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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 23 February 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 21 September 2023 in which claims 1, 10 have been amended. Claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims are amended to add ‘after the difference between the one or more planned attributes is resolved, executing zero-touch operations associated with configuration of the O-RAN’, however, the resolving is for an owner to be notified and ‘resolve the difference’. The validating step of claim 1 also identifies ‘the difference’ to actually be ‘one or more…attributes…are different’. Thus one or more differences according to antecedent basis. Thus, it is indefinite how a zero-touch configuration is executed that involves at least one touch, particularly as the specification correctly identifies a difference between zero touch and low touch provisioning (par. 5, 15 as published, whereby LTP involves human intervention, ZTP may include LTP, but LTP does not include ZTP).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madan et al (hereinafter “Madan”, 2024/0224122), in view of Krishnan et al (hereinafter “Krishnan”, 2023/0083011).
As per Claim 1, Madan discloses a method implemented by a computer system to collect data for an open radio access network (O-RAN) to facilitate operations of the O-RAN, wherein the method comprises:
collecting cell site data for individual cell sites during installation of the cell sites (at least paragraph 35, 37; site controller 101 captures a plurality of parameters associated with the cell site and sends the plurality of parameters to the inventory 102, where the inventory 102 stores the plurality of parameters), wherein the cell site data, captured during an installation or set up of the cell sites, or a core infrastructure, indicates attributes that indicate position data about at least one or more of antennas, cells, or cell sites (at least paragraph 35, 37; cell site information include cell site to datacenters connectivity details and cell site location information (e.g. latitude, longitude, etc.), a height of the cell site(s));
storing the cell site data in an inventory system (at least paragraph 37; the site controller 101 captures a plurality of parameters associated with the cell site and sends the plurality of parameters to the inventory 102, where the inventory 102 stores the plurality of parameters);
collecting operator data from at least one operator of the O-RAN (at least paragraph 11, 35, 40-41; auto-commissioning server 103 receives inputs (e.g., cell site planning data, IP address, unique hostnames, TLS credentials, etc.) from the network entity 104 (i.e. the RF planning tool 104a, the IP address controller 104b, the name controller 104c, and the security engine 104d) in order to begin automatic deployment of one or more V-RAN applications or one or more network functions (e.g. a Centralized Unit Control plane (CUCP), Centralized Unit User Plane (CUUP), and virtual Distributed Unit (vDU); RF planning data, RU mapping information etc; “receiving, by the auto-commissioning server, a Radio Access Network (RAN) planning data and a Radio Unit (RU) mapping information with the network function(s) from the RAN planning tool. The network function includes a Centralized Unit Control plane (CUCP), Centralized Unit User Plane (CUUP), and virtual Distributed Unit (vDU)”);
storing the operator data in the inventory system (at least paragraph 29-30; day zero configuration may comprise a configuration required to deploy one or more network functions of vRANs over a cloud server. The network function(s) of vRANs may be at least one of cloud native, virtual, or containerized. In some embodiments, the day zero configuration comprises configuration of connection points (e.g., external interfaces and IPs of an associated network function), endpoint details of northbound systems, and images of the network function. Further, the method may include deploying, by the auto-commissioning server, the network function(s) of vRANs into the cloud server based on the automatically generated day zero configuration);
collecting device data provided by at least one vendor of devices in the O-RAN (at least paragraph 35, 37; information including MAC address of elements eg. radio devices; plurality of parameters includes cell site information and datacenter information. The cell site information and the datacenter information include physical information associated with each network entity of the cell site and the datacenters);
storing the device data in the inventory system at a planning stage or a preparation stage for the O-RAN (at least paragraph 35-41, 31; cell site planning data inventory 102; Element Management System (EMS));
retrieving data that includes the cell site data, the operator data, and the device data from the inventory system (at least paragraph 35-41, 45-47; auto-commissioning server 103 sends a request to the inventory 102 for the cell site information and the datacenter information upon receiving the connectivity information from the site controller 101);
validating the retrieved cell site data against specification data determined from the device data, the specification data indicating planned attributes for a planned installation of the cell site (at least paragraph 45-47; auto-commissioning server 103 monitors a status of the deployment of the network function(s). Specifically, the auto-commissioning server 103 receives the status message from the cloud server 107. The status message includes indication of a successful deployment of the network function(s) and/or a deployment failure of the network function(s)); and
notifying an owner of the cell site data to update the inventory system to the cell site data collected during the installation to resolve the difference between the one or more planned attributes and the field attributes of the cell site data (at least paragraph 12-13, 45-50; the auto-commissioning server 103 sends a request to the inventory 102 to store updated information for the successful deployment of the network function(s), where the updated information includes the status message along with a logical identifier (e.g., FQDN, the unique hostname, etc.) related to the network function(s); auto-commissioning server 103 monitors a status of the deployment of the network function(s). Specifically, the auto-commissioning server 103 receives the status message from the cloud server 107. The status message includes indication of a successful deployment of the network function(s) and/or a deployment failure of the network function(s); auto-commissioning server 103 sends a request to the configuration management device 105 to generate a day-one configuration of the network function based on receiving the status message (i.e., successfully deployment/successfully running). The day-one configuration comprises a configuration that is required to render the virtualized/containerized network function fully operational); and
executing zero-touch operations associated with configuration of the O-RAN (at least paragraph 35; exemplary call flow of FIGS. 1A-2, in combination, represents an end-to-end auto-commissioning process (e.g., 5G macro vRAN auto-commissioning process). In some embodiments, the call flow represents a zero-touch provisioning of a 5G macro vRAN services in an automated way).
Madan fails to explicitly disclose wherein validating the data includes comparing at least a portion of field attributes of the cell site data with the planned attributes of the specification data to determine that one or more of the planned attributes of the specification data are different from the field attributes of the cell site data collected during the installation, with zero-touch operations after the difference between the one or more planned attributes is resolved.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Krishnan. Krishnan discloses, in an analogous art, an automated testing of a cell site being done in a timely manner so that installation of the cell site deployments are validated upon installation by, for example, ensuring inventory of the cell site matches serial numbers obtained of the RU or network function and comparing to expected values, and/or validating a direction of transmission of antenna being in conformance with the direction planned for the radio (at least paragraph 35-40, 45-46). Krishnan also discloses in par. 49-55 that the steps after validating and testing and correcting any differences on connectivity, the configuration of the radios starts in step 6, for example. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Krishnan’s validation with Madan as Krishnan teaches this allows a technician on site to quickly validate their install work as well as antenna validation without time on top of the tower.
As per Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the operator data comprises information indicating an error of the O-RAN detected by the at least one operator (at least paragraph 47; auto-commissioning server 103 monitors a status of the deployment of the network function(s). Specifically, the auto-commissioning server 103 receives the status message from the cloud server 107. The status message includes indication of a successful deployment of the network function(s) and/or a deployment failure of the network function(s)).
As per Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the cell site data comprises at least one of : antenna information indicating one or more aspects of an antenna located in a particular cell site of the O-RAN, site information indicating one or more aspects about the particular cell site, or radio unit (RU) information indicating one or more aspects about a radio unit associated with the particular cell site (at least paragraph 37; cell site information include cell site to datacenters connectivity details and cell site location information (e.g. latitude, longitude, etc.), a height of the cell site(s) and/or datacenters, a number of physical sectors present on a cell site, a type of antenna model installed on the cell site(s)).
As per Claim 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the antenna information indicating at least one of: an installed height, a model number, a mechanical tilt, and/or an electric tilt of a particular antenna installed at the particular cell site (at least paragraph 37; cell site information include cell site to datacenters connectivity details and cell site location information (e.g. latitude, longitude, etc.), a height of the cell site(s) and/or datacenters, a number of physical sectors present on a cell site, a type of antenna model installed on the cell site(s)).
As per Claim 6. The method claim 4, wherein the site information comprises at least one of: a name of the particular cell site, a latitude of the particular cell site, a longitude of the particular cell site, an address of the particular cell site, a country where the particular cell site is located, or a city where the particular cell site is located (at least paragraph 37; examples of the cell site information include cell site to datacenters connectivity details and cell site location information (e.g. latitude, longitude, etc.)).
As per Claim 7. The method of claim 4, wherein the RU information comprises at least one of: a name of the radio unit, or an identification of the radio unit (at least paragraph 41, 69; (RU) mapping information).
As per Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the device data comprises at least information indicating a computer server in the O-RAN (at least paragraph 36).
As per Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: updating the specification data after validating the data (at least paragraph 49; auto-commissioning server 103 sends a request to the inventory 102 to store updated information for the successful deployment of the network function(s), where the updated information includes the status message along with a logical identifier (e.g., FQDN, the unique hostname, etc.) related to the network function(s)).
Claims 10-11, 13-18 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1-2, 4-9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madan in view of Krishnan, further in view of Taylor (hereinafter “Taylor”, 8,411,578).
Madan and Krishnan fail to disclose wherein the operator data comprises daily auto report of errors generated by the at least one operator. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Taylor. Taylor discloses, in an analogous communication network management art, a network operator receiving automatic daily report of device exceptions (at least col. 7:15-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Taylor’s reports with Madan/ Krishnan as Taylor discloses (col. 4:26-34) proactive maintenance allows network operators to anticipate problems where they may occur in the future and be more severe and such reporting being well known in the art as evidenced by Taylor to be at a periodic interval that suits the network operator depending on the amount of networks being monitored, for example.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Expanding on the 112 Rejection, if the suggestion is that the zero-touch is ‘after the difference is resolved’, that is not persuasive as any small incremental time period could be said to be ‘zero-touch’ and would be simply using the status of the term without it’s true meaning, in the art and numerical value. For example, with Madan’s zero-touch provisioning, the zero-touch refers to the flow of Fig. 1A, 1B, and 2 (see par. 35) as is commonly used in the art, but the term could also be after steps 1-19, and simply S20 is the ‘zero-touch configuration’ after steps 1-19 or S15 is zero-touch after steps 1-14 and before steps 16-20.
Applicant argues that Madan does not disclose such validating and updating the inventory system before executing zero-touch operations.
However, see the above 112 Rejection for clarity purposes. Madan teaches a portion of the validation step as Madan teaches in paragraph 45-47 that the “auto-commissioning server 103 monitors a status of the deployment of the network function(s). Specifically, the auto-commissioning server 103 receives the status message from the cloud server 107. The status message includes indication of a successful deployment of the network function(s) and/or a deployment failure of the network function(s)” and if such deployment is successful, the commissioning of the cell site is operational with zero-touch provisioning (at least paragraph 35). If the deployment is not successful the zero touch provisioning would be halted for sending a status message of a deployment failure, which with Madan would inherently have the deployment failure be resolved in some manner and provisioning from there and not abandoning the cell site. While Krishnan discloses more details on a validation and testing producing an irregularity and correcting the issue before commencing the configuration.
Regarding the argument no references teach resolving the difference, Krishnan discloses, in an analogous art, an automated testing of a cell site being done in a timely manner so that installation of the cell site deployments are validated upon installation by, for example, ensuring inventory of the cell site matches serial numbers obtained of the RU or network function and comparing to expected values, and/or validating a direction of transmission of antenna being in conformance with the direction planned for the radio (at least paragraph 35-40, 45-46). Thus, Krishnan teaches if an antenna tilt is tested and not validated with a 1 degree difference, the tilt can be remotely adjusted and tilted that 1 degree, re-tested and validating and configured for operation as the cell site is ready at that point.
See also PTO-892 Thyni et al Background for a method of solving ORAN planned cell data with actual physical installation data:
[0010] The work effort in the planning phase of a mobile network rollout may be large and may drive Operational Expenditures (OPEX). With the introduction of 5G with a tighter grid (for example, reduced Inter Site Distances (ISDs), e.g., using small cells), there may be even more planning work. At the installation time, the planned antenna placement is used, but often the planned placement must be adjusted to the real physical environment, and these adjustments may not be documented. There may also be situations when changes/adjustments are made after installation due to changes in the surrounding environment, connectivity network, and/or by adding additional resources (e.g., Radio and/or Baseband resources), resulting in additional planning, re-configuration, and/or documentation effort. There may also be an increased probability for mistakes/errors in planning, physical installation of connections and/or configuration parameters for Radio, BB, and/or Transport equipment/node ports, and this may increase costs for troubleshooting and expensive extra site visits and reconfigurations due to Network Roll Out (NRO) Cost of Sales (CoS) and/or time spent on site for installation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/GREGORY TODD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights