DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Sarkar et al. (“Sarkar”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0029253.
As per claim 1, Sarkar discloses one or more processors comprising:
circuitry to:
cause a plurality of radio access network (RAN) components, each comprising a network node of the RAN, to use a same type of interface to a database external to the plurality of RAN components to provide information to the database ([0063]-[0064] wherein the SON-OM module contains a database extremal to the plurality of RAN components (eNBs in the prior art)(See Fig. 5), who provide information in “trace sessions”);
receive, at the database, a request from a first RAN component ([0071] “source eNB” in the prior art) of the plurality of RAN components to receive a portion of the information that corresponds to a second RAN component ([0071] “target eNB” in the prior art) of the plurality of RAN components ([0071] wherein the source eNB (RAN component) requests distance and tier information about a second RAN (target eNB)); and cause the database, in response to the request from the first RAN component, to directly provide the portion of the information corresponding to the second RAN component to the first RAN component ([0072] wherein information of distance of the second RAN component is provided to the first RAN component from the database).
As per claim 2, Sarkar discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to further cause the database to obtain the information in response to another request from at least one of the plurality of RAN components to the database ([0064] wherein the information (traces in the prior art) are obtained in response to a request from a RAN component based on a subscription).
As per claim 6, Sarkar discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is to further cause the database to obtain additional information from at least one of the plurality of RAN components periodically ([0064] wherein a subscription is described indicating that the information is sent periodically).
As per claim 8, claim 8 is a method performed by the processor of claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 10, Sarkar discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: in response to a request to receive data from at least one of the plurality of RAN components, causing the database to identify that the database stores the requested data ([0072] wherein information of distance of the second RAN component is provided to the first RAN component from the database in response to determining and locating the information in the database.)
As per claim 11, Sarkar discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: causing the database to convert at least a portion of the information to a format that conforms to a RAN component of the plurality of RAN components ([0064] wherein the trace data can be formatted for storage and then provide the results as XML for the RAN components).
As per claim 12, Sarkar discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the information comprises time series data ([0064] wherein the trace data is snapshot data, which is a set of time series data).
As per claim 14, claim 14 is the system that uses the processors as is done in claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 15, claim 15 is the system that uses the processors as is done in claim 2 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 16, Sakar discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are to further cause the database to identify, in response to a request to receive data from at least one of the plurality of RAN components, that the requested data is not stored in the database ([0064] wherein the system remains consistent, which indicates that it determines if valid data is stored in the system).
As per claim 18, Sarkar discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the plurality of RAN components comprise a non-real time controller ([0006] wherein a radio network controller is described, which is not a real time controller).
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.
Claims 3-5, 9, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar in view of Melodia et al. (“Melodia”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0167236.
As per claim 3, Sarkar discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the plurality of RAN components are connected via one or more open RAN interfaces. However, Melodia teaches wherein the plurality of RAN components are connected via one or more open RAN interfaces ([0003] wherein an O-RAN architecture is described to connect RAN interfaces).
Both Sarkar and Melodia process RAN information in a database. One could use the O-RAN architecture to connect the RAN devices instead of the manner in Sarkar to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of connecting RAN components in Sankar with connecting RAN components with O-RAN as in Melodia in order to optimize the functionality of the RAN components.
As per claim 4, Sarkar discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the plurality of RAN components comprise a near-real time controller. However, Melodia teaches wherein the plurality of RAN components comprise a near-real time controller ([0071]).
Both Sarkar and Melodia process RAN information in a database. One could use the near real time controller to connect the RAN devices instead of the manner in Sarkar to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of connecting RAN components in Sankar with connecting RAN components with a near real time controller in Melodia in order to enable third party applications that automate and optimize RAN operations to scale.
AS per claim 5, Sarkar discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the information comprises neural network training data. However, Melodia teaches wherein the information comprises neural network training data ([0299] wherein a neural network training is described, using database data received by the open AI calls).
Both Sarkar and Melodia process RAN information in a database. One could use the data stored in the database in Sarker in a machine learning model as training data as in Melodia to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide data in a database with the use of that data to train a neural network as in Melodia in order to best automate the control of the RAN devices.
As per claim 9, Sarkar discloses the method of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein at least two of the plurality of RAN components are open-RAN (O-RAN) components that use an O-RAN interface to communicate with each other. However, Melodia teaches wherein at least two of the plurality of RAN components are open-RAN (O-RAN) components that use an O-RAN interface to communicate with each other ([Fig. 23] wherein O-RAN is used to communicate with multiple RAN components).
([0003] wherein an O-RAN architecture is described to connect RAN interfaces).
Both Sarkar and Melodia process RAN information in a database. One could use the O-RAN architecture to connect the RAN devices instead of the manner in Sarkar to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of connecting RAN components in Sankar with connecting RAN components with O-RAN as in Melodia in order to optimize the functionality of the RAN components.
As per claim 13, Sarkar discloses the method of claim 8, but does not disclose causing the database to receive the information from an O-RAN component of the plurality of RAN components and a non-O-RAN component of the plurality of RAN components. However, Melodia teaches causing the database to receive the information from an O-RAN component of the plurality of RAN components and a non-O-RAN component of the plurality of RAN components ([Fig. 23] wherein O-RAN is used to communicate with multiple RAN components and [0003] wherein an O-RAN architecture is described to connect RAN interfaces).
Both Sarkar and Melodia process RAN information in a database. One could use the O-RAN architecture to connect the RAN devices instead of the manner in Sarkar to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of connecting RAN components in Sankar with connecting RAN components with O-RAN as in Melodia in order to optimize the functionality of the RAN components.
As per claim 17, Sarkar discloses the system of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of RAN components comprises one or more neural networks to perform one or more network operations using the information. However, Melodia teaches herein at least one of the plurality of RAN components comprises one or more neural networks to perform one or more network operations using the information ([0299] wherein a neural network training is described, using database data received by the open AI calls).
Both Sarkar and Melodia process RAN information in a database. One could use the data stored in the database in Sarker in a machine learning model as training data as in Melodia to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide data in a database with the use of that data to train a neural network as in Melodia in order to best automate the control of the RAN devices.
As per claim 19, Sarkar discloses the system of claim 14, but does not disclose at least two of the plurality of RAN components are open-RAN (O-RAN) components that use an O-RAN interface to communicate with each other. However, Melodia teaches at least two of the plurality of RAN components are open-RAN (O-RAN) components that use an O-RAN interface to communicate with each other ([Fig.22] wherein at least two RAN components including CU, DU and RU are connected by O-RAN and [0003] wherein an O-RAN architecture is described to connect RAN interfaces).
Both Sarkar and Melodia process RAN information in a database. One could use the O-RAN architecture to connect the RAN devices instead of the manner in Sarkar to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of connecting RAN components in Sankar with connecting RAN components with O-RAN as in Melodia in order to optimize the functionality of the RAN components.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar in view of SONG et al. (“Song”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0239776.
As per claim 7, Sarkar discloses the one or more processors of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the database uses an Ethernet interface to connect with at least one of the plurality of RAN components. However, Song teaches wherein the database uses an Ethernet interface to connect with at least one of the plurality of RAN components ([0051]).
Both Sakar and Song connect RAN components to a database. One could use the ethernet in Song instead of the wireless connection in Sakar to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of storing RAN data in a database in Sakar with the database being connected by ethernet in Song in order to use a more reliable and faster connection type.
As per claim 20, Sarkar discloses the system of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the same type of interface comprises a physical interface. However, Song teaches wherein the same type of interface comprises a physical interface ([0051]).
Both Sakar and Song connect RAN components to a database. One could use the ethernet physical connection in Song instead of the wireless connection in Sakar to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of storing RAN data in a database in Sakar with the database being connected by ethernet in Song in order to use a more reliable and faster connection type.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights