Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAEZ-GHAEMI et al (Pub No. US 2022/0294528) and further in view of McFarland et al (Pat No. 12191922).
Regarding claim 1, VAEZ-GHAEMI et al discloses a method for testing a remote radio head unit, comprising: testing the power connections of the remote radio head unit (Fig. 3: power meter port-123 & Fiber under test-DUT-Device under test & Para. 93-95: Power meter port 123 used to conduct an optical power test) & (Claim 4: CPRI test to test a fiber link between a Remote Radio Head (RRH) and a Base Band Unit (BBU)); connecting power cables to the remote radio head unit (Para. 100-101 & para. 93-94: power wire connection through power port) & (Fig. 7A); connecting the remote radio head unit to a remote radio head unit tester (Fig. 3 & 6H & Para. 127-128: connecting radio to unit tester & Claim 4); booting up the remote radio head unit (Para. 99: initiating start/ stop measurement) & (Para. 118: start an automated test); checking the software version of the remote radio head unit (Para. 168: BBU emulation test is to confirm that the RRH has the correct SFP installed, that it has the correct firmware loaded & send a command to an SFP in the RRH to determine an ID of the SFP, the current version of firmware and fiber that it is connected to); testing the optical ports of the remote radio head unit (Para. 297 & 101: Optical fiber under test) & (Fig. 21 & 26) & (Claim 4-5).
VAEZ-GHAEMI is silent regarding configuring the remote radio head unit tester based upon a type or brand of the remote radio head unit to be tested and retrieving radio head information including a radio model and a serial number.
In a similar field of endeavor, McFarland discloses configuring the remote radio head unit tester based upon a type or brand of the remote radio head unit to be tested (Col. 18 Line 1-5: Manufacturing data & Col. 18 Line 52-66: Different type of RF module with different manufacturing) & (Col. 25 Line 16-28: Test based on type of RF module design) and retrieving radio head information including a radio model and a serial number (Col. 18 Line 1-5: serial number, model and manufacturing data & Col. 20 Line 5-20: RF module ID, recognize RF 400 & part number, serial number)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the RF model testing system of McFarland’s disclosure with the device testing system, as taught by VAEZ-GHAEMI. Doing so would have resulted in effectively and efficiently testing RF devices to determine any error associated with the device.
Regarding claim 2, VAEZ-GHAEMI et al discloses the software version is determined to be up to date (Para. 168: BBU emulation test is to confirm that the RRH has the correct SFP installed, that it has the correct firmware loaded & send a command to an SFP in the RRH to determine an ID of the SFP, the current version of firmware and fiber that it is connected to).
Regarding claim 3, VAEZ-GHAEMI et al discloses the software version is determined to be out of date (Para. 168: send a command to an SFP in the RRH to determine a the current version of firmware. version of firmware-out of date or current).
Regarding claim 4, VAEZ-GHAEMI et al discloses the software version is updated (Claim 4: SFP has installed a most recent version of firmware).
Regarding claim 5, VAEZ-GHAEMI et al discloses sending the remote radio head to repair after a failed test (Para. 53 & 210: Repair & maintain).
Regarding claim 6, VAEZ-GHAEMI et al discloses displaying the test results from the remote radio head on a screen of the remote radio head tester (Para. 96: Test result displayed).
Regarding claim 7, VAEZ-GHAEMI et al discloses configuring the remote radio head tester to be operable with the remote radio head to be tested (Fig. 3 & 21 & Para. 101-103: Test configuring).
Another Prior Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Another prior art, Vierimaa (US 2021/0345142) discloses a radio channel test apparatus including a first interface for receiving a baseband signal including I/Q data. A testing environment including multiple RRH which are operatively connected to one or more UEs. Wirelessly test perform for the device.
Another prior art, Huh et al (US 2018/0131596) discloses test controller servers. Servers on the master test system may facilitate tests of devices under test (DUTs) coupled to the master test system and slave device. The test systems include test probe containers that virtualize the test probes and/or configure the test probes to execute portions of specific tests on DUTs. The test systems using specific sequences of tests according to testing protocols relevant to those DUTs. One or more test controllers, mobile devices, display devices, and/or input devices may be coupled to the test systems and be used to control specific test protocols performed by the test systems.
CONCLUSION
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Patent Examiner Md Talukder whose telephone number is (571) 270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Th 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867.
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.
/MD K TALUKDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
