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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 01/27/2025. Claims 1 – 18 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/27/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, there is no translation or concise explanation of relevance of any of the Foreign Patent Documents listed in the IDS.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim recites “to interactive”. There is no such verb in English language, therefore, it is not clear what that means. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 2 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 11 each recite the limitation "the second optical signal" multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims.
Claims 3 and 12 each recite the limitation "the second optical signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims.
Claims 4 and 13 each recite the limitation "the second optical signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims.
Claims 5 and 14 each recite the limitation "the downlink millimeterwave transmission signal" and “the air interface” at least twice. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in each of the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the baseband processing device", “the downlink baseband signals” and “the downlink baseband signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the millimeter wave transceiver device" multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the downlink baseband signals” and “the downlink baseband signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 3 – 9 and 11 – 18 are also rejected as being dependent from the rejected base claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113992271 (Fan) (explanation is given according to English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches “A millimeter wave transceiver device (Par. 1: 5G millimeter wave base station.), comprising: a digital intermediate frequency module (FIG 1 and paragraph 47: an expansion unit 11, also shown in FIG 5 with corresponding description. Paragraph 49: The downlink signal obtained by processing the baseband signal by the extension unit 11 is a signal. Operation on intermediate signal is disclosed in paragraph 54 and digital properties are addressed in paragraph 55), at least two millimeter wave transmission modules (FIG 7 and paragraph 60: The ROF optical module 12 comprises a plurality of distal ends 1202), and at least two millimeter wave remote-end modules (FIG 1 and paragraph 47: a plurality of remote units 13, also shown in FIG 10. Also paragraph 74); wherein,
the digital intermediate frequency module is connected to at least two of the millimeter wave transmission modules (as may be inferred from FIG 1 and 7, the extension/expansion unit 11 (“the digital intermediate frequency module”) is connected to plurality of distal ends 1202 through expansion end 1201 (see paragraph 60). Each distal end together with corresponding first optical wavelength division multiplexer, interconnected with optical fiber (see paragraphs 64 – 67), and corresponding optical detection module for uplink λ2 represent “the millimeter wave transmission module”, and there are at least eight of them as shown in FIG 8. Mapping of the claimed “millimeter wave transmission module” onto the disclosure of Fan will be addressed in more detail in the rejection of claims 2 and 3 below), and the at least two of the millimeter wave transmission modules are connected to at least two of the millimeter wave remote-end modules in one-to-one correspondence (paragraph 60: Each distal end 1202 is (which is part of “at least two of the millimeter wave transmission modules”) configured to send the downlink signal to a remote unit 13 (“the millimeter wave remote-end modules”) connected to the distal end 1202);
the digital intermediate frequency module is configured to send a downlink radio-frequency sending signal (FIG 4 and paragraph 54: the first combiner 1105 (which is part of “the digital intermediate frequency module”) is configured to combine the phase-locked loop reference signal, the control signal, and the Sub -6 GHz signal located at different frequency points of the Sub -6 GHz frequency band to obtain a downlink signal, and send the downlink signal to the ROF optical module 12) and receive an uplink radio-frequency receiving signal (paragraph 45: In the uplink, the remote unit may convert the received millimeter wave signal into a Sub -6 GHz signal, then transmit the Sub -6 GHz signal to the extension unit through the ROF optical module, and process the received Sub -6 GHz signal by the extension unit.);
the millimeter wave remote-end module is configured to radiate and transmit a downlink millimeter wave sending signal, and radiate and receive an uplink millimeter wave receiving signal, and is also configured to convert between the downlink radio-frequency sending signal and the downlink millimeter wave sending signal, and convert between the uplink radio-frequency receiving signal and the uplink millimeter wave receiving signal (FIG 1 and paragraph 51: each remote unit 13 performs frequency conversion processing on the received downlink signal, changes the signal located in the Sub -6 GHz frequency band into a millimeter wave signal, and then feeds the millimeter wave signal to the antenna 14, and the antenna 14 transmits the millimeter wave signal. Paragraph 76: the remote unit 13 is configured to process the received uplink radio frequency signal to obtain an uplink signal, and send the uplink signal to the ROF optical module 12. Paragraph 81: the remote unit 13 connected to the millimeter wave antenna 14, and is specifically configured to perform frequency conversion processing on the millimeter wave signal to obtain the uplink signal located in the Sub -6 GHz frequency band, and then send the uplink signal located in the Sub -6 GHz frequency band to the ROF optical module 12);
the millimeter wave transmission module is configured to transmit the downlink radio-frequency sending signal and the uplink radio-frequency receiving signal between the digital intermediate frequency module and the millimeter wave remote-end module (paragraph 47: ROF optical module 12 (which includes “the millimeter wave transmission module”), configured to convert the downlink signal into a downlink optical signal, perform splitting processing on the downlink optical signal to obtain a plurality of target downlink optical signals, respectively perform optical fiber pulling on the plurality of target downlink optical signals, reduce a plurality of target downlink optical signals that pass through the optical fiber into a plurality of downlink signals, and send the plurality of downlink signals to the plurality of remote units 13. Paragraph 76: The ROF optical module 12 is configured to transmit an uplink signal sent by each remote unit 13 through an optical fiber, and send an uplink signal sent by each remote unit 13 to the expansion unit 11).”
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:
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.
Claims 2 – 5, 7 – 14 and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113992271 (Fan).
Regarding claim 10, Fan teaches “A millimeter wave communication system, comprising a network management device, a baseband processing device (paragraph 2: The base station is a mobile communication infrastructure, and its main function is to implement wireless signal transmission between a wired communication network and a wireless terminal. Therefore, wired communication network is mapped to the combination of “a network management device, a baseband processing device”, which are well known to be parts of any communication network) and the millimeter wave transceiver device (Par. 1: 5G millimeter wave base station.), the network management device, the baseband processing device and the millimeter wave transceiver device are sequentially connected (implicit), and the millimeter wave transceiver device comprises:
a digital intermediate frequency module, at least two millimeter wave transmission modules, and at least two millimeter wave remote-end modules; wherein,
the digital intermediate frequency module is connected to at least two of the millimeter wave transmission modules, and the at least two of the millimeter wave transmission modules are connected to at least two of the millimeter wave remote-end modules in one-to-one correspondence;
the digital intermediate frequency module is configured to send a downlink radio-frequency sending signal and receive an uplink radio-frequency receiving signal;
the millimeter wave remote-end module is configured to radiate and transmit a downlink millimeter wave sending signal, and radiate and receive an uplink millimeter wave receiving signal, and is also configured to convert between the downlink radio-frequency sending signal and the downlink millimeter wave sending signal, and convert between the uplink radio-frequency receiving signal and the uplink millimeter wave receiving signal;
the millimeter wave transmission module is configured to transmit the downlink radio-frequency sending signal and the uplink radio-frequency receiving signal between the digital intermediate frequency module and the millimeter wave remote-end module (the limitations above are rejected because of the same reasons as explained in the rejection of similar limitations of claim 1 above, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference).”
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Fan teaches “wherein each of the millimeter wave transmission modules (shown in FIG 8 and also in Sketch 1 below which is based on Fan’s FIG 8 redrawn to better explain the mapping) comprises: a first signal processing sub-module, an optical fiber sub-module and a second signal processing sub-module connected in sequence, wherein the first signal processing sub-module is further connected to the digital intermediate frequency module, and the second signal processing sub-module is further connected to the millimeter wave remote-end module; wherein,
the first signal processing sub-module is configured to…” “…convert the second optical signal into the uplink radio-frequency receiving signal;
the second signal processing sub-module is configured to convert the uplink radio-frequency receiving signal into the second optical signal, and convert the first optical signal into the downlink radio-frequency sending signal;
the optical fiber sub-module is configured to transmit the first optical signal and the second optical signal between the first signal processing sub-module and the second signal processing sub-module (see Sketch 1 below explaining the mapping between the claimed components and the disclosure of Fan).”
PNG
media_image1.png
1883
1458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sketch 1
Fan does not disclose that the function of “convert the downlink radio-frequency sending signal into first optical signal” is implemented in each millimeter wave transmission module. In Fan, unlike the conversion of the second optical signal into an uplink radio-frequency receiving signal, which is implemented individually for each distal end, the function of conversion of the downlink signal into the first optical signal is implemented for the combined downlink signal arriving from the digital intermediate frequency module, so that there is a single optical emission module (paragraph 65:The first optical emission module is a transmitter optical subassembly (TOSA), and a downlink optical signal whose signal is input from the extension unit 1 and located in the Sub -6 GHz frequency band is converted from an electrical signal to a downlink optical signal having a wavelength λ1 in the laser TOSA. As shown in FIG. 8, the optical splitter is divided into eight downlink optical signals, and the eight downlink optical signals are respectively transmitted to the eight remote terminals 1202 through eight optical fibers).
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application, and similar to the arrangement for the uplink signal, in which the optical conversion is performed individually in each millimeter wave transmission module, and then combined into a single line, to do the same for the downlink conversion from the electrical signal to a downlink optical signal so that instead of single first optical emission module performing conversion for the eight distal ends, as in Fan, there would be an individual optical emission module (laser) for each distal end positioned within respective millimeter wave transmission module, with RF signal splitting, simply as design choice with predictable results, such as reducing possible intermodulation distortion in the laser because of plurality of signals simultaneously arriving at a single laser. This would have also eliminated the need in an optical splitter currently seen in FIG 8. Additionally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure (such as a single laser for eight distal ends) in various elements (such as individual laser for each distal end) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In other words, setting exact boundaries between functional units, splitting a unit into two functional units or combining two functional units into a single unit and therefore assigning or reassigning a particular function to a particular unit on either side of the functional split is a matter of an obvious engineering design choice.
When modified as explained above, and as an example only, each first signal processing sub-module with associated connections may look like shown below in Sketch 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
1641
1429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sketch 2
In other words, instead of converting a single downlink RF signal (f1+f2+f3+f4+433 MHz+122.88 MHz) into an optical signal λ1 and then splitting it into eight optical signals λ1 using an optical splitter, as in Fan, it would have been obvious to, first, split the combined downlink RF signal into eight RF signals and then individually convert each of these signals into optical signal λ1 for the respective remote unit 13 simply as design choice with predictable results, one of them being reducing or eliminating intermodulation distortion in laser, as explained above.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Fan modified as suggested in the rejection of claim 2 above (with respect to using individual downlink conversion units from the electrical signal to a downlink optical signal (laser) in each first signal processing sub-module) teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the downlink radio-frequency sending signal comprise at least two first service signals (as shown in Fan’s FIG 5 and FIG 6 with corresponding description, there are several downlink signals located at different frequencies f1, f2, f3 and f4) and a first control signal (paragraph 54: the first frequency-shift keying module 1104 is configured to provide a control signal to the first combiner 1105; and the first combiner 1105 is configured to combine the phase-locked loop reference signal, the control signal, and the Sub -6 GHz signal located at different frequency points of the Sub -6 GHz frequency band to obtain a downlink signal, and send the downlink signal to the ROF optical module 12), and the uplink radio-frequency receiving signals comprise at least two second service signals (as shown in Fan’s FIG 5 with corresponding description, there are several uplink signals located at different frequencies f1, f2, f3 and f4, each received from plurality of millimeter wave transmission modules as mapped in the rejection of claim 2 above) and a second control signal (paragraph 95: the uplink signal received from the remote unit 13 includes four frequencies of a 5G NR signal and a 433 MHz FSK signal, where the FSK represents “second control signal”)…”
“…a first multiplexing and separation unit and a first analog optical transceiving unit connected to each other (see Sketch 3 below which is based on combination of Fan’s FIG 5 and 8 (redrawn as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the first multiplexing and separation unit is further connected to the digital intermediate frequency module, and the first analog optical transceiving unit is further connected to the optical fiber sub-module; wherein,
the first multiplexing and separating unit is configured to multiplex at least two first service signals and the first control signal into at least two downlink analog multiplexing signals, and separate at least two uplink analog multiplexing signals into at least two second service signals and the second control signal;
the first analog optical transceiver unit is configured to convert at least two downlink analog multiplexing signals into the first optical signal, and convert the second optical signal into at least two uplink analog multiplexing signals (see Sketch 3 below explaining the mapping between the claimed components and the disclosure of Fan).”
PNG
media_image3.png
1504
2080
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sketch 3
While teaching or fairly suggesting that first analog optical transceiver unit is part of “the first signal processing sub-module” (see mapping in Sketch 3 above), Fan does not disclose that first multiplexing and separation unit is also part of “the first signal processing sub-module”. In Fan, the first multiplexing and separation unit appears to be belonging to a different functional module, such as expansion/extension unit 11, internal structure of which is shown in FIG 5.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to reallocate at least portions of the first multiplexing and separation unit from the expansion/extension unit 11 to the ROF 12 so that it would become part of “first signal processing sub-modules” simply as design choice with predictable results (the results being merely where exactly to perform combining and splitting) since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In other words, setting exact boundaries between functional units, splitting a unit into two functional units or combining two functional units into a single unit and therefore assigning or reassigning a particular function to a particular unit on either side of the functional split is a matter of an obvious engineering design choice.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Fan teaches “wherein the second signal processing sub-module comprises…” “…a second analog optical transceiver unit…” “…second analog optical transceiver unit is further connected to the optical fiber sub-module; wherein,
the second multiplexing and separating unit is configured to multiplex at least two second service signals and the second control signal into at least two uplink analog multiplexing signals, and separate at least two downlink analog multiplexing signals into at least two first service signals and a first control signal;
the second analog optical transceiver unit is configured to convert at least two uplink analog multiplexing signals into the second optical signal, and convert the first optical signal into at least two downlink analog multiplexing signals (See Sketch 4 below which is based on Fan’s FIG 8 and 10 combined).”
PNG
media_image4.png
941
1740
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sketch 4
Fan does not teach that the second signal processing sub-module comprises “a second multiplexing and separation unit” which is connected to the second analog optical transceiver unit, “wherein the second multiplexing and separation unit is further connected to the millimeter wave remote-end module.” In Fan, as may be seen from FIG 10 and the Sketch 4 above, “the second multiplexing and separation unit” is part of the millimeter wave remote-end module.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to reallocate “the second multiplexing and separation unit” from the millimeter wave remote-end module to the millimeter wave transmission unit simply as design choice with predictable results (the results being merely where exactly to perform combining and splitting) since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In other words, setting exact boundaries between functional units, splitting a unit into two functional units or combining two functional units into a single unit and therefore assigning or reassigning a particular function to a particular unit on either side of the functional split is a matter of an obvious engineering design choice.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Fan teaches in FIG 3 and 10 with corresponding description “wherein each of the millimeter wave remote-end modules comprises at least two transceiving link sub-modules, each of the transceiving link sub-modules comprising a frequency conversion unit, a front end unit, a wave control unit and an array antenna unit which are sequentially connected, wherein the frequency conversion unit is also connected to the millimeter wave transmission module; wherein,
the frequency conversion unit is configured to convert the uplink radio-frequency receiving signal and the uplink millimeter wave receiving signal, and convert the downlink radio-frequency sending signal and the downlink millimeter wave transmission signal;
the front-end unit is configured to perform amplification and filtering processing on the downlink millimeter wave sending signal and the uplink millimeter wave receiving signal;
the wave control unit is configured to control…” “…amplitudes of the downlink millimeter wave sending signal and the uplink millimeter wave receiving signal;
the array antenna unit is configured to radiate and transmit the downlink millimeter wave sending signal to the air interface, and radiate and receive the uplink millimeter wave receiving signal from the air interface (see Sketch 5 below which is based on Fan’s FIG 10 where all these components and their functions are clearly marked).”
Although Fan does not explicitly disclose presence of any components that control “phases” of the downlink and uplink millimeterwave signal, paragraph 82 teaches that the antenna 14 is cross-polarized phased array millimeter wave antenna. Therefore, presence of phase shifters is either implicit in the system of Fan, or it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize phase shifters in the system of Fan to be able to implement the disclosed function of phased array antenna.
PNG
media_image5.png
1143
1583
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sketch 5
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Fan teaches in FIG 4 and 5 with corresponding description “wherein the digital intermediate frequency module comprises: a baseband processing sub-module (paragraph 47: The expansion unit 1 is configured to process the baseband signal to obtain a downlink signal. Paragraph 54: the baseband module 1101 is used for processing the baseband signal to obtain an intermediate frequency signal. Position of the “baseband processing sub-module” is marked in Sketch 6 below which is based on Fan’s FIG 5), and an intermediate frequency processing sub-module (paragraph 54: the baseband module 1101 is used for processing the baseband signal to obtain an intermediate frequency signal; a first Sub -6 GHz radio frequency sampling module 1103 for sampling an intermediate frequency signal by means of a plurality of sampling channels to obtain Sub -6 GHz signals of different frequency points located in the Sub -6 GHz frequency band. Position of the “intermediate frequency processing sub-module” is marked in Sketch 6 below) and a first control sub-module (paragraph 57: the first frequency shift keying module 1104 May include an MCU, an FSK modulator, and a filtering module of the extension unit 11, wherein the MCU sends the signal to be modulated to the FSK modulator, the FSK signal is modulated by the FSK modulator, the FSK signal is the control signal) that are connected to the baseband processing sub-module (connection of the “intermediate frequency processing sub-module” is clearly shown in FIG 5 and Sketch 6 below. With respect to the “first control sub-module”, this connection, although not explicitly shown, is either implicitly present, or it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to implement such a connection to be able to control MCU from the baseband and/or baseband from the MCU), wherein the intermediate frequency processing sub-module and the first control sub-module are both connected to at least two millimeter wave transmission modules,
the baseband processing sub-module is configured to interactive a baseband signal with the baseband processing device (it is not clear what “the baseband processing device” is. It is not clear what “to interactive” mean. As best understood, paragraph 2: The base station is a mobile communication infrastructure, and its main function is to implement wireless signal transmission between a wired communication network and a wireless terminal. Therefore, wired communication network is mapped to “the baseband processing device”, so that the connection from “the baseband processing sub-module” to that wired communication network is implicitly present);
the intermediate frequency processing sub-module is configured to send the at least two first service signals obtained by processing according to the downlink baseband signals to the millimeter wave transmission module and process the at least two second service signals transmitted by the millimeter wave transmission module to generate uplink baseband signals;
the first control sub-module is configured to send the first control signal obtained by processing according to the downlink baseband signal to the millimeter wave transmission module and receive the second control signal transmitted by the millimeter wave transmission module, wherein the second control signal is a reply response signal of the first control signal (see Sketch 6 below where all these components and their functions are clearly marked).”
PNG
media_image6.png
1228
1579
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Sketch 6
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Fan teaches in FIG 10 with corresponding description “wherein each of the millimeter wave remote-end modules further comprises: a second control sub-module, wherein the second control sub-module is connected to the millimeter wave transmission module; wherein,
the second control sub-module is configured to receive the first control signal transmitted by the millimeter wave transmission module and send the second control signal to the millimeter wave transmission module (see Sketch 7 below where all these components and their functions are clearly marked).”
PNG
media_image7.png
1124
1543
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Sketch 7
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Fan does not explicitly teach “wherein the digital intermediate frequency module further comprises: a first power supply sub-module; the millimeter wave remote-end module further comprises: a second power supply sub-module; wherein,
the first power supply sub-module is configured to supply power to the baseband processing sub-module, the intermediate frequency processing sub-module and the first control sub-module;
the second power supply sub-module is configured to supply power to the at least two transceiving link sub-modules and the second control sub-module.”
However, since all components of the millimeter wave base station require power, these power supplies claimed by instant claim are either implicitly present in each of the modules to feed the components internal to the module, or it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use respective power supplies since otherwise nothing will work.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113992271 (Fan) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 20220149900 (Llorens).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Fan teaches in FIG 3 and 10 with corresponding description “wherein the front-end unit comprises: a power amplification sub-unit and a low noise amplification sub-unit that are connected to the frequency conversion unit, and a filtering sub-unit respectively connected to the power amplification sub-unit and the low noise amplification sub-unit…”
“…the power amplification sub-unit is configured to perform power amplification processing on the downlink millimeter wave sending signal processed by the frequency conversion unit;
the filtering sub-unit is configured to perform filtering processing on the downlink millimeter wave sending signal processed by the power amplifying sub-unit…”
“…the low noise amplification sub-unit is configured to perform low noise amplification processing on the received uplink millimeter wave signal (see Sketch 8 below which is based on Fan’s FIG 10 where all these components and their functions are clearly marked)…”
PNG
media_image8.png
1141
1580
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Sketch 8
Fan does not disclose “the filtering sub-unit is further connected to the wave control unit”, that the filtering sub-unit is to “perform filtering processing on the uplink millimeter wave receiving signal that has been processed by the wave control unit” and that the low noise amplification processing is on the signal “that has been processed by the filtering sub-unit”.
Llorens in par. 0051 and FIG 2B teaches a different implementation of a receive chain which may include a series connection of an amplitude adjuster 23, a phase shifter 24 and a bandpass filter (BPF) 26. The order of the shown series connection may differ in other examples. Each amplitude adjuster 23 may be comprised of just a low noise amplifier (LNA) 27, or an LNA 27 in series with a variable attenuator 28.
In other words, Llorens teaches or fairly suggests “the filtering sub-unit is further connected to the wave control unit (BPF 26 is connected to variable attenuator 28 representing “wave control unit” as well as indirectly connected to phase shifter 34, also representing “wave control unit”)”, that the filtering sub-unit is to “perform filtering processing on the uplink … receiving signal that has been processed by the wave control unit (although in Llorens BPF 26 is prior to the phase shifter 34, Llorens is explicit that the order of components may be different. Therefore, based on this suggestion, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to change the position of the phase shifter 34 in such a way that it would be connected prior to the BPF 26 simply as design choice with predictable results)” and that the low noise amplification processing is on the signal “that has been processed by the filtering sub-unit (LNA 27 is after the BPF 26)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the front end circuitry disclosed by Llorens, modified as explained above, in the system of Fan simply as design choice with predictable results, since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Additionally, the court stated in KSR, "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
