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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the first written description argument, the Examiner agrees that the applicant has support for vendor RAN swapping (described with respect to Figure 7) and deploying artifacts (described with respect to Figure 8) but the applicant does not disclose that deploying artifacts is part of vendor RAN swapping operations as claimed. The did not originally disclose any explanation of how the flow charts of Figure 7 and 8 correspond to each other. With respect to the second written description issue, the rejection has been revised based on the applicant’s amendment. The applicant’s amendments to claims 8 and 14 did not address the issues with respect to 112b and 112d, respectively, presented in the last office action. With respect to the prior art, the amended limitations are mapped in the current rejection. The Examiner notes that the applicant has literal support in paragraph 108, but nothing more, for the examples of operations performed in the claims. The applicant has not disclosed any technology for performing the claimed operations that can be found patentable over the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Written Description Issue #1
Claim 1 features the following limitations:
identifying, by the one or more processors, operations to perform the vendor RAN swap from the first vendor to a second vendor based on data associated with the second vendor, wherein the one or more workflows operations include:
first operations to reconfigure one or more computer hosts at the cell site from a first configuration specified by the first vendor to a second configuration specified by the second vendor for use by the one or second 0-RAN components of the second vendor, wherein the first operations include one or more of hypervisor changing operations, firmware changing operations, or BIOS changing operations;
second operations to deploy the one or more second 0-RAN components supplied from a second vendor at the cell site, wherein the second operations include:
determining one or more artifacts provided by the second vendor to deploy from a repository, wherein the repository includes one or more other artifacts associated with the first vendor; and
deploying the one or more artifacts;
Claim 9 features the following limitations:
determine operations to perform a vendor RAN swap of one or more first O-RAN components, deployed at one or more cell sites, supplied from a first vendor to one or more second O-RAN components supplied by a second vendor, wherein the operations include:
first operations to reconfigure one or more computer hosts at the cell site for use by components associated with the second vendor, wherein the one or more first O-RAN components and the one or more second O-RAN components include at least one or more of a radio resource management (RRC) component, a near-real-time (RT) radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller (RIC) component, a non-RT RIC, an O-RAN Central Unit (O-CU) component, an O-RAN Central Unit - Control Plane (O-CU-CP) component, an O-CU-user plane (UP) component, an O-RAN Distributed Unit (0-DU) component, an O-RAN Radio Unit (0-RU) component, or a cell site router (CSR) component, wherein the first operations further include one or more of hypervisor changing operations, firmware changing operations, or BIOS changing operations; and
second operations to deploy the one or more second O-RAN components supplied from a second vendor at the cell site, wherein the second operations include:
identifying one or more artifacts provided by the second vendor to deploy from a repository, wherein the repository includes one or more other artifacts associated with the first vendor; and
deploying the one or more artifacts;
Claim 16 features the following limitations:
determine operations to perform a vendor RAN swap of one or more first O-RAN components, deployed at one or more cell sites, supplied from a first vendor to one or more second O-RAN components supplied from a second vendor, wherein the operations include:
first operations to configure one or more computer hosts at the cell site for use by components associated with the second vendor, wherein the one or more first O-RAN components and the one or more second O-RAN components include at least one or more of a radio resource management (RRC) component, a near-real-time (RT) radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller (RIC) component, a non-RT RIC, an O-RAN Central Unit (O-CU) component, an O-RAN Central Unit - Control Plane (O-CU-CP) component, an O-CU-user plane (UP) component, an O-RAN Distributed Unit (0-DU) component, an O-RAN Radio Unit (O-RU) component, or a cell site router (CSR) component, wherein the first operations include one or more of hypervisor changing operations, firmware changing operations, or BIOS changing operations; and
second operations to deploy the one or more second O-RAN components supplied from a second vendor at the cell site, wherein the second operations include:
identifying one or more artifacts provided by the second vendor to deploy from a data store, wherein the data store includes one or more other artifacts associated with the first vendor; and
deploying the one or more artifacts;
The applicant did not disclose that operations to perform a vendor RAN swap include operations for deploying artifacts. Although Figure 7 and paragraph 105 shows step 706 as performing a determination of artifacts to deploy, the actually deployment of artifacts is described with respect to Figure 8, described in paragraphs 115-117. Figure 7 does not state that the RAN swap includes an operation for deploying an artifact. There is no disclosure that the deployment that occurs in Figure 8 is part of the vendor RAN swapping process described with respect to Figure 7. There is no description of the relationship between the operations performed with respect step 708 which is described as performing the vendor RAN swapping and the deployment of artifacts described in paragraphs 115-117. The applicant’s amendments create a process that was not contemplated by the original disclosure because the applicant did not disclose what the deployment of artifacts has to do with vendor RAN swapping. Operations that include deploying artifacts are not disclosed as part of operations for performing a vendor RAN swap.
Written Description Issue #2
Claim 1 features the following limitation:
monitoring, by the one or more processors, the execution of the operations to determine that a timeout has occurred, and determining based on monitoring that the execution of the operations was unsuccessful, and in response, generating an error.
The applicant did not disclose a single monitoring step for the claimed operations which include the first and second operations. The claimed monitoring is disclosed in paragraph 123. This monitoring is disclosed with respect to operations of the workflow. As shown in Figures 7 and 8 and their corresponding disclosures, the operations of the workflow (shown in Figure 7), which the first operations cover are different than the operations deploying the artifact (shown in Figure 8), which the second operations cover. Paragraph 123 only supports monitoring for timeouts with the claimed first operations and not operations which include both the claimed first and second operations.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the O-ran component of one or more second O-Ran components at the cell site". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites multiple O-RAN components from differing vendors so it is not clear which one of the O-Ran components at the cell site the applicant is referring to.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 covers an action performed by a vendor which is a third party and thus does not limit the computer system of claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 11,800,404 to Yang et al.
As to claim 9, Yang teaches a computer system including one or more electronic processors configured to perform vendor RAN swapping of O-RAN components (col. 23, lines 25-33) wherein the one or more electronic processors perform operations, comprising: determine operations to perform a vendor RAN swap of one or more first O-RAN components, deployed at one or more cell sites, supplied from a first vendor to one or more second O-RAN components supplied from a second vendor (col. 14, lines 7-32), wherein the operations include: first operations to configure one or more computer hosts at the cell site for use by components associated with the second vendor (col. 32, lines 33-45, step 1821), wherein the one or more first O-RAN components and the one or more second O-RAN components include an O-RU component (col. 32, lines 46-53), wherein the first operations include hypervisor changing operation (col. 34, lines 8-11) or a firmware changing operation (col. 32, line 65-col. 33, line 3); and second operations to deploy the one or more second O-RAN components supplied from a second vendor at the cell site, wherein the second operations include: identifying one or more artifacts identified by the second vendor to deploy from a repository, wherein the repository includes one or more other artifacts associated with the first vendor (col. 14, lines 7-32 and col. 32, line 46-col. 33, line 3); and deploying the one or more artifacts (step 1829); and executing, by the one or more processors, the operations that include the first operations and the second operations (Figure 18).
As to claim 10, see col. 31, lines 1-10 for inventory verification, col. 34, lines 8-11 for hypervisor changing operations, and col. 32, lines 33-45 for reserving IP addresses operations.
As to claim 15, see col. 32, lines 46-53.
As to claim 16, Yang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to facilitate vendor radio access network (RAN) swapping of open radio access network (0-RAN) components (col. 23, lines 25-33) and wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium, when executed by a computer at a first location, causes the computer to: determine operations to perform a vendor RAN swap of one or more first O-RAN components, deployed at one or more cell sites, supplied from a first vendor to one or more second O-RAN components supplied from a second vendor (col 14, lines 7-32), wherein the operations include: operations to configure one or more computer hosts at the cell site for use by components associated with the second vendor (col. 32, lines 33-45, step 1821), wherein the one or more first O-RAN components and the one or more second O-RAN components include an O-RU component (col. 32, lines 46-53) wherein the first operations include hypervisor changing operation (col. 34, lines 8-11) or a firmware changing operation (col. 32, line 65-col. 33, line 3); and second operations to deploy the one or more second O-RAN components supplied from a second vendor at the cell site, wherein the second operations include: identifying one or more artifacts identified by the second vendor to deploy from a repository, wherein the repository includes one or more other artifacts associated with the first vendor (col. 14, lines 7-32 and col. 32, line 46-col. 33, line 3); and deploying the one or more artifacts (step 1829); and executing, by the one or more processors, the operations that include the first operations and the second operations (Figure 18).
As to claim 20, see col. 32, lines 46-53.
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, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,800,404 to Yang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,978,911 to Knox et al.
As to claim 1, Yang teaches a method for vendor RAN swapping of O-RAN components (col. 23, lines 25-33) the method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors located at a first location that is different from second locations of base stations associated with cell sites, a request (ref. no. 1814), to perform a vendor RAN swap of one or more first O-RAN components supplied by a first vendor deployed at the cell site to one or more second O-RAN components supplied from a second vendor (col. 14, lines 7-32 and col. 32, lines 46-col. 33, line 3), wherein the one or more first O-RAN components and the one or more second O-RAN components include an O-RU component (col. 32, lines 46-53); identifying operations to perform the vendor RAN swap from the first vendor to a second vendor based on data associated with the second vendor, wherein the operations include: first operations to reconfigure (the applicant defines configuration/reconfiguration in the exact same process) one or more hosts at the cell site from a first configuration specified by the first vendor to a second configuration specified by the second vendor by use of the one or more O-RAN components of the second vendor (col. 32, lines 33-45 and steps 1821 and 1826), wherein the first operations include hypervisor changing operation (col. 34, lines 8-11) or a firmware changing operation (col. 32, line 65-col. 33, line 3); second operations to deploy the one or more second O-RAN components supplied from a second vendor at the cell site, wherein the second operations include: identifying one or more artifacts identified by the second vendor to deploy from a repository, wherein the repository includes one or more other artifacts associated with the first vendor (col. 14, lines 7-32 and col. 32, line 46-col. 33, line 3); and deploying the one or more artifacts (step 1829); and executing, by the one or more processors, the operations that include the first operations and the second operations (Figure 18); monitoring execution of the operations and determined based on monitoring that the execution of operations was unsuccessful and in response generating an error (col. 33, lines 3-15); however Yang does not explicitly teach generating an error in response to timeout occurring.
Knox teaches a method of monitoring operations of software installation including determining that a timeout has occurred, and in response, generating an error (col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 24).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the network provisioning art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Yang regarding software installation with the teachings of Knox regarding error recovery because such monitoring improves performance (see Background of Knox).
As to claim 2, see col. 31, lines 1-10 of Yang for inventory verification.
As to claim 5, see col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 24 of Knox.
As to claim 7, see col. 32, lines 46-53 of Yang.
As to claim 8, see col. 32, line 46-col. 33, line 3 of Yang.
As to claims 13 and 19, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,800,404 to Yang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,978,911 to Knox et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0086473 by Deliwala et al.
As to claims 3 and 4, the Yang-Knox combination teaches the subject matter of claim 1 however the Yang-Knox combination does not explicitly teach the claimed validation technique.
Figure 9 shows of Deliwala shows the claimed validation technique.
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the network provisioning art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Yang regarding RAN swapping with the teachings of Deliwala regarding validating whether components are provisioned successfully because Deliwala provides a generalized computing technique for resolving errors that is applicable to any error situations that would occur when implementing the pipelines of Yang.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,800,404 to Yang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0086473 by Deliwala et al.
As to claims 11 and 12, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 3 and 4.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,800,404 to Yang et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Number 5,978,911 to Knox et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0177877 by Suarez et al.
As to claim 14, the Yang-Knox combination teaches the subject matter of claims 13 however they do not explicitly teach a vendor providing artifacts to a repository.
Suarez teaches a system including first vendors providing one or more artifacts to a repository (paragraph 75).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the network provisioning art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Yang regarding managing software swaps with the teachings of Suarez regarding vendors providing artifacts to a repository because Suarez provides a specific way for the vendors, referenced in Yang, to provide software.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,800,404 to Yang et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0106661 by Cardona et al.
As to claim 17, Yang teaches the subject matter of claim 16 however Yang does not explicitly teach that the operation of configuring specifies changing a driver.
Cardona teaches performing first operations for changing a driver before installing software (paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network provisioning art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Yang regarding performing first operations with the teachings of Cardona regarding driver change operations because a vendor’s software could need new drivers in order to run.
As to claim 18, see col. 33, lines 4-10 of Yang.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number 11,800,404 to Yang et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Number 5,978,911 to Knox et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0106661 by Cardona et al.
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454