DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 2/10/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-5,7-12 and 14-20 are rejected.
Claims 6 and 13 is objected to for having allowable subject matter.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 2/10/2026. Claims 1,3,5-7,9-15,18 and 20 were amended and claims 1-20 remain pending.
Amendment to claim 6 in response to rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) has been considered. The amendment to the claims obviates previously raised rejection, as such this rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the limitation “determining, by the RIC…” which lacks antecedent basis. The limitation appears to be a typographical error and is meant to recite the limitation “by the non-RT RIC” accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4,15,16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curic et al. (US Pub. 2024/0098568)(C1 hereafter) in view of Han et al. (WO 2022/182396)(H1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1,16, and 18, C1 teaches a non-real time (non-RT) Radio Access Network Intelligent Controller (RIC) for a radio access network (RAN) [refer Fig. 3][paragraph 0045], the RIC comprising:
one or more processors [paragraph 0064]; and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions [paragraph 0064] to cause the one or more processors to:
receive a request from one or more applications [refer Fig. 3; 132] to perform a second service using an interface (i.e. A1 interface) of the non-RT RIC (rApps on non-RT RIC issue policies to xApps over A1 interface to govern behaviors [paragraph 0056], the xApps can request services such as changing load balancing thresholds which can pose conflicts [paragraph 0058]);
determine whether the second service would cause a conflict [paragraph 0063]; and
perform an action to address the conflict based on the determination that the second service would cause a conflict [paragraph 0068].
However, C1 fails to disclose in response to receiving the request from the one or more applications to perform the second service, determine whether the second service to be performed would cause a conflict with a first service of a prior request from the one or more applications, and the action to address the conflict is based on the second service to be performed would cause a conflict with the first service of the prior request from the one or more applications.
H1, in the same field of endeavor, discloses conflict resolution to resolve potential conflicts or overlaps that may be caused by requests from multiple xApps (i.e. address conflict based on the service to be performed would cause a conflict)[paragraph 0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for addressing conflicts in a radio access network [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate conflict mitigation to resolve potential overlapping or conflicting requests from multiple xApps that can occur as taught by H1. One would be motivated to do so to address potential conflicts that can arise from multiple received requests from multiple applications before they occur [refer H1; paragraph 0097] rather than after.
Regarding claims 2,17 and 19, C1 teaches the interface comprises an Al interface, a 01 interface, a 02 interface, or an R1 interface of the non-RT RIC [paragraph 0039].
Regarding claims 3 and 20, C1 teaches to perform the action to address the conflict, performing one or more of: implement the second service based a scope of a policy of the second service (the conflict mitigator determines whether the update should be confirmed/applied or rejected based upon received policies)[paragraph 0075].
Regarding claim 4, C1 teaches the action (i.e. recommendation)[paragraph 0061] is user configurable [paragraph 0123].
Regarding claim 15, C1 teaches determining whether the service has a conflict [paragraph 0063], the one or more processors are configured to determine whether the second service has at least one of a direct conflict, an indirect conflict, or an implicit conflict with the first service [paragraph 0057].
However, C1 fails to disclose whether the second service to be performed would cause a conflict with the first service of the prior request from the one or more applications.
H1, in the same field of endeavor, discloses conflict resolution to resolve potential conflicts or overlaps that may be caused by requests from multiple xApps (i.e. address conflict based on the service to be performed would cause a conflict)[paragraph 0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for addressing conflicts in a radio access network [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate conflict mitigation to resolve potential overlapping or conflicting requests from multiple xApps as taught by H1. One would be motivated to do so to address potential conflicts that can arise from multiple received requests from multiple applications before they occur [refer H1; paragraph 0097] rather than after.
Claims 5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C1 in view of H1, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Ying et al. (US Pub. 2024/0214272)(Y1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 5, C1 doesn’t expressly disclose the prior request form the one or more applications comprises a first policy, the request from the one or more applications to perform the second service comprises a second policy and to determine whether the second service to be performed would cause a conflict with the first service of the prior request form the one or more applications comprises determining whether one or more statements of the first policy contradict one or more statements of the second policy, at least a portion of the first policy and the second policy overlap.
Y1, in the field of identifying a conflict associated with common or overlapping policies between two applications (i.e. Apps)[refer Abstract], discloses that if A1 policy generation rApps set contradicting policy statements to the same or overlapping policy scope identifier, the A1 policy function resolves the conflicts by modifying the A1 policies [paragraph 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for addressing conflicts in a radio access network [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate addressing conflicts associated with common or overlapping policies between applications as taught by Y1. One would be motivated to do so to provide specific conflict mitigation for a non-RT RIC [refer Y1; paragraph 0054].
Regarding claim 7, C1 fails to disclose the request from the one or more applications to perform the second services comprises a request for conflict guidance for the second service and receiving, from a second application of the one or more applications, and provide a guidance response to the second application based on the determination that the second service has a conflict.
Y1, in the field of identifying a conflict associated with common or overlapping policies between two applications (i.e. Apps)[refer Abstract], discloses that a A1 policy allows for a non-RT RIC to guide near-RT RICs towards fulfillment [paragraph 0036], if A1 policy generation rApps set contradicting policy statements to the same or overlapping policy scope identifier, the A1 policy function resolves the conflicts by modifying the A1 policies (i.e. providing guidance response)[paragraph 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for addressing conflicts in a radio access network [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate addressing conflicts associated with common or overlapping policies between applications as taught by Y1. One would be motivated to do so to provide specific conflict mitigation for a non-RT RIC [refer Y1; paragraph 0054].
Regarding claim 8, C1, in view of Y1, teaches the guidance response comprises one or more of: one or more recommendations to resolve the conflict [paragraph 0061]; or information identifying a cause of the conflict [paragraph 0068].
Regarding claim 9, C1 teaches the prior request from the one or more applications comprises a first request to configure [paragraph 0057] an O-RAN managed element [refer Fig. 1; 100][paragraph 0039].
However, C1 fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the request from the one or more applications to perform the second service comprises a second request to configure the O-RAN managed element, and to determine whether the second service to be performed would cause a conflict with the first service of the prior request from the one or more applications, the instructions further cause the one or more processors to: determine whether the first request to configure the O-RAN managed element contradicts the second request to configure the O-RAN managed element.
Y1, in the field of identifying a conflict associated with common or overlapping policies between two applications (i.e. Apps)[refer Abstract], discloses that the O-RAN non-real time RIC is a logical function (i.e. managed element) within a framework to control and optimize RAN elements and resources [paragraph 0176], if A1 policy generation rApps set contradicting policy statements to the same or overlapping policy scope identifier, the A1 policy function resolves the conflicts by modifying the A1 policies [paragraph 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for addressing conflicts in a radio access network [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate addressing conflicts associated with common or overlapping policies between applications as taught by Y1. One would be motivated to do so to provide specific conflict mitigation for a non-RT RIC [refer Y1; paragraph 0054].
Regarding claim 10, C1 teaches prior request from the one or more application comprises a first request for a performance job [paragraph 0057] of an O-RAN managed element [refer Fig. 1; 100][paragraph 0039].
However, C1 fails to disclose the request from the one or more applications to perform the second service comprises a second request for a performance job of the O-RAN managed element, and to determine whether the second service to be performed would cause a conflict with the first service of the prior request from the one or more applications, determining whether the first request for the performance job of the O-RAN managed element contradicts the second request for the performance job of the O-RAN managed element.
Y1, in the field of identifying a conflict associated with common or overlapping policies between two applications (i.e. Apps)[refer Abstract], discloses that the O-RAN non-real time RIC is a logical function (i.e. managed element) within a framework to control and optimize RAN elements and resources [paragraph 0176], if A1 policy generation rApps set contradicting policy statements to the same or overlapping policy scope identifier, the A1 policy function resolves the conflicts by modifying the A1 policies [paragraph 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for addressing conflicts in a radio access network [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate addressing conflicts associated with common or overlapping policies between applications as taught by Y1. One would be motivated to do so to provide specific conflict mitigation for a non-RT RIC [refer Y1; paragraph 0054].
Regarding claim 11, C1 teaches the prior request from the one or more applications comprises a first request a first configuration management service [paragraph 0057] to configure a physical infrastructure node (i.e. system)[refer Fig. 1; 100] that hosts O-RAN functions [paragraph 0039].
However, C1 fails to explicitly disclose the request from the one or more applications to perform the second service comprises a second request for the configuration management service to configure the physical infrastructure node that hosts O-RAN functions, and to determine whether the second service to be performed would cause a conflict with the first service of the prior request from the one or more application, determining whether the first request for the configuration management service to configure the physical infrastructure node that hosts O-RAN functions contradicts the second request for the configuration management service to configure the physical infrastructure node that hosts O-RAN functions.
Y1, in the field of identifying a conflict associated with common or overlapping policies between two applications (i.e. Apps)[refer Abstract], discloses that the O-RAN non-real time RIC is a logical function (i.e. managed element) within a framework to control and optimize RAN elements and resources [paragraph 0176], if A1 policy generation rApps set contradicting policy statements to the same or overlapping policy scope identifier, the A1 policy function resolves the conflicts by modifying the A1 policies [paragraph 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for addressing conflicts in a radio access network [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate addressing conflicts associated with common or overlapping policies between applications as taught by Y1. One would be motivated to do so to provide specific conflict mitigation for a non-RT RIC [refer Y1; paragraph 0054].
Regarding claim 12, C1 teaches the prior request from the one or more applications comprises a first request for a performance management service to monitor performance [paragraph 0103] of a physical infrastructure node that hosts O-RAN functions [refer Fig. 1; 100][paragraph 0039].
However, C1 fails to explicitly disclose the request from the one or more applications to perform the second service comprises a second request for the performance management service to monitor performance of the physical infrastructure node that hosts 0-RAN functions, and, to determine whether the second service to be performed would cause a conflict with the first service of the prior request from the one or more applications, determining whether the first request for the performance management service to monitor performance of the physical infrastructure node that hosts O-RAN functions contradicts the second request for the performance management service to monitor performance of the physical infrastructure node that hosts O-RAN functions.
Y1, in the field of identifying a conflict associated with common or overlapping policies between two applications (i.e. Apps)[refer Abstract], discloses that the O-RAN non-real time RIC is a logical function (i.e. managed element) within a framework to control and optimize RAN elements and resources [paragraph 0176], if A1 policy generation rApps set contradicting policy statements to the same or overlapping policy scope identifier, the A1 policy function resolves the conflicts by modifying the A1 policies [paragraph 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for addressing conflicts in a radio access network [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate addressing conflicts associated with common or overlapping policies between applications as taught by Y1. One would be motivated to do so to provide specific conflict mitigation for a non-RT RIC [refer Y1; paragraph 0054].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C1 in view of H1, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Cao et al. (US Pub. 2023/0344717)(C2 hereafter).
Regarding claim 14, C1 fails to disclose to determine whether the second service to be performed would cause a conflict with the first service of the prior request from the one or more applications, determining whether an attribute value of a Managed Object Instance (MOI) of the first configuration request from the one or more applications is different than an attribute value of an MOI of the second configuration prior request from the one or more applications.
C2, in the field of policy conflict management for a network [refer Abstract], discloses determining whether a policy (i.e. managed object instance) conflict occurs, determining whether specific information (i.e. attribute value) of the policy conflicts (i.e. determine a difference)[paragraph 0290].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for addressing conflicts in a radio access network [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate the identification of whether a policy conflicts with another based upon specific information or attributes as taught by C2. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of resolving a policy conflict [refer C2; paragraph 0005].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably disclose a request from one or more applications to perform the second services comprises a policy, and to determine whether the second service to be performed would cause a conflict with the first service of the prior request from the one or more applications comprises determining whether one or more statements within a policy of the application exceeds a configurable parameter, as noted in claim 6, and
determining whether a service has a conflict by determining, based on a comparison of a first configuration request of the application with a second configuration request of the application or a different application, whether a target distinguished name (DN) of the first configuration request overlaps a target DN of the second configuration request and determining, based on the comparison of the first configuration request of the application with the second configuration request of the application or a different application, whether a Managed Object Instance (MOI) and attribute of the MOI of the first configuration request overlaps with an MOI and attribute of the MOI of the second configuration request, as noted in claim 13
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1,16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Han et al. (WO 2022/182396)(H1 hereafter) as noted in the above rejection to address the new claim language that requires that a determination that a received request would cause a conflict with a prior request.
It is noted that upon further review, claims 3 and 20 were not properly addressed in the prior Non-Final rejection and accordingly a new grounds of rejection has been made to address these claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights