DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/16/24, 06/18/25, 10/07/25 and 01/28/26 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B).
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 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trivedi et al. (U.S. 20240179083).
For claim 1, Trivedi et al. disclose a method of executing a workflow stage in automatic operations for an open radio access network (0-RAN), the method being implemented by a computer system, wherein the method comprises:
performing a pre-stage check to confirm the workflow stage is ready to be executed (at least Fig. 3, [0031], [0036] and [0039]-[0044]. The NDUT 130 is a centralized unit (CU). More specifically, the CU is for Open RAN (ORAN) and is an Open CU (OCU) device under test (DUT). The computer network testing computer device 102 is prepared for performing a test on the NDUT 200 and a precheck of the computer network testing computer software 127 is performed. In some embodiments, this includes implementing the VMs (e.g., VMs 212, 214, 218, 220, 222, and 224) in the VN 202 and detecting whether the VMs are operational. In some embodiments, the user 130 through the user device 107 ensures that the VMs are running and that there are no alarms or flags that indicate problems in the operation of the VMs.);
when the pre-stage check succeeds, executing one or more operations in the workflow stage (at least Fig. 3, [0031], [0036] and [0039]-[0044]. The user 130 through the user device 107 ensures that the VMs are running and that there are no alarms or flags that indicate problems in the operation of the VMs. Flow then proceeds to block 304. At block 304, a testing scenario is selected from a plurality of testing scenarios for execution. However, the Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.);
when the pre-stage check fails: requesting a workflow management to address one or more issues in the pre-stage check; and performing the pre-stage check; when the execution of the one or more operations in the workflow stage fails: requesting the workflow management system to address one or more issues in the execution of the one or more operations in the workflow stage; and executing one or more operations in the workflow stage; when the execution of the one or more operations in the workflow stage succeeds: performing a post-stage check to verify the workflow stage is completed successfully; when the post-stage check fails: requesting the workflow management system to address one or more issues in the post-stage check; and performing the post-stage check; and performing an execution of a next workflow stage when the post-stage check succeeds.
For claim 4, Trivedi et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising generating, at the workflow management system, a ticket for the one or more issues in the pre-stage check, the execution of the one or more operations in the workflow stage, and/or the post-stage check (at least Fig. 3, [0031], [0036] and [0039]-[0044]. Flags that indicate problems in the operation of the VMs.)
For claim 5, Trivedi et al. disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, at the workflow management system, the one or more issues in the pre-stage check, the execution of the one or more operations in the workflow stage, and/or the post-stage check are resolved; and, wherein the performance of the pre-stage check, the execution of the one or more operations in the workflow stage, and/or the post-stage check are automatically carried out by the workflow management system (at least Fig. 3, [0031], [0036] and [0039]-[0044]. The NDUT 130 is a centralized unit (CU). More specifically, the CU is for Open RAN (ORAN) and is an Open CU (OCU) device under test (DUT). The computer network testing computer device 102 is prepared for performing a test on the NDUT 200 and a precheck of the computer network testing computer software 127 is performed. In some embodiments, this includes implementing the VMs (e.g., VMs 212, 214, 218, 220, 222, and 224) in the VN 202 and detecting whether the VMs are operational. In some embodiments, the user 130 through the user device 107 ensures that the VMs are running and that there are no alarms or flags that indicate problems in the operation of the VMs. Flow then proceeds to block 304. At block 304, a testing scenario is selected from a plurality of testing scenarios for execution. In some embodiments, the user 130 selects the testing scenario through the user device 107.)
For claim 6, Trivedi et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the workflow stage is a cell site router (CSR) ready stage, a computer host provisioning (CHP) stage, a vCenter provisioning (VCP) stage, a node pool creation (NPC) stage, a distribution unit initiation (DUI) stage, and a RAN stage; and, wherein the method further comprises after a success post-stage check for the CSR- ready stage, a CHP stage is executed (Claim 1 includes a conditional statement, in which if one set of criteria is met, then the certain steps or functions are performed while another set of criteria is met, then a different steps or functions are performed. In other words, once it determines when the pre-stage check succeeds or fails, then the following steps or functions related to “the pre-stage check succeeds” are performed. Nonetheless, the steps/functions related to “the pre-stage check fails” is, however, ignored, because the conditional statement is not met. Therefore, based on the above, when pre-stage check succeeds, executing one or more operations, so the claim ends here. Claim 6 is ignored, because the conditional statement is not met.)
For claim 7, Trivedi et al. disclose the method of claim 6, further comprising after a success post-stage check for the CHP stage, a VCP stage is executed (claim 7 is dependent on claim 6. Therefore, the claim is also ignored.)
For claim 8, Trivedi et al. disclose the method of claim 7, further comprising after a success post-stage check for the VCP stage, a NPC or a DUI stage is executed (claim 8 is indirectly dependent on claim 6. Therefore, the claim is also ignored.)
For claim 9, Trivedi et al. disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising after a success post-stage check for the DUI stage, a RAN stage is executed (claim 9 is indirectly dependent on claim 6. Therefore, the claim is also ignored.)
For claim 10, Trivedi et al. disclose the method of claim 7, after a success post-stage check for the NPC stage,a DUI stage is executed (claim 10 is indirectly dependent on claim 6. Therefore, the claim is also ignored.)
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 of this title, 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trivedi et al. (U.S. 20240179083) in view of Krishan et al. (U.S. 20230083011).
For claim 2, Trivedi et al. do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the workflow stage is a computer host provisioning stage; and, wherein the pre-check stage comprises: checking one or more network addresses are reserved for at least one computer host to be provisioned in the computer host provisioning stage.
In the same field of endeavor, Krishan et al. disclose checking one or more network addresses are reserved for at least one computer host to be provisioned in the computer host provisioning stage (at least [0042]. The network emulator 1001 (which in this example functions as an O-RAN network emulator) provides Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) functionality to provision server and assign IP addresses to connect to the radio (RU 1002) for testing. After the testing completed, the network emulator 1001 resets the cell site router (CSR) to the original state.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Trivedi et al. as taught by Krishan et al. for purpose of testing the device.
For claim 3, the combination of Trivedi et al. and Krishan et al. disclose the method of claim 2. the pre-check stage comprises: verifying if information regarding the at least one computer host to be provisioned is registered in an inventory of the O-RAN (at least [0042] and [0054]. The network emulator 1001 (which in this example functions as an O-RAN network emulator) provides Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) functionality to provision server and assign IP addresses to connect to the radio (RU 1002) for testing. After the testing completed, the network emulator 1001 resets the cell site router (CSR) to the original state. Furthermore, STEP 5 involves checking the radio and switch for alarms and pushing the carrier configuration to the radios. Parts of STEP 5 can include: i) log-in to CSR from the DU emulator; ii) verify the SFP transmit (TX) and receive (RX) power of all the ports (e.g., 6 RRUs, DU); iii) retrieve RU media access control (MAC), CSR port and IP address for each RU; iv) achieve connectivity to RRU through telnet/ssh; and v) push carrier configuration for all RRUs and check PTP status.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowed:
For claim 11, Park et al. (U.S. 20250062883) disclose the structure of RAN was divided into a central unit (CU), a distributed unit (DU), and a radio unit (RU). Each of these divided units is supplied by various manufacturers, and an open radio access network (O-RAN) interface, which is a packet-based communication, is applied to ensure compatibility between the units; Abu Alhaol et al. (U.S. 20250048170) discloses the NDT may determine the optimal allocation of resources, such as frequency bands and power levels for example, to minimize energy consumption while maintaining O-RAN network performance. The NDT may continuously monitor the O-RAN network in real-time and make adjustments to the resource allocation as needed to minimize energy consumption; Mohammed et al. (U.S. 20240333706) disclose that a user may enforce the ownership check before making any connection of a network device or even managing the respective network device after it is securely booted via sZTP; and Kuppuswamy et al. (U.S. 20240338278) disclose upon detecting a failure, a database of known failures can be checked to determine if an error status code associated with the failure of the application/workflow execution is a known error status code. If the error status code is a known error status code, an audit trail preceding the failure can be validated to confirm that the audit trail is a failure scenario associated with the known error status code (e.g., confirm that the failure is a known failure). However, none of the prior art, taken in combination or alone, disclose when the pre-stage check fails: requesting a workflow management to address one or more issues in the pre-stage check; and performing the pre-stage check; when the execution of the one or more operations in the workflow stage fails: requesting the workflow management system to address one or more issues in the execution of the one or more operations in the workflow stage; and executing one or more operations in the workflow stage; when the execution of the one or more operations in the workflow stage succeeds: performing a post-stage check to verify the workflow stage is completed successfully; when the post-stage check fails: requesting the workflow management system to address one or more issues in the post-stage check; and performing the post-stage check; and performing an execution of a next workflow stage when the post-stage check succeeds.
For claims 12-20, the claims are dependent on claim 11. Therefore, the claims are also allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAI PHUONG whose telephone number is 571-272-7896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached on 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7687.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAI PHUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644