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 .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1-18
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 10
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: -
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/3/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 2/24/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “network management component configured to manage…” “site management component configured to manage…” and “inventory management component configured to manage…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claim 1 is representative and by amendment includes “component[s]” “configured to” do functions such as management. “Component” is a nonce term that is a stand in for means-plus (see MPEP 2181) and is modified by function without sufficient structure for performing the function. The specification fails to provide a sufficient algorithm for performing the functionality of a computer-implemented means-plus function, see MPEP 2181(II)(B). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jubran (US Pub. 2014/0282421) in view of Martin (US Pub. 2024/0154992) in view of James (US Pub. 2022/0217546) and further in view of Raymond (US Pub. 2022/0239562).
With respect to Claim 1, Jubran teaches a validation method for facilitating automated provisioning in a telecommunication network, the method comprising: (Fig. 1, paras. 13-15, 20; validation of software in a cloud network.)
managing validation apps and workers including a first validation app and a first validation worker, (paras. 20-22, 27-30, 34-37, 41-43; Validation tool binary data includes instruction sets for different validation tools such as stress testing or fault injection. The validation server and validation client use the tool binary data to assign validation jobs to workers on virtual machines. Therefore the different binary data are a plurality of validation apps and the virtual machines are validation workers.)
wherein validating the data readiness includes collecting data, that relates to a readiness of the one or more components, from at least two of a network management component, or an inventory management component. (para. 81-83; configuration of machines, which is site management. Paras. 44, 57, 78; devices may be configured for tester/testee in a client/server format which is a network management act. para. 84; management server sends validation data such as the presence of failures and system state data, which is both a site management act and an inventory management act, or any other data regarding the status of the validation pipeline execution. Further, Examiner notes that Applicant admits that all three components preexist, see Spec-as-published paras. 47, 49, 52; BMO provided by Dell, BPI provided by Blueplanet, network management provided by Infoblox are site, inventory and network management components. See also James, paras. 41-43; gNB coupling and fiber light levels, which are network management and site management acts. Examiner notes that health data is readiness data, but also cites Jubran, para. 43; reports on result data and James, para. 35-37, 43; pass or fail reports on a site prior to commissioning of the site.)
receiving a validation request indicating a requested validation; (para. 34, 42, 60; request to validate.)
identifying the first validation app to process the requested validation; (para. 13, 37-40; validation pipeline includes a plurality of validation jobs that may be performed in parallel to validate a software product. The validation jobs are then assigned to the virtual machines. Para. 44; validation test binary data is installed on a test worker. See also para. 49; validation tool binary data may be nominated in configuration data.)
generating, by the first validation app, a job to perform the requested validation; (paras. 45-46; configuration data defines validation jobs to be done to validate the software. Para. 34; deployment manager under control of validation client may instantiate virtual machines. Para. 35; deployment manager manages job queues including job scheduling.)
placing the job onto a job queue; (para. 35; deployment manager manages job queues for the validation pipeline.)
retrieving the job, by the first validation worker, from the job queue; (paras. 37-38; validation jobs are assigned to a respective one of the virtual machines.)
executing, by the first validation worker, the job; receiving, by the first validation worker, information regarding the execution of the job; (para. 41-43; VM workers are assigned jobs and summarize results of test.)
retrieving, by the first validation app, the information; and generating, by the first validation app, a result for display to a user based on the information retrieved. (paras. 33, 43, 65; VM workers report the results and the results are stored. paras. 41, 43; aggregation of test result data. Para. 39, 44, 46; some tests may require multiple VMs to work together to perform the test. Paras. 66-69; system may generate alerts and result data that is presented immediately, continually or periodically. The system may provide a user interface for a user to view the test results.)
But Jubran does not explicitly teach a message queue.
Martin, however, does teach placing, by the first validation worker, the information onto a message queue; (Examiner notes that Jubran may render this limitation obvious by itself. Jubran, para. 43; deployment manager may include communication manager to support communications between devices. para. 35; deployment manager manages job queues to perform the jobs of the validation pipeline. Regardless, Examiner will cite Martin, para. 67; message queue.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Jubran with the message queue in order to keep order in the delivery of messages by allowing subscriptions to messages. (Martin, para. 67)
But modified Jubran does not explicitly teach validating components of a cell site or core network.
James, however, does teach a site management component that is configured to manage hardware and software deployed at cell sites (First see Jubran, para. 81-83; configuration of machines, which is site management. Paras. 44, 57, 78; devices may be configured for tester/testee in a client/server format which is a network management act. para. 84; management server sends validation data such as the presence of failures and system state data, which is both a site management act and an inventory management act, or any other data regarding the status of the validation pipeline execution. Then see James, para. 40; configuring of radio at cell site. Paras. 41-43; validation of gNB including a turn on operation, fiber levels. System may troubleshoot with responsive hardware or software changes. Further, Examiner notes that Applicant admits that all three components preexist, see Spec-as-published paras. 47, 49, 52; BMO provided by Dell, BPI provided by Blueplanet, network management provided by Infoblox are site, inventory and network management components.)
wherein one or more of the validation apps perform validating a data readiness of one or more components before deployment within a cell site of the telecommunication network, or within a core network of the telecommunication network, (paras. 35-37; software tool for validation of operations at a cell site prior to commissioning of the cell site. PCI testing is testing for a device being able to identify the cell site, which is data readiness measure. Paras. 22, 42-43; signal reception testing and fiber connection testing, which are data networking readiness measures. See also Jubran, paras. 20-22, 27-30, 34-37, 41-43; Validation tool binary data includes instruction sets for different validation tools such as stress testing or fault injection.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Jubran with the cell site in order to validate devices in cell sites.
But modified Jubran does not explicitly teach a network management component that is configured to manage one or more of network components or devices on a core network, or an inventory management component that is configured to facilitate a dynamic network inventory.
Raymond, however, does teach a network management component that is configured to manage one or more of network components or devices on a core network, (First see Jubran, para. 81-83; configuration of machines, which is site management. Paras. 44, 57, 78; devices may be configured for tester/testee in a client/server format which is a network management act. para. 84; management server sends validation data such as the presence of failures and system state data, which is both a site management act and an inventory management act, or any other data regarding the status of the validation pipeline execution. Then see Raymond, para. 17; system determines and suggests actions to take on network such as configuration changes. para. 36, 55; system includes core network equipment. Further, Examiner notes that Applicant admits that all three components preexist, see Spec-as-published paras. 47, 49, 52; BMO provided by Dell, BPI provided by Blueplanet, network management provided by Infoblox are site, inventory and network management components.)
or an inventory management component that is configured to facilitate a dynamic network inventory. (First see Jubran, para. 81-83; configuration of machines, which is site management. Paras. 44, 57, 78; devices may be configured for tester/testee in a client/server format which is a network management act. para. 84; management server sends validation data such as the presence of failures and system state data, which is both a site management act and an inventory management act, or any other data regarding the status of the validation pipeline execution. Then see Raymond, paras. 1-3, 22-25; state tracking system periodically obtains status from nodes to track inventory and state of network. Further, Examiner notes that Applicant admits that all three components preexist, see Spec-as-published paras. 47, 49, 52; BMO provided by Dell, BPI provided by Blueplanet, network management provided by Infoblox are site, inventory and network management components.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Jubran with the network management component that is configured to manage one or more of network components or devices on a core network and inventory management component that is configured to facilitate a dynamic network inventory in order to enhance performance and optimize utilization of the network. (Raymond, para. 17)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Jubran teaches the validation method according to Claim 1, and Jubran also teaches the first validation app is configured with one or more steps to validate the data readiness based, at least in part, on the collected data. (para. 43, 75; reports on result data including failures encountered. Para. 84; management server receives data from validation jobs and displays data. See also James, para. 35-37, 43; pass or fail reports on a site prior to commissioning of the site.)
With respect to Claim 3, modified Jubran teaches the validation method according to claim 1, and Jubran also teaches wherein the identification of the first validation app is based on a network component validated by the first validation app, a manufacturer associated with the first validation app, or an availability of the first validation app. (para. 57, 70; system may cache data packages in a peer-to-peer manner. Para. 42, 48, 62-63, 70; system may reassign jobs in order to decrease time in validating. In reassigning, the system may include instructions to wipe or reimage to an original state. The caching of data packages is useful in job reassignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to consider whether a machine is already configured to run a job or at least contains a stored peer copy of the data package for configuring for the job in order to make it a better candidate for reassignment by lowering delays in validating. This is an identification based on availability.)
With respect to Claim 4, modified Jubran teaches the validation method according to claim 1, and Jubran also teaches further comprising: breaking down the requested validation into multiple pieces; (paras. 46, 77-81; validation tasks are organized into jobs, and each virtual machine is configured to perform a job.)
and wherein the first validation app is identified at least by virtue that the first validation app is configured to handle one of the pieces. (para. 41; assignment of jobs based on worker role. Para. 34,63; system may reimage after a job is complete to change configuration for another job based on job type or job history. Para. 64; device may not be reimaged. Para. 48, 62; jobs may be reassigned to remove delays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to assign similar jobs to a device to allow the device to complete multiple jobs without having to reimage for a new job.)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Jubran teaches the validation method according to claim 1, and Jubran also teaches wherein the validation apps include a second validation app, and wherein the method further comprises: identifying the second validation app to process the requested validation; (para. 28; a variety of different types of testing can be performed. para. 13, 37-40; validation pipeline includes a plurality of validation jobs that may be performed in parallel to validate a software product. The validation jobs are then assigned to the virtual machines.
distributing a first portion of the requested validation to the first validation app; and distributing a second portion of the requested validation to the second validation app. (paras. 46, 77-81; validation tasks are organized into jobs, and each virtual machine is configured to perform a job. para. 41-43; VM workers are assigned jobs and summarize results of test.)
With respect to Claim 6, modified Jubran teaches the validation method according to claim 5, and Jubran also teaches wherein the first portion of the requested validation is performed by the first validation app, in parallel or substantially in parallel with, a performance of the second portion of the requested validation by the second validation app. (paras. 14-18, 38; parallel execution of validation jobs.)
With respect to Claim 7, modified Jubran teaches the validation method according to claim 1, and Martin also teaches wherein the first validation app is implemented using containerized software. (paras. 57, 124; Virtual machines may be or may use containers.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 8, modified Jubran teaches the validation method according to claim 7, and Martin also teaches wherein the containerized software is Kubernetes cluster. (paras. 57, 124; Virtual machines may be or may use containers. Kubernetes is an example container technology)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 9, modified Jubran teaches the validation method according to claim 1, and Martin also teaches wherein the job queue is implemented using Redis Queue. (paras. 100, 134; Redis queue.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 10, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Jubran also teaches a computer system that comprises at least one electronic processor configured to perform (para. 70; processor)
With respect to Claims 11-18, they are substantially similar to Claims 2-9, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 8-10 that Jubran and James do not teach the amended network, site, and inventory management components. Applicant further argues that the claims are not obvious because of the admissions that these type of management components exist. Specifically, Applicant argues that in Jubran there is not site management component because the managing of software is not deployed at a cell site. Applicant recounts what Jubran teaches and states it does not teach the network management component. Applicant argues that James “validates physical characteristics, but does not teach or suggest the recitations of Claim 1 either alone or in combination with the cited references.”
The combination of Jubran and James teach the amended site management component. While Jubran, standing by itself, does not anticipate managing software “deployed at cell sites,” James makes clear that cell sites employ software, and Jubran teaches the management of software that appears to be agnostic as to location. In other words, a person of ordinary skill after reading Jubran and James would recognize that (1) software could be managed and (2) one place in which software could be found was cell sites.
With respect to the other two components, Examiner will additionally cite Raymond which teaches the components in combination with Jubran.
Examiner further takes issue with the argument that Spec, para. 47, 49 and 52 do not teach the features in combination with the cited references. Applicant argues that “merely because the specification indicates specific systems may exists…does not render the claims obvious, as the cited references fail to teach the specific recitations of validating data readiness by collecting and cross-referencing data from at least two different management components prior to deployment.” But the claims don’t require cross-referencing, and to the extent that the claims require collecting data from two different systems, Applicant makes no argument that there is technical problem in using two components together and the specification provides no technical teaching that would allow two components to overcome an interface problem. In other words, the specification relies upon the ordinary skill in the art to collect data from two different systems. Therefore, the claim feature of collecting two data from two components is obvious over the two components existing in the prior art because of simple combination. i.e. While Examiner agrees that the mere existence of the components individually in the prior art does not anticipate collecting data from two of them at once, collecting data from two components is obvious because it appears to simply be like systems that collects data from each component separately, but combined (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)) using ordinary skill for predictable results. Spec, para. 47 states that the site management component in some embodiments “comprises a bare metal orchestrator (BMO) provided by Dell.” Spec, para. 49 states that the inventory management component in some embodiments “comprises a Blue Planet Inventory (BPI) system provided by Blueplanet.” Spec, para. 52 states that the network management component in some embodiments “comprises a system provided by Infoblox.” Applicant does not assert that either the Inventors or Assignee Dish is Dell, or Blueplanet, or Infoblox. Therefore, Applicant does not dispute these components are “the work of another” that makes them admitted prior art, see MPEP 2129. Nor does not applicant raise argument as to why the claims are nonobvious over these prior art components and usage of similar or the same components gleaned from the teachings from cited publications.
Regardless, Examiner cites Raymond, which moots the argument that the amended claims are nonobvious over the previous Jubran/Martin/James citations. Further Raymond is a system that both tracks inventory of core network devices and also tracks their configuration over time and suggests modifications, which teaches both the network management and inventory management components.
In addition, by amendment the claims now claim “components” that are limited by functionality. This makes them means-plus terms. While a claim term outside of means-plus may rely upon the general knowledge in the art to describe the structure of a claim term, a means-plus invocation requires the specification itself to include the structure. (see MPEP 21818(II) and 35 USC 112f – a means-plus term “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure…described in the specification and equivalents thereof”) That description in the context of computer-implemented functionality requires the specification itself to disclose an algorithm for performing the functionality. (“For a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b).” MPEP 2181(II)(B)) The specification does not do so for the amended components. Consequently, the amended claims are indefinite.
All claims are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights