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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12-24-2025 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claims 10-17 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A
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 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdalla et al (Toward Next Generation Open Radio Access Networks—What O-RAN Can and Cannot Do!) in view of Hannak et al (US 2025/0234231). Hereinafter referred to as Abdalla and Hannak.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abdalla et al (Toward Next Generation Open Radio Access Networks—What O-RAN Can and Cannot Do!). Hereinafter referred to as Abdalla.
Regarding claims 1 and 18. Abdalla discloses an apparatus implementing a Real-Time (RT) Radio Interface Controller (RIC) in an Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN), the apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store a plurality of instructions; processor circuitry coupled to the memory and configured to execute the plurality of instructions to: connect to at least one O-RAN Distributed Unit (O-DU) via an interface (see at least page 7, right Col and figure 5); and host at least one application controlling the at least one O-DU over a real-time control loop with a latency of less than 10 milliseconds (ms) via the interface (see at least page 7, right Col).
Abdalla discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the RT RIC is connected to a Near-Real Time (Near-RT) RIC via a third interface that terminates at the RT RIC and at the Near-RT RIC, the third interface being distinct from an E2 interface. However, Hannak, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the RT RIC is connected to a Near-Real Time (Near-RT) RIC via a third interface that terminates at the RT RIC and at the Near-RT RIC, the third interface being distinct from an E2 interface (see at least figures 12-14). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Hannak, as indicated, into the communication method of Abdalla for the purpose of enabling communication between two entities with two different RIC domains.
Regarding claim 2. Abdalla in view of Hannak discloses an apparatus according wherein the RT RIC is co-located with the at least one O-DU (see at least page 7, right Col).
Regarding claim 3. Abdalla in view of Hannak discloses an apparatus according wherein the RT RIC is external to the at least one O-DU (see at least page 7, right Col).
Regarding claim 4. Abdalla in view of Hannak discloses an apparatus according wherein the RT RIC is coupled with a Fronthaul Multiplexer (FHM) (see at least page 3).
Regarding claim 5. Abdalla in view of Hannak discloses an apparatus according wherein the RT RIC is connected to: a Service Management and Orchestration (SMO) platform via a first interface; a Non-Real Time (Non-RT) RIC via a second interface; a Near-Real Time (Near-RT) RIC via a third interface; network components via a fourth interface; and an O-RAN Radio Unit (O-RU) via a fifth interface, wherein the RT RIC is connected to the SMO, Non-RT, Near-RT, network elements, and O-RU alone or in any combination (see at least figure 2 and pages 3-4).
Regarding claims 6 and 19. Abdalla in view of Hannak discloses an apparatus according wherein the apparatus further comprises a plurality of open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), each of the plurality open APIs hosting at least one application enabling communication with at least one of a plurality of submodule of the RT RIC via messaging infrastructure circuitry (see at least page 7).
Regarding claims 7 and 20. Abdalla in view of Hannak discloses an apparatus according wherein the plurality of submodules of the RT RIC include at least one of: conflict management circuitry, subscription management circuitry, security circuitry, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) model, sensor management circuitry, hardware circuitry, data exposure circuitry, and a shared data lake (see at least page 7).
Regarding claim 9. Abdalla in view of Hannak discloses an apparatus wherein the RT RIC is configured to connect with a primary O-DU and a secondary O-DU when performing carrier aggregation (see at least page 3, right col).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdalla in view of Abdala in view of Hannak and further in view of ORAN (O-RAN Working Group 2 Al/ML workflow description and requirements v1 .01).
Regarding claim 8. Abdalla in view of Hannak discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the shared data lake is part of an information architecture (IA) of the AI model. However, O-RAN, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the shared data lake is part of an information architecture (IA) of the AI model (see at least page 26, lines 1-2). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of O-RAN, as indicated, into the communication method of Abdalla in view of Hannak for the purpose of improving AI data manipulation and computation results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476