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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Point A: Applicant argues that the office action has not shown that the applied references include “determine that a message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message and then to modify the message to be compatible with the local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message.
As to Point A:
It is the position of the examiner that the newly cited prior art Singh discloses “determine that a message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message and then to modify the message to be compatible with the local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message. Furthermore, applicant’s narrow interpretation of the prior art
It is the position of the examiner that applicant’s “standardized message” as stated in dependent claims, is “a plurality of information” and further an incoming and outgoing message.
It is the Examiner’s position that Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which define the operation and apparatus of Applicant’s disclosed invention in manner, which distinguishes over the prior art. As it is Applicant’s right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention. It is also the Examiner’s right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. Applicant utilizes terms such “parameter” and “standardized messages” with narrow interpretations that are included within the claims. It is the Examiner’s position that the detailed functionality that allows for Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique (see Applicant’s enabling portions of the specification, paragraph 0021, 0033). As it is extremely well known in the networking art as already shown by the cited prior art of record claimed features of Applicant’s invention. Thus, it is clear that Applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant’s claim invention.
The examiner respectfully suggests applicant contact the examiner prior to filing a response to the instant office action to discuss claim amendments/clarifications in a scheduled interview to move the instant application to a condition for allowance.
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 1-3, 6, 8, 10-13, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radunovic et al., (Radunovic), (US 20220377577) hereinafter in view of Foukas et al., (Foukas), “Taking 5G RAN Analytics and Control to a New Level” in view of Singh et al. (Singh), US PG PUB 20240054688 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Radunovic teaches a computer system comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions for operating a network function;
a processor configured to execute the instructions for operating the network function (item 244), wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a codelet for processing a standardized message within the instructions for operating the network function (see Fig. 7 step 710 and [0055]: At block 710, the method 700 optionally includes receiving, via an API, the one or more configurable codelets. In an example, the analytics engine 170 and/or the RAN processing component 520, e.g., in conjunction with processor 502, memory 504, and operating system 506, can receive, via the network API 246 and/or the analytics API 232, the one or more configurable codelets 222; see also [0056]: In an example, the analytics engine 170 and/or the RAN processing component 520, e.g., in conjunction with processor 502, memory 504, and operating system 506, can perform multiple protocol layers of RAN processing (e.g., for CU 346 and DU 348) for at least one cell at a virtualized base station 140 within respective execution environments 220 of the two or more protocol layers (i.e. processing a message for operating a network function));
execute the codelet to (see Fig. 7 step 730 and [0057]: At block 730, the method 700 includes executing one or more configurable codelets within each respective execution environment to determine at least one time series of real time metrics):
However, the Radunovic reference does not explicitly suggest a system wherein: “the codelet is received at a hook point for execution”, determine that a message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message and modify at least one parameter of the message to be compatible with the local configuration. Additionally, the Radunovic reference fails to explicitly suggest a system comprising a processor configured to:
process the modified message by the network function.
In the same field of endeavor, Foukas is applied in accordance with the present invention, the Foukas reference teaching a system comprising:
receiving a codelet for execution at a hook point (see Page 3, second column, lines 9-14: A Janus device is any vRAN component (i.e., a vCU or vDU process) that allows execution of custom code. Janus executes the custom code inside an eBPF VM instantiated in userspace [59]. We introduce Janus call points, or hooks, at selected places in vRAN functions, at which custom eBPF code can be invoked; see also Page 3, second column, lines 28-29: A Janus codelet is a custom code that can be deployed at a single hook on a Janus device at runtime); and
process the modified message by the network function (see Page 6, second column, lines 48-53 to Page 7, first column, lines 1-13: To address these challenges, Janus injects instructions in the eBPF bytecode (i.e. modifying the message) that measure the codelet execution time while running and preempts it if a threshold is exceeded … Finally, the patcher updates all jump offsets to account for the injected instructions. This approach allows us to verify the patched bytecode for safety, ensuring that any modifications made by the patcher do not affect the safety of the codeletset (i.e. processing the modified message)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the teachings of Foukas suggesting introducing hook points for receiving codelet for execution and processing a modified message by a network function into the RAN analytics engine taught by Radunovic. The motivation for such combination would have been to provide the ability to inject custom codes at specific points in a framework’s execution and to build new and change existing O-RAN service models on the fly, without undergoing a lengthy standardization process, thereby improving flexibility, efficiency and safety. Even though, Radunovic does imply certain teachings of determine that a message is incompatible with a local configuration (see [0034 and 0042]): modify the message to be compatible with the local configuration (see [0034 and 0051-0053]. However, Radunovic-Foukas does not explicitly disclose the specifics of determine that a message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message and modify at least one parameter of the message to be compatible with the local configuration.
But in the same field of endeavor, Singh discloses determine that a message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message and modify at least one parameter of the message to be compatible with the local configuration (see Singh, para. 103, In some embodiments, a telecommunications network protocol (e.g., SIP) may be modified to include additional protocol messages to determine the capabilities of the receiving wireless device 504 and establish a call between the transmitting wireless device 502 and the receiving wireless device 504 based on the determined capabilities. In some embodiments, standardized messages (e.g., INVITE, ACK, etc.) of a telecommunications network protocol (e.g., SIP) may be modified to include additional features for determining the capabilities of the receiving wireless device 504 and establishing a call between the transmitting wireless device 502 and the receiving wireless device 504 based on the determined capabilities.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the teachings of Singh’s determining the capabilities of a communication system with the system of Radunovic-Foukas. The motivation to combine would have been to provide greater functionality between different systems within a Radio Access Network.
Regarding claim 2, Radunovic-Foukas and Singh is applied as disclosed in claim 1 examined above. Radunovic further teaches a system wherein the standardized message includes a plurality of information elements and the codelet is configured to evaluate values of the information elements (see [0026]: One or more codelets may define a schema for information to be exported from the execution environment 220. For example, the schema may define the metrics to be exported, timing and granularity of the metrics, and a format for the exported metrics).
Regarding claim 3, Radunovic-Foukas and Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as examined above. Radunovic further teaches a system wherein the processor executes the codelet on a same processor core as the network function (see [0050]: In an example, the RAN processing component 520, e.g., in conjunction with processor 502, memory 504, and operating system 506, can perform multiple protocol layers of RAN processing for at least one cell at the virtualized base station 140; see also [0057]: the analytics engine 170 and/or the RAN processing component 520, e.g., in conjunction with processor 502, memory 504, and operating system 506, can execute one or more configurable codelets 222 within each respective execution environment 220).
Regarding claim 6, Radunovic-Foukas and Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The Radunovic reference further teaches a system wherein the hook point has access to a message buffer storing the standardized message (see [0026]: An execution environment 220 may be included in one or more of the inline codepoints 212, 214 and the codelet may have access to parameters of the execution environment 220 at one or more codepoints 212, 214 (i.e. hook point has access to a message buffer storing the standardized message)).
Regarding claim 8, Radunovic-Foukas-Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Furthermore, the Radunovic-Foukas and Singh combination teaches a system wherein to determine that the message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message, the codelet is configured to detect an internal inconsistency within the message (see [0034]: The analytics engine 170 may correlate a time series for each of the two or more layers to detect a network condition. Example network conditions may include: and protocol inefficiencies … For instance, if a key performance indicator (KPI) based on conventional analytics falls below a threshold, the analytics engine 170 may activate a corresponding analytic to assess the performance issue and determine a network condition).
Regarding claim 10, Radunovic-Foukas and Singh is applied as disclosed in claim 1 examined above. The Radunovic-Foukas and Singh combination further teaches a system wherein wherein the processor is configured to advertise a service model for correcting interoperability issues (see [0021]: Accordingly, the analytics engine may be able to detect network conditions that are difficult to identify using aggregated metrics. Further, the analytics engine may modify a configuration of the at least one cell based on the detected network condition; see also [0019]: The standardization of RANs allows compatibility and interoperability between vendors of equipment throughout the RAN).
Regarding claim 11, Radunovic-Foukas and Singh teaches a method of correcting interoperability issues in standardized messages (see Radunovic, [0019]), comprising:
receiving, at a computing device implementing a network function, a codelet for processing a standardized message within instructions for operating the network function (see Fig. 7 step 710 and [0055]: At block 710, the method 700 optionally includes receiving, via an API, the one or more configurable codelets. In an example, the analytics engine 170 and/or the RAN processing component 520, e.g., in conjunction with processor 502, memory 504, and operating system 506, can receive, via the network API 246 and/or the analytics API 232, the one or more configurable codelets 222; see also [0056]: In an example, the analytics engine 170 and/or the RAN processing component 520, e.g., in conjunction with processor 502, memory 504, and operating system 506, can perform multiple protocol layers of RAN processing (e.g., for CU 346 and DU 348) for at least one cell at a virtualized base station 140 within respective execution environments 220 of the two or more protocol layers (i.e. processing a message for operating a network function)));
However, the Radunovic reference does not explicitly suggest a system wherein: “the codelet is received at a hook point for execution”, determine that a message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message and modify at least one parameter of the message to be compatible with the local configuration. Additionally, the Radunovic reference fails to explicitly suggest a system comprising a processor configured to:
processing the modified message by the network function.
In the same field of endeavor, Foukas is applied in accordance with the present invention, the Foukas reference teaching a method comprising:
receiving a codelet for execution at a hook point (see Page 3, second column, lines 9-14: A Janus device is any vRAN component (i.e., a vCU or vDU process) that allows execution of custom code. Janus executes the custom code inside an eBPF VM instantiated in userspace [59]. We introduce Janus call points, or hooks, at selected places in vRAN functions, at which custom eBPF code can be invoked; see also Page 3, second column, lines 28-29: A Janus codelet is a custom code that can be deployed at a single hook on a Janus device at runtime); and
processing the modified message by the network function (see Page 6, second column, lines 48-53 to Page 7, first column, lines 1-13: To address these challenges, Janus injects instructions in the eBPF bytecode (i.e. modifying the message) that measure the codelet execution time while running and preempts it if a threshold is exceeded … Finally, the patcher updates all jump offsets to account for the injected instructions. This approach allows us to verify the patched bytecode for safety, ensuring that any modifications made by the patcher do not affect the safety of the codelet set (i.e. processing the modified message)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the teachings of Foukas suggesting introducing hook points for receiving codelet for execution and processing a modified message by a network function into the RAN analytics engine taught by Radunovic. The motivation for such combination would have been to provide the ability to inject custom codes at specific points in a framework’s execution and to build new and change existing O-RAN service models on the fly, without undergoing a lengthy standardization process, thereby improving flexibility, efficiency and safety. However, Radunovic-Foukas does not explicitly disclose the specifics of determine that a message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message and modify at least one parameter of the message to be compatible with the local configuration.
But in the same field of endeavor, Singh discloses determine that a message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message and modify at least one parameter of the message to be compatible with the local configuration (see Singh, para. 103, In some embodiments, a telecommunications network protocol (e.g., SIP) may be modified to include additional protocol messages to determine the capabilities of the receiving wireless device 504 and establish a call between the transmitting wireless device 502 and the receiving wireless device 504 based on the determined capabilities. In some embodiments, standardized messages (e.g., INVITE, ACK, etc.) of a telecommunications network protocol (e.g., SIP) may be modified to include additional features for determining the capabilities of the receiving wireless device 504 and establishing a call between the transmitting wireless device 502 and the receiving wireless device 504 based on the determined capabilities.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the teachings of Singh’s determining the capabilities of a communication system with the system of Radunovic-Foukas. The motivation to combine would have been to provide greater functionality between different systems within a Radio Access Network.
Regarding claim 12, it teaches the same limitations as claim 2 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 13, it teaches the same limitations as claim 3 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 16, it teaches the same limitations as claim 6 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 18, it teaches the same limitations as claim 8 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 20, it teaches the same limitations as claim 10 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radunovic-Foukas and Singh in further view of Holt (US 20210004209).
Regarding claim 4, Radunovic-Foukas and Bailey teaches the limitations of claim 1 as examined above. The Radunovic-Foukas and Bailey combination teaches a system comprising receiving a codelet for execution at a hook point for processing a standardized message within the instructions for operating the network function. However, the Radunovic-Foukas and Bailey combination does not explicitly teach a system wherein the standardized message is an outgoing message and the hook point is associated with instructions for encoding the outgoing message.
In the same field of endeavor as the Radunovic reference, Holt teaches a system in accordance with the invention wherein the standardized message is an outgoing message and the hook point is associated with instructions for encoding the outgoing message (see [0026]: The generated program 1003 applies the ruleset to the specification entities to insert specification values into segments and assemble the segments into the generated document 1006. The generator program 1003 outputs the generated document 1006 to the constructor; see also [0286]: Here a “framework program” describes a program containing a prewritten body of code combined with variable settings to alter the conditional execution of that code. In this implementation, the specifics, the domain ruleset, and the segments are all contained within the code of the framework program, encoded in the framework program's given programming language).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the features taught in the Holt invention, namely providing a system wherein the standardized message is an outgoing message and the hook point is associated with instructions for encoding the outgoing message into the invention taught by the Radunovic-Foukas and Bailey combination. The motivation for such combination would have been to ensure secure communication and preserving data integrity, thereby safeguarding sensitive data during transmission.
Regarding claim 5, Radunovic-Foukas and Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as examined above. The Radunovic-Foukas and Bailey combination teaches a system comprising receiving a codelet for execution at a hook point for processing a standardized message within the instructions for operating the network function. However, the Radunovic-Foukas and Bailey combination does not explicitly teach a system wherein the standardized message is an incoming message and the hook point is associated with instructions for decoding or parsing the incoming message.
In the same field of endeavor with the Radunovic reference, Holt teaches a system wherein the standardized message is an incoming message and the hook point is associated with instructions for decoding or parsing the incoming message (see [0028]: A specification entity 3001 describing a field is input into the generator. The generator applies the ruleset to convert the specification entity 3001 into a corresponding segment entity 3002 (i.e. parsing the incoming message); see also [0466]: Optionally, the document is generated with designated placeholders for custom code or text. Upon regeneration, the customized previously generated document is additionally inputted into the generator program to extract the custom code and insert it into corresponding places in the newly generated document).
Regarding claim 9, Radunovic-Foukas and Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1 as examined above. The Radunovic-Foukas combination teaches a system comprising executing the codelets to determine that a message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message. However, Radunovic-Foukas an Bailey fails to explicitly teach a system wherein to determine that the message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message, the codelet is configured to detect whether the message includes one or more known erroneous values.
In the same field of endeavor, Holt teaches a system in accordance with the claimed invention, the system wherein to determine that the message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message, the codelet is configured to detect whether the message includes one or more known erroneous values (see [0130-132]: wherein to determine that the message is incompatible with a local configuration or interpretation of the standardized message, the codelet is configured to detect whether the message includes one or more known erroneous values … A rule is applied to an entity by first evaluating if the entity satisfies the rule conditions (i.e. known erroneous values). If conditions are not satisfied, the rule application stops. If conditions are satisfied, the rule's commands are executed … For example, a condition might be “if the entity's type value equals action” or “if the entity's action type value does not start with add”).
Regarding claim 14, it teaches the same limitations as claim 4 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 15, it teaches the same limitations as claim 5 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 19, it teaches the same limitations as claim 9 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radunovic et al. (US 20220377577) hereinafter Radunovic-Foukas and Singh in view of Bauman “The Trail of Bits Blog: Harnessing the eBPF Verifier”.
Regarding claim 7, Radunovic-Foukas and Singh is applied as disclosed in claim 1 examined above. The Radunovic-Foukas and Singh combination teaches a system comprising a processor configured to receive a codelet for execution at a hook point for processing a standardized message within the instructions for operating a network function. However, the combination of Radunovic-Foukas and Singh does not explicitly teach a system wherein the processor is configured to statically verify that the codelet terminates.
In the same field of endeavor, Bauman teaches a system in accordance with the present invention, the system wherein the processor is configured to statically verify that the codelet terminates (see Page 5 lines 1-4: The verifier performs two main passes over the code. The first pass is handled by the check_cfg() function, which ensures that the program is guaranteed to terminate by performing an iterative depth-first search of all possible execution paths; see also Page 2 lines 21-24: User applications can load eBPF code into kernel space and run it there without modifying the kernel’s source code or loading kernel modules. Loaded eBPF code is checked by the kernel’s eBPF verifier, which tries to prove that the code will terminate without crashing).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the teachings of Bauman suggesting a system comprising a processor configured to statically verify that the codelet terminates into the system taught by the Radunovic-Foukas and Singh in combination. The motivation for such combination would have been to prevent buggy or malicious eBPF program from causing a kernel to hang indefinitely, thereby preserving the system resources.
Regarding claim 17, it teaches the same limitations as claim 7 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights