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 .
Response to Arguments
A1) Argument by Applicant: “Nothing in Park suggests that the discussed frames are anything other than standard frames [Reply; page 8].
Response by the Examiner: The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “recovering fronthaul network tracing information from a predetermined field of the frames” would be receiving information from a field within a frame. The Park reference states “flow searching module 220 may extract flow information from the received packet as a user traffic. The flow information may include: identification information of an ingress port that is a packet incoming port of an edge switch; identification information of the packet incoming port of the switch; packet header information (an IP address, a MAC address, a port, VLAN information of a transmission source and a destination, etc.)” [Park; para 0072]. Also, Park discloses frames, which would be inherent with fields within header information [Park; para 0038]. Therefore, the claim language broadly discloses standard frames which can be read upon the disclosure of Park.
A2) Argument by Applicant: “Applicant's associating of fronthaul network tracing information with routes of frames from other RAN nodes through the fronthaul network to the first RAN node fronthaul network information is used to identify and mitigate transport risks, for example by re-routing traffic and/or reallocating RU for at risk geographical areas. In contrast, Park is using legacy routing information concerning a virtual router to minimize overhead processing. Park never associates fronthaul network tracing information with routes of frames from other RAN nodes through the fronthaul network to a first RAN node.” [Reply, page 8].
Response by the Examiner: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Park reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching specifically challenged in the argument. The 102 rejection of Park has been withdrawn but a new 103 rejection has been cited to reject claim 1 (and other claims). The secondary reference, Charipadi, discloses, within the 103 rejection, routes of other RAN nodes. The examples and improvements cited in the arguments are not within the instant claim language.
A3) Argument by Applicant: “However, Park simply never discusses RAN nodes or makes any distinction between which RAN node a frame was routed through in these paragraphs” [Reply, page 8].
Response by the Examiner: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Park reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching specifically challenged in the argument. The 102 rejection of Park has been withdrawn but a new 103 rejection has been cited to reject claim 1 (and other claims).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the examiner applies the guidance under MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5, 10, and 11 are directed to a method (ie. process)
Claims 17, 18, 21, 23, and 26 are directed to a system (ie. machine)
Claim 45 is directed to an article of manufacture.
Independent claims 1, 17, and 45:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
“associate the fronthaul network tracing information with routes of frames from other RAN nodes through the fronthaul network to the first RAN node.”
This claim limitation can be reasonably performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper by evaluating the tracing information and “associate” the information with routes. Therefore, this claim limitation falls within the Mental Process Grouping for evaluation/observation of comparing information to route data for a match (“associate”), which can be reasonably performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
A “method”, “A first RAN node”, and “A non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon a computer program” (These are additional elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The “in response to receiving frames of a predetermined type” and “recovering fronthaul network tracing information from a predetermined field of the frames, the fronthaul network tracing information comprising node identifier information for at least one other node of the fronthaul network through which the frames have traversed” (receiving/recovering data, which is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "receiving" and “recovering” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step B: These additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
The “first RAN node” and “non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon a computer program” claim limitations (mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The “receiving” and “recovering” claim limitations (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL/ Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607,610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Even when all the elements are considered individually and in ordered combination, they do not amount of significantly more because the additional elements merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. computer networks). The claims do not recite any improvement to the technical field.
Claims 4, 5, and 21 state “signaling” or “to signal”. These claim limitations are about transmitting. These transmitting steps are explained within Step2A (Prong 2) and Step 2B and would be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 2-5, 10, 11, 18, 21, 23, and 26 have been reviewed and do not recite any additional elements that would overcome this 101 rejection. Instead they recite additional determinations and data gathering that could be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper or mathematical concepts.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32-35 and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. ("Park") [PG PUB 2022/0070091].
Regarding claim 32, Park discloses a first node of a fronthaul network, the method comprising: in response to receiving a frame of a predetermined type, adding fronthaul network tracing information to a predetermined field of the frame; forwarding the frame towards a second node [ie. metadata added from another switch ("first node"); Park para 0071-0073 and 0076]; and
wherein the fronthaul network tracing information comprises comprising node identifier information corresponding to the first node, the node identifier information comprising a unique fronthaul network identifier [Park; para 0071-0072, 0076, and 0102].
Regarding claim 33, Park further discloses the fronthaul network tracing information comprises a timestamp corresponding to a time when the frame was processed by the first node [Park; para 0049 and 0066].
Regarding claim 34, Park further discloses the fronthaul network tracing information comprises link identifier information corresponding to a link used to forward the frame to or from the first node [ie. optical line; Park; para 0008-0009, 0039, and 0072].
Regarding claim 35, Park further discloses the fronthaul network is a packet network and the predetermined type of frame is carried by a packet having a header field containing a predetermined value [Park; para 0058].
Regarding claim 39, Park discloses a first node comprising: communications interface circuitry configured to communicate with one or more other nodes in a fronthaul network using frames; a processor and memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processor to cause the first node to [Park; fig 2; para 0038 and 0135-0136]:
add fronthaul network tracing information to a predetermined field of a received frame in response to determining that the received frame is of a predetermined type, forward the frame towards a second node [Park; para 0066-0068]; and
the fronthaul network tracing information comprising node identifier information corresponding to the first node, the node identifier information comprising a unique fronthaul network identifier [ie. "packet header information (an IP address, a MAC address, a port, VLAN information of a transmission source and a destination, etc.)"; Park; para 0071 -0072 and 0076].
Regarding claim 40, Park further discloses the fronthaul network tracing information comprises a timestamp corresponding to a time when the frame was processed by the first node [Park; para 0049 and 0066].
Regarding claim 41, Park further discloses the fronthaul network tracing information comprises link identifier information corresponding to a link used to forward the frame to or from the first node [ie. optical line; Park; para 0008-0009, 0039, and 0072].
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 1, 10, 11, 17, 23, 26, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Charipadi et al. (“Charipadi”) [PGPUB 2020/0389806]
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method, in a first radio access network, RAN, node of a fronthaul network [ie. 5G fronthaul system with a radio access network (RAN); Park; figures 2 and 10; paragraph 0038], the method comprising: in response to receiving frames of a predetermined type [Park; para 0038 and 0055-0058],
recovering fronthaul network tracing information from a predetermined field of the frames, the fronthaul network tracing information comprising node identifier information for at least one other node of the fronthaul network through which the frames have traversed [ie. "packet header information (an IP address, a MAC address, a port, VLAN information of a transmission source and a destination, etc.)"; Park; para 0071-0072 and 0076]; and
associating the fronthaul network tracing information with routes of frames from other nodes through the fronthaul network to the first RAN node [ie. match packet to flow from flow table; Park; fig 9; para 0066-0068].
The Park reference does disclose collecting tracing information (ie. addresses) for a flow table but does not specifically disclose the frames “from other RAN nodes”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Charipadi reference discloses a fronthaul RAN network, where channels (“routes of frames”) from other RAN nodes can be monitored through the fronthaul network by a first RAN node [Charipadi; figure 1; para 0016, 0045-0047, and 0131-0132]. The Park and Charipadi references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage a radio access network. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of other RAN nodes, taught by Charipadi, into the system, taught by Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor multiple RAN nodes.
Regarding claim 10, Park further discloses the fronthaul network tracing information comprises a timestamp corresponding to a time when the frame was processed by another node [Park; para 0049 and 0066].
Regarding claim 11, Park further discloses the fronthaul network tracing information comprises link identifier information corresponding to a link used to forward the frame to or from another node [ie. optical line; Park; para 0008-0009, 0039, and 0072].
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses a first RAN node comprising: communications interface circuitry configured to communicate with one or more other RAN nodes in a fronthaul network using frames [ie. 5G fronthaul system with a radio access network (RAN); Park; figures 2 and 1 0; paragraph 0038]; and a processor and memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processor to cause the first RAN node to [Park; para 0135-0136]:
recover fronthaul network tracing information from a predetermined field of the frames in response to receiving frames of a predetermined type, the fronthaul network tracing information comprising node identifier information for at least one other node through which the frames have traversed [ie. "packet header information (an IP address, a MAC address, a port, VLAN information of a transmission source and a destination, etc.)"; Park; para 0071-0072 and 0076]; and
associate the fronthaul network tracing information with routes of frames from other nodes through the fronthaul network to the first RAN node [ie. match packet to flow from flow table; Park; fig 9; para 0066-0068].
The Park reference does disclose collecting tracing information (ie. addresses) for a flow table but does not specifically disclose the frames “from other RAN nodes”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Charipadi reference discloses a fronthaul RAN network, where channels (“routes of frames”) from other RAN nodes can be monitored through the fronthaul network by a first RAN node [Charipadi; figure 1; para 0016, 0045-0047, and 0131-0132]. The Park and Charipadi references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage a radio access network. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of other RAN nodes, taught by Charipadi, into the system, taught by Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor multiple RAN nodes.
Regarding claim 23, Park further discloses the node identifier information comprises one or more of one or both of the following: layer 2 or layer 3 identifiers for the other nodes; and one or both location and role based identifiers for the other nodes [ie. MAC address and tenant id; Park; para 0072 and 0076].
Regarding claim 26, Park further discloses the fronthaul network tracing information comprises a timestamp corresponding to a time when the frame was processed by another node [Park; para 0049 and 0066].
Regarding claim 45, Park discloses a non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed on a processor, cause the processor to carry out a method [Park; fig 2; para 0038 and 0135-0136], the method comprising:
in response to receiving frames of a predetermined type, recovering fronthaul network tracing information from a predetermined field of the frames, the fronthaul network tracing information comprising node identifier information for at least one other node of the fronthaul network through which the frames have traversed [ie. "packet header information (an IP address, a MAC address, a port, VLAN information of a transmission source and a destination, etc.)"; Park; para 0055-0058, 0071-0072 and 0076]; and
associating the fronthaul network tracing information with routes of frames from other nodes through the fronthaul network to a first RAN node [ie. match packet to flow from flow table; Park; fig 9; para 0066-0068].
The Park reference does disclose collecting tracing information (ie. addresses) for a flow table but does not specifically disclose the frames “from other RAN nodes”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Charipadi reference discloses a fronthaul RAN network, where channels (“routes of frames”) from other RAN nodes can be monitored through the fronthaul network by a first RAN node [Charipadi; figure 1; para 0016, 0045-0047, and 0131-0132]. The Park and Charipadi references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage a radio access network. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of other RAN nodes, taught by Charipadi, into the system, taught by Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor multiple RAN nodes.
Claims 2-5, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park-Charipadi and further in view of Rzehak et al. ("Rzehak") [USPAT 10,931,530].
Regarding claim 2, Park-Charipadi further discloses path control and failure recovery of flow (routes) [Park, para 0058 but does not specifically disclose comparing the fronthaul routes with fronthaul network topology information in order to determine shared fronthaul risk group information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rzehak discloses comparing the fronthaul routes with fronthaul network topology information in order to determine shared fronthaul risk group information [ie. lowest-cost path; Rzehak; figure 1; column 9, lines 3-19 and column 12, lines 4-20]. The Park-Charipadi and Rzehak references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to deal with network link/route failure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the comparing routes, taught by Rzehak, into the system, taught by Park-Charipadi. The motivation for doing so would have been to have redundancy in the network [Rzehak; col 1, lines 20-25 and col 2; lines 42-48].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park-Charipadi-Rzehak further discloses the shared fronthaul risk group information comprises information to identify single points of failure of nodes or links in the fronthaul network which transport frames from two or more other RAN nodes to the first RAN node [Park; para 0058 and 0082] [Rzehak; col 10, lines 1 -32].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park-Charipadi-Rzehak further discloses signaling a second node to reconfigure transport of frames through the fronthaul network depending on the shared fronthaul risk group information [Park; para 0066-0067 and 0071] [Rzehak; col 1, lines 20-25 and col 18, line 27-60].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park-Charipadi-Rzehak further discloses comprising signaling a second RAN node to disconnect from the first RAN node and a third RAN node to connect with the first RAN node depending on the shared fronthaul risk group information [ie. delete ("disconnect") or add ("connect") entry ("node"); Park; para 0054, 0079, and 0133] [Rzehak; col 4,lines 16-20, col 6, lines 48-51 and col 15, lines 11-28].
Regarding claim 18, Park-Charipadi further discloses path control and failure recovery of flow (routes) [Park, para 0058 but does not specifically disclose compare the fronthaul routes with fronthaul network topology information in order to determine shared fronthaul risk group information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rzehak discloses compare the fronthaul routes with fronthaul network topology information in order to determine shared fronthaul risk group information [ie. lowest-cost path; Rzehak; figure 1; column 9, lines 3-19 and column 12, lines 4-20]. The Park-Charipadi and Rzehak references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to deal with network link/route failure. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the comparing routes, taught by Rzehak, into the system, taught by Park-Charipadi. The motivation for doing so would have been to have redundancy in the network [Rzehak; col 1, lines 20-25 and col 2; lines 42-48].
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Park-Charipadi-Rzehak further discloses operative wherein the first RAN node is further caused to signal a second RAN node to disconnect from the first RAN node and a third RAN node to connect with the first RAN node depending on the shared fronthaul risk group information [ie. delete ("disconnect") or add ("connect") entry ("node"); Park; para 0054, 0079, and 0133] [Rzehak; col 4,lines 16-20, col 6, lines 48-51 and col 15, lines 11-28].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458