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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. With regard to claims 6 and 7, the instant claims recite that “obtaining” information comprises “receiving” the information, where receiving is considered to be within the scope of obtaining, as obtaining would require receiving the information in some form. With regard to claim 11, the instant claim recites that “receiving” two identifiers comprises “receiving first information” that comprises the same two identifiers, where the inclusion of the two identifiers in some “first information” with no additional detail does not change that the two identifiers are received or how they are received. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “CPRI – A High Speed Link,” posted at <https://www.techplayon.com/cpri-a-high-speed-link/> on 12/4/2022 (Techplayon) in view of US 2021/0234904 (Gupta).
With regard to claim 1, Techplayon discloses a communication method, wherein the method comprises:
configuring second configuration information of the second apparatus (Techplayon: Pages 2-6. Techplayon shows a system similar to the one of the instant claim, where a common public radio interface (CPRI) is provided between the baseband unit (BBU) and the remote radio unit (RRU). A fiber cable (optical) is provided for the connection between these two units. On page 5, an example module is shown that provides the CPRI, where such is a pluggable module. Techplayon shows that these components were known to be implemented, where such implementation would require some configuration.).
Techplayon fails to disclose, but Gupta teaches:
obtaining an identifier of a second apparatus and an identifier of an optical module, wherein the second apparatus uses the optical module; and that the configurating is based on the identifier of the optical module, wherein the second configuration information is the same as first configuration information of a first apparatus, and both the first apparatus and the second apparatus use the optical module (Gupta: Figure 5 and Paragraph [0100]. A system for replacing an IP phone is provided, where a headset that is being used with both the old and new IP phone has an identifier that is used for accessing the configuration record of the IP phone. In the computing arts, it was generally known that sometimes components would be replaced, such as the RRU of Techplayon, where Gupta shows that when a component is replaced, a different component that was connected to the original component and is connected to the new component can be utilized to identify a stored configuration of the original component to copy to the new component.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the teachings of Gupta of having an identifier of a common component connected to an original and replacement other component, such as a RRU of Techplayon, used to retrieve a configuration of the original component to the new component to simplify replacing the component (Gupta: Title), as a user would not have to manually reconfigure the new component or provide information to look up the configuration to be applied.
With regard to claim 2, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches the method further comprises: establishing a second association relationship, wherein the second association relationship is a correspondence among the identifier of the second apparatus, the identifier of the optical module, and the second configuration information (Gupta: Figure 5 and Paragraph [0100]. In the combination, the optical module (taking the role as the common component (i.e. the headset of Gupta) for lookup purposes) would have a relationship between any identifier of the second apparatus and the configuration to be applied.).
With regard to claim 3, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches sending the second association relationship to a network management device (Gupta: Paragraph [0100]. Gupta: Figure 5. The mappings would be received to be used for the retrieval of the configuration to be applied.).
With regard to claim 4, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches that configuring the second configuration information of the second apparatus based on the identifier of the optical module comprises: determining a first association relationship based on the identifier of the optical module, wherein the first association relationship is a correspondence among an identifier of the first apparatus, the identifier of the optical module, and the first configuration information; obtaining the first configuration information; and configuring the first configuration information as the second configuration information (Gupta: Paragraph [0100] and Figure 5).
With regard to claim 5, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches receiving the first association relationship from a network management device (Techplayon: Pages 2-6. The components of Techplayon can be considered to be network management devices in as much detail as required by the instant claim, especially when modified to provide the relationship information, as per the teachings of Gupta.).
With regard to claims 6-7, the instant claims are similar to claim 1, and are rejected for similar reasons (where obtaining information would require receiving such information in some form).
With regard to claim 8, Techplayon teaches that the type of the second apparatus is one of a radio frequency module, a remote radio unit, a radio unit, a remote radio head, a radio frequency processing unit, or an active antenna processing unit (Techplayon: Pages 2-3. The RRU is at least a radio unit.). Techplayon fails to teach expressly, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the second information further comprises a type of the second apparatus, and wherein the second information is in an ethernet frame or a high-level data link control frame (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that when retrieving a configuration from a repository, it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the information used for retrieval include a type of device. Further, it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize an ethernet frame or a high-level data link control frame for network communications.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a type in the second information to ensure that the configuration is applicable to the replacement device by at least matching the type of device to the retrieved configuration. Further, the use of an ethernet frame or a high-level data link control frame were both well-known ways that were standard practice for communicating information over networks, where an ethernet frame would be typically used for a local area network and a HDLC frame would be used for point-to-point serial WAN links.
With regard to claim 9, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches wherein receiving the second information comprises: receiving the second information through a fronthaul interface, a common public radio interface, or an enhanced common public radio interface (Techplayon: Pages 2-3. The new component would provide its information, which would be using the CPRI.).
With regard to claim 10, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches receiving the identifier of the first apparatus and the identifier of the optical module; and establishing the first association relationship, wherein the first association relationship is the correspondence among the identifier of the first apparatus, the identifier of the optical module, and the first configuration information (Gupta: Paragraph [0100] and Figure 5).
With regard to claim 11, the instant claim is similar to claim 10, and is rejected for similar reasons (claim 11 merely serves to receive “first information” that comprises the information already recited as being received in claim 10, where there is no appreciable difference between receiving the two items and receiving information comprising the two items.).
With regard to claim 12, Techplayon teaches that the type of the first apparatus is one of a radio frequency module, a remote radio unit, a radio unit, a remote radio head, a radio frequency processing unit, or an active antenna processing unit (Techplayon: Pages 2-3. The RRU is at least a radio unit.). Techplayon fails to teach expressly, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the first information further comprises a type of the first apparatus, and wherein the first information is in an ethernet frame or a high-level data link control frame (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that when retrieving a configuration from a repository, it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the information used for retrieval include a type of device. Further, it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize an ethernet frame or a high-level data link control frame for network communications.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a type in the first information to ensure that the configuration is applicable to the replacement device by at least matching the type of device to the retrieved configuration, which would be stored in association to the type of the first device. Further, the use of an ethernet frame or a high-level data link control frame were both well-known ways that were standard practice for communicating information over networks, where an ethernet frame would be typically used for a local area network and a HDLC frame would be used for point-to-point serial WAN links.
With regard to claim 13, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches wherein receiving the first information comprises: receiving the first information through a fronthaul interface, a common public radio interface, or an enhanced common public radio interface (Techplayon: Pages 2-3. The new component would provide its information, which would be using the CPRI.).
With regard to claim 14, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches sending the first association relationship to a network management device (Techplayon: Pages 2-6. The components of Techplayon can be considered to be network management devices in as much detail as required by the instant claim, especially when modified to provide the relationship information, as per the teachings of Gupta.).
With regard to claim 15, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches that the first configuration information or the second configuration information comprises at least one of the following: standard information, sector information, address information, or information about a virtual local area network (Gupta: Paragraph [0100] and Figure 5. Lacking detail of what constitutes “standard information,” the configuration would appear to be standard information, as it would be at least standard between the two devices and would provide for the configuration for standard operations.).
With regard to claim 16, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches wherein, when the first apparatus is faulty, the second apparatus is configured to replace the first apparatus (Gupta: Paragraph [0002]. A reason to replace a component is that the component no longer works.).
With regard to claim 17, Techplayon fails to teach, but Gupta teaches obtaining the identifier of the second apparatus and a first optical module identifier set, wherein the first optical module identifier set comprises the identifier of the optical module and an identifier of a first optical module; and configuring a third association relationship, wherein the third association relationship is a relationship among the identifier of the second apparatus, the second configuration information, and the first optical module identifier set module (Gupta: Figure 5 and Paragraph [0100]. As provided with regard to claim 1, a system for replacing an IP phone is provided, where a headset that is being used with both the old and new IP phone has an identifier that is used for accessing the configuration record of the IP phone. In the computing arts, it was generally known that sometimes components would be replaced, such as the CPRI of Techplayon, where Gupta shows that when a component is replaced, a different component that was connected to the original component and is connected to the new component can be utilized to identify a stored configuration of the original component to copy to the new component.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the teachings of Gupta of having an identifier of a common component connected to an original and replacement other component, such as a CPRI of Techplayon, used to retrieve a configuration of the original component to the new component to simplify replacing the component (Gupta: Title), as a user would not have to manually reconfigure the new component or provide information to look up the configuration to be applied.
With regard to claim 18, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches obtaining the identifier of the second apparatus and a second optical module identifier set, wherein the second optical module identifier set comprises the identifier of the optical module and an identifier of a second optical module; and configuring a fourth association relationship, wherein the fourth association relationship is a relationship among the identifier of the second apparatus, the second configuration information, and the second optical module identifier set (Gupta: Paragraph [0100] and Figure 5).
With regard to claim 19, Techplayon in view of Gupta teaches wherein configuring the fourth association relationship comprises: determining the third association relationship based on the identifier of the second apparatus and the identifier of the optical module in the second optical module identifier set; and replacing the first optical module identifier set in the third association relationship with the second optical module identifier set, to obtain and configure the fourth association relationship (Gupta: Paragraph [0100] and Figure 5).
With regard to claim 20, the instant claim is similar to claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 572-373-8300.
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 572-372-1000.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights