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 .
Amendments of 06/26/2026 are entered.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the references of record, namely Nguyen in view of Narayanan and Claridge, do not disclose “wherein the decommissioning of the identified piece of equipment comprises identification of EMS system resources allocated to the identified piece of equipment, and deallocation of the identified EMS system resources.”, as claimed.
In particular, Applicant argues the network resources 245 in Claridge is not an EMS resource as claimed, for example not EMS system memory, EMS processor time, or EMS virtual machine resources, but instead Claridge are links of physical backhaul network devices (server, router, switches etc.) that serve backhaul network traffic. Applicant argues Claridge’s deactivation of network resources is directed to reconfiguring network traffic routing and coverage for performance optimization, and thus allegedly not related to deallocating EMS system resources.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the reference Claridge individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants’ arguments single out reference Claridge for analysis in a vacuum, when the rejection is based on Nguyen in view of Narayanan and Claridge, demanding Claridge to disclose an EMS system/resources already covered by other references of record in the claim. The so-called EMS system equipment and resources, as well as the decommissioning thereof, were already covered by Nguyen and Narayanan. The reference Claridge was incorporated to merely show that the explicit steps of identification of resources to be decommissioned and the step of decommissioning them in general sense are well established in the art, thus to help clarify the nature of the decommissioning process in Nguyen - Narayanan combination, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand Nguyen – Narayanan combination’s decommissioning of equipments would include the natural steps of identification of resources allocated to those and release of such resources. These steps are true for any system, not just exclusive to the so-called EMS system. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, the description of the EMS, (i.e. an equipment monitoring system (EMS) configured to monitor the plurality of pieces of equipment and provide EMS system resources associated with the operation of the plurality of pieces of equipment, the EMS system resources comprising one or more of EMS system memory, EMS processor time, or EMS virtual machine resources) is rather ambiguous and the distinction is in name only rather than substance. Other than informing the audience that the system is related to monitoring in general sense, the claim language above does not explicitly limit the claimed system to any implementation, structure, topology, hierarchy, location of such a system, or any specific structure of system/memory/virtual machine/processor etc. As such, Applicant’s attempt to draw a distinction from physical backhaul network devices (server, router, switches etc.) that serve backhaul network traffic rings hollow. In addition, Claridge’s network resources are not limited to backhaul resources, in contrary to Applicant’s assertion. See at least Fig. 1A-B, Fig. 2¶0016, the network resources are clearly shown as being located and serve the access network 100 or 240. The network 100/240 is an access network, not a part of the core network.
Applicant further argues Claridge is directed to process of reconfiguration of a network rather than decommissioning of equipments in attempt to draw a line in purpose of design in contrast with the claimed invention. The examiner finds the argument not persuasive.. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Both Applicant’s invention and Claridge are concerned with detection of impairment in network node/equipment’s performance and thus to remove/deactivate such nodes to remedy the issue. In this sense, both are in the same field of endeavor as well as to address a similar concern/issue. Whether or not Claridge is to redistribute such resources to other devices (i.e. reconfigure the network) is not an issue as far as the scope of the claim is concerned.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US 2023/0403191) in view of Narayanan (US 2017/0086082) and in further view of Claridge et al. (US 2017/0127427).
As to claim 1:
Nguyen discloses:
A system for managing resources, the system comprising: a radio access network (RAN) comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment (Abstract, Fig. 1, a RAN networks having base station/access point nodes); an equipment monitoring system (EMS) configured to monitor the plurality of pieces of equipment and provide EMS system resources associated with the operation of the plurality of pieces of equipment, the EMS system resources comprising one or more of EMS system memory, EMS processor time, or EMS virtual machine resources;
(¶0021-0022, 0064, the system create virtual machine resources, include: virtual collaboration rooms for operators and virtual visualization associated with operations of the monitoring equipments (sensors, recording feeds etc.) which monitors status (measurements) related to equipments. ¶0078, virtual resource also further include bandwidth/frequency resources to enable the virtual collaboration machine (i.e. “The communication associated with the virtual collaboration room is communicated via a 5G or higher generation wireless telecommunication network because the communication requires bandwidth and low latency”). ¶0082-0084, the system provide prioritized processing and communication of sensors monitoring the system equipments, i.e. allocating prioritized time, system processing and storage for network traffic associated with the sensor and the virtual room. ¶0086, The processor can obtain multiple measurements associated with the wireless telecommunication network, multiple issues associated with the wireless telecommunication network and stored in a database, i.e. providing EMS system memory);
at least one memory configured to store at least one instruction (¶0091, processor, memory); and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and execute the at least one instruction to:
monitor the plurality of pieces of equipment (¶0073, 0075, monitoring equipments of the networks, such as base station or router) , identify a piece of equipment among the plurality of pieces of equipment that is not functioning in a normal manner (¶0075, via measurement report and/or real time imaging sensor associated with the malfunctioning base station, identifying the base station as being the malfunctioning base station),
on identifying the piece of equipment that is not functioning in a normal manner, initiate an alert to a user (¶0076, step 1210, in response to malfunctioning equipment, i.e. a base station, being determined, generate a notification to one or more operators. Details of the malfunction are also transmitted to the operator(s)),
Regarding:
generate a request to decommission the identified piece of equipment, request approval of the request to decommission the identified piece of equipment and to commission a replacement for the identified piece of equipment, and based on receiving approval of the request to decommission the identified piece of equipment and to commission a replacement for the identified piece of equipment, initiate decommissioning of the identified piece of equipment and commissioning of the replacement for the identified piece of equipment.
Nguyen discloses in ¶0074, 0086, generating a request with a suggested resolution to the malfunctioning and requesting approval for said resolution. Upon receiving the approval, initiate the implementation of the resolution. Also ¶0060, the formulation of resolutions can be done automatically by module 450, 440)
Nguyen discloses resolutions to remedy a malfunctioning network equipment in a general sense but also stresses scope of resolution can vary based on tiers of issue (¶0074, 0083).
Except that Nguyen does not expressively disclose one possible option of such requested resolutions being decommissioned and replacement of the identified malfunctioning equipment.
Narayanan, in a related field of network testing/monitoring, discloses a system/method in which the system detects and is notified of a specific troubled base station/router is malfunctioning (¶0035), wherein the system send a request where the requested resolution includes replacements of hardware, or replacement of the site equipment (¶0017, 0044). Note that “decommissioning” is redundant in context of replacement since replacement, by definition, is to replace the existence of the old entity with a new one.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Nguyen’s possible resolutions to a malfunction equipment include removal/replacement of said equipment with a new one. The specific resolution of decommissioning/replacement of malfunctioning equipment is, however, well-established in the art. Naturally, when the damage or error in the equipment system are severe beyond repairs, removal from service and replacements are the next conceivable step if continuous service is to be desired. This implementation advantageously restore services to the network, thus improving user’s experience with continuing service coverage, consistent with the desire to timely restore services described in Nguyen (¶0001).
Nguyen in view of Narayanan discloses all limitations above, and while Nguyen/Narayanan are not explicit on the decommissioning of the identified piece of equipment comprises identification of EMS system resources allocated to the identified piece of equipment, and deallocation of the identified EMS system resources.
Claridge, in a related field of endeavor, discloses a system/method for network monitoring in which points of failures are identified (¶0021) and trigger modification of network parameters, per ¶0083-0094 discusses various modifications, in which modification of network parameters in case of a point of failure (base station 220 failure), modification might include determining network resource 245, and deactivating said network resource 245.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the removal of the malfunctioning of network node in Nguyen/Narayanan to include identification and deactivation of allocated resources. This limitation is already partly implicit in Nguyen, since a malfunctioned base station is being removed no longer participate in the network, thus freeing up the allocated resources. The incorporation of Claridge further clarifies the network taking active role in reconfiguration of resources in order to enhance network performance and conserve resources (¶0084, 00092).
As to claim 8:
Nguyen discloses:
A method for managing resources of a radio access network (RAN) (Abstract, Fig. 1, a RAN networks having base station/access point nodes), the method comprising: monitoring the RAN (¶0073, 0075, monitoring equipments of the networks, such as base station or router); identifying a piece of equipment within the RAN that is not functioning in a normal manner; (¶0075, via measurement report and/or real time imaging sensor associated with the malfunctioning base station, identifying the base station as being the malfunctioning base station) based on identifying the piece of equipment that is not functioning in a normal manner, initiating an alert to a user (¶0076, step 1210, in response to malfunctioning equipment, i.e. a base station, being determined, generate a notification to one or more operators. Details of the malfunction are also transmitted to the operator(s)),
Regarding:
generate a request to decommission the identified piece of equipment, request approval of the request to decommission the identified piece of equipment and to commission a replacement for the identified piece of equipment, and based on receiving approval of the request to decommission the identified piece of equipment and to commission a replacement for the identified piece of equipment, initiate decommissioning of the identified piece of equipment and commissioning of the replacement for the identified piece of equipment.
Nguyen discloses in ¶0074, 0086, generating a request with a suggested resolution to the malfunctioning and requesting approval for said resolution. Upon receiving the approval, initiate the implementation of the resolution. Also ¶0060, the formulation of resolutions can be done automatically by module 450, 440)
Nguyen discloses resolutions to remedy a malfunctioning network equipment in a general sense but also stresses scope of resolution can vary based on tiers of issue (¶0074, 0083).
Except that Nguyen does not expressively disclose one possible option of such requested resolutions being decommissioned and replacement of the identified malfunctioning equipment.
Narayanan, in a related field of network testing/monitoring, discloses a system/method in which the system detects and is notified of a specific troubled base station/router is malfunctioning (¶0035), wherein the system send a request where the requested resolution includes replacements of hardware, or replacement of the site equipment (¶0017, 0044). Note that “decommissioning” is redundant in context of replacement since replacement, by definition, is to replace the existence of the old entity with a new one.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that Nguyen’s possible resolutions to a malfunction equipment include removal/replacement of said equipment with a new one. The specific resolution of decommissioning/replacement of malfunctioning equipment is, however, well-established in the art. Naturally, when the damage or error in the equipment system are severe beyond repairs, removal from service and replacements are the next conceivable step if continuous service is to be desired. This implementation advantageously restore services to the network, thus improving user’s experience with continuing service coverage, consistent with the desire to timely restore services described in Nguyen (¶0001).
Nguyen in view of Narayanan discloses all limitations above, and while Nguyen/Narayanan are not explicit on the decommissioning of the identified piece of equipment comprises identification of EMS system resources allocated to the identified piece of equipment, and deallocation of the identified EMS system resources.
Claridge, in a related field of endeavor, discloses a system/method for network monitoring in which points of failures are identified (¶0021) and trigger modification of network parameters, per ¶0083-0094 discusses various modifications, in which modification of network parameters in case of a point of failure (base station 220 failure), modification might include determining network resource 245, and deactivating said network resource 245.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the removal of the malfunctioning of network node in Nguyen/Narayanan to include identification and deactivation of allocated resources. This limitation is already partly implicit in Nguyen, since a malfunctioned base station is being removed no longer participate in the network, thus freeing up the allocated resources. The incorporation of Claridge further clarifies the network taking active role in reconfiguration of resources in order to enhance network performance and conserve resources (¶0084, 00092).
Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor cause the processor to execute a method of managing resources of a radio access network (RAN), the method comprising similar steps as in claim 8 and is addressed by the same reasoning.
Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor cause the processor to execute a method of managing resources of a radio access network (RAN), the method comprising similar steps as in claim 8 and is addressed by the same reasoning.
As to claims 4:
Nguyen in view of Narayanan discloses all limitations of claim 1, the request to decommission the identified piece of equipment comprises at least one of information on the identified piece of equipment and information on the replacement for the identified piece of equipment. (Nguyen, ¶0073-0074, requested resolution naturally has to have at least some basic information on the failed equipment for it be considered correctly and thus approved, such identity and where the equipment is on the area. See Narayanan, ¶0044, the request indicates service to be provided and is to be sent to appropriate entity for implementation, thus contain information of the subject to be repaired/replaced).
As to claims 6:
Nguyen in view of Narayanan discloses all limitations of claim 4, wherein the information on the identified piece of equipment and the information on the replacement for the identified piece of equipment are automatically retrieved from the EMS. (¶0060 of Nguyen, information pertaining the issues and resolutions can be provided automatically from the system)
As to claims 7:
Nguyen in view of Narayanan discloses all limitations of claim 4, wherein the information on the identified piece of equipment and the information on the replacement for the identified piece of equipment are provided by a user. (¶0060 of Nguyen, while information pertaining the issues and resolutions can be provided automatically from the system, these information must be first input into the database of the system. ¶0075, information on the identified equipment might so be provided directly by an on-site technician.)
As to claims 3, 10, and 17:
Nguyen in view of Narayanan and Claridge disclose all limitations of claim 1/8/15, wherein the commissioning of the replacement for the identified piece of equipment comprises allocation of the identified EMS system resources to the replacement for the identified piece of equipment and monitoring the replacement for the identified piece of equipment by the EMS. (Narayanan, ¶0044, Abstract, replacement for the failed RAN restores the functionality of the failed RAN, thus the new requirement’s normal working order is restored, i.e. provided with resource allocations. ¶0022, monitoring process is applicable to entire network and ongoing. Nguyen, ¶0073, monitoring is understood to be continuous)
As to claims 11, and 18:
Nguyen in view of Narayanan and Claridge discloses all limitations of claim 8/15, the request to decommission the identified piece of equipment comprises at least one of information on the identified piece of equipment and information on the replacement for the identified piece of equipment. (Nguyen, ¶0073-0074, requested resolution naturally has to have at least some basic information on the failed equipment for it be considered correctly and thus approved, such identity and where the equipment is on the area. See Narayanan, ¶0044, the request indicates service to be provided and is to be sent to appropriate entity for implementation, thus contain information of the subject to be repaired/replaced).
As to claims 13, and 20:
Nguyen in view of Narayanan and Claridge discloses all limitations of claim 11/18, wherein the information on the identified piece of equipment and the information on the replacement for the identified piece of equipment are automatically retrieved from the EMS. (¶0060 of Nguyen, information pertaining to the issues and resolutions can be provided automatically from the system)
As to claims 14:
Nguyen in view of Narayanan and Claridge discloses all limitations of claim 11, wherein the information on the identified piece of equipment and the information on the replacement for the identified piece of equipment are provided by a user. (¶0060 of Nguyen, while information pertaining to the issues and resolutions can be provided automatically from the system, these information must be first input into the database of the system. ¶0075, information on the identified equipment might so be provided directly by an on-site technician.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US 2023/0403191) in view of Narayanan (US 2017/0086082) and in further view of Claridge et al. (US 2017/0127427) and in further view of Kinnear et al. (US 7,757,000).
As to claims 5:
Nguyen in view of Narayanan and Claridge discloses all limitations of claim 4, while Nguyen and Narayanan discloses the request is indicative of the identified piece of equipment, however is silent on the information on the identified piece of equipment comprises at least one of a serial number of the identified piece of equipment, a location of the identified piece of equipment, and a MAC address of the identified piece of equipment, and wherein the information on the replacement for the identified piece of equipment comprises at least one of a serial number of the replacement for the identified piece of equipment and a MAC address of the replacement for the identified piece of equipment.
Kinnear, in a related field of network maintenance, discloses system/method where replacement of failed equipment might be necessary and they are identified by MAC address where the replacement equipment is to match MAC addresses (See at least Col 5, lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the requests for resolution which is indicative of the equipment can include MAC addresses as the means to identify the equipments. MAC addresses are commonly used as identifiers for any set of equipments as they can be used universally in any level of layers, i.e. can be used as unique identifiers for hardware, while they can also be used as routing addresses for networking schemes.
Claim(s) 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US 2023/0403191) in view of Narayanan (US 2017/0086082) and in further view of Claridge et al. (US 2017/0127427) and in further view of Kinnear et al. (US 7,757,000).
As to claims 12, and 19:
Nguyen in view of Narayanan and Claridge discloses all limitations of claim 11/18, while Nguyen and Narayanan and Claridge discloses the request is indicative of the identified piece of equipment, however is/are silent on the information on the identified piece of equipment comprises at least one of a serial number of the identified piece of equipment, a location of the identified piece of equipment, and a MAC address of the identified piece of equipment, and wherein the information on the replacement for the identified piece of equipment comprises at least one of a serial number of the replacement for the identified piece of equipment and a MAC address of the replacement for the identified piece of equipment.
Kinnear, in a related field of network maintenance, discloses system/method where replacement of failed equipment might be necessary and they are identified by MAC address where the replacement equipment is to match MAC addresses (See at least Col 5, lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the requests for resolution which is indicative of the equipment can include MAC addresses as the means to identify the equipments. MAC addresses are commonly used as identifiers for any set of equipments as they can be used universally in any level of layers, i.e. can be used as unique identifiers for hardware, while they can also be used as routing addresses for networking schemes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0003773 - A measuring unit inputs a detection received signal and measures a received RSSI value as the detection received signal. A first comparator inputs a plurality of received RSSI values measured by the measuring unit and compares them with a predetermined threshold value. A signal difference deriving unit derives a relative relationship among the plurality of RSSI values. A second comparator compares the relative relationship with a predetermined value. If the first comparator and the second comparator detect any malfunction, a decision unit receives notification accordingly from the first comparator and the second comparator and finally judges the malfunction of communication functions associated therewith.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights