ¶36) to produce a read signal, wherein the signal is time aligned at the tap point on a system time of the radio unit (The timing of the tapped signals from each branch 604, 606 may be determined in relation to a reference clock. If the timing of the tapped signals indicates a timing misalignment, a transmission delay of at least one of the branches 604, 606 may be adjusted (¶32 and 39)), and
a second hardware component (Fig. 6; control unit 610; ¶42-43) that is configured to store the read signal (The control unit 610 includes a memory M for storing information related to a computer program which, when executed by a processor P connected to the memory M, causes the radio node 600 to perform the timing misalignment determination (¶42-43)).
However, Najatian does not explicitly teach the apparatus wherein the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit.
In contrast, Oikawa teaches a radio network controller 100 that is configured to receive and store frames of a transmitted data signal. The time of each received frame may be determined (Fig. 9; ¶11, 101 and 155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Najatian such that the read signal spans one or more time boundaries of the radio unit. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of receiving a transmitted data signal comprising frames (Oikawa; ¶11, 101, and 155).
Per claim 19, Najatian in view of Oikawa teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the read signal is aligned to a symbol or a system time boundary of the radio unit (The timing of the tapped signals from each branch 604, 606 may be determined in relation to a reference clock (Najatian; ¶32)).
Per claim 20, Najatian in view of Oikawa teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the tap point is disposed at a first output of a crest factor reduction output signal block of the digital front end chain, wherein the tap point is disposed at a second output of a digital pre-distortion output signal block of the digital front end chain, wherein the tap point is disposed to capture an error signal transmitted through the digital front end chain (An error signal, such as a mistimed tapped signal, would be detected at the tap point (Najatian; ¶39)), or wherein the tap point is disposed at a third output of feedback received signal analog-to-digital converter of the digital front end chain.
16. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Najatian in view of Oikawa, in further view of Hu et al. (US 2023/0262478 – hereinafter “Hu”).
Per claim 8, Najatian in view of Oikawa does not explicitly teach the system of claim 7, wherein the fourth hardware is configured to use artificial intelligence to determine network efficiency management, and wherein altering the operation of the radio unit comprises increasing an efficiency of the radio unit.
In contrast, Hu teaches a communication network and describes the use of artificial intelligence technology to improve efficiency of network planning, network configuration, resource scheduling, and the like (¶85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Najatian in view of Oikawa such that the fourth hardware is configured to use artificial intelligence to determine network efficiency management, and wherein altering the operation of the radio unit comprises increasing an efficiency of the radio unit. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of improving efficiency of resource scheduling (Hu; ¶85).
Claim Objections
17. Claim 6 is objected to due to the following informality.
Per claim 6, it appears that the phrase “the performance metric a health assessment metric” should be revised to “the performance metric comprises a health assessment metric.”
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights