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 . This Action is in response to Applicant’s remarks and amended claims filed on June 11,1016. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
2. The outstanding rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claims 1, 9, and 15 filed June 11, 2026.
Specification
3. The amendments to the specification regarding the title received on June 11, 2026. These amendments to the title are NOT accepted.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0224122 A1), in view of Sambandan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0029632 A1), and Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0236763 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Madan et al. teach a method for centralized unit (CU) deployment for one or more cell sites (Fig.1A @ S4-S7), the method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a request to deploy one or more CUs (read as receiving inputs parameters for one or more network functions (e.g.: CUCP, CUUP) (Paragraph [0040]));
obtaining, by the one or more processors, the parameters (read as “the auto-commissioning server 103 takes all the inputs/dynamic parameters (e.g., parameters obtained via steps S4 to S7) and fills them (inputs/dynamic parameters) into those templates in an automated manner.”(Paragraph [0045]));
generating, by the one or more processors (Fig.3 @ 103b), CU deployment data that includes the parameters (read as “the auto-commissioning server 103 integrates with the name controller 104c to generate the unique hostname for the network function(s) and a gNodeB ID for vRAN network service.”(Paragraph [0043])); and
causing, by the one or more processors (Fig.3 @ 103b), an automatic deployment of the one or more CUs within one or more computing environments based, at least in part, on the IP addresses and parameters. (read as automatic deployment of one or more network functions (Paragraph(s) [0040] and [0063]) For example, “the 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))”(Paragraph [0040]) For example, “the auto-commissioning engine 103d receives the plurality of IP addresses for the network function(s) and the RU 109 of the cell site from the IP address controller 104b. The plurality of IP addresses is generated based on the selected inventory 102 for the deployment of the network function(s).” (Paragraph [0063]))
However, Madan et al. fail to explicitly teach determining parameters used to deploy the CUs; and
programmatically determining Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for the one or more CUs based, at least in part, on a relative placement of individual ones of the one or more CUs within a cluster of a computing environment;
Sambandan et al. teach a method for determining parameters used to deploy the CUs. (read as a service orchestration tool (Fig.2 @ 227, 4C-4E, and 5A-5B; Paragraph(s) [0038], [0041]-[0042], and [0045]-[0046]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the service orchestration tool as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of enhancing access management of devices in a communication network.
However, Madan et al. and Sambandan et al. fail to explicitly teach programmatically determining Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for the one or more CUs based, at least in part, on a relative placement of individual ones of the one or more CUs within a cluster of a computing environment;
Suzuki et al. teach a method for programmatically determining Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for the one or more CUs (Fig.1 @ 230) based, at least in part, on a relative placement of individual ones of the one or more CUs (Fig.1 @ 230) within a cluster of a computing environment (read as “the MTU value determined based on the packet size of the incoming packets received from the CU 230 may be applied to outgoing packets to be transmitted from the AMF 210 to the CUs 230 in the group to which the CU 230 concerned belongs.”(Fig.1; Paragraph [0132]) Further, “the nodes belonging to the same group can be determined to be nodes of which IP addresses are within a predetermined IP address range or nodes belonging to the same subnet.”(Fig.1;Paragraph [0132]));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for determining IP addresses that are within IP address range for nodes in a subnet as taught by Suzuki et al. and the service orchestration tool as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of improving identifying devices in a subnet based on IP address(es).
Regarding claim 9, Madan et al. teach a computer system (Fig(s).1 @ 103 and 3 @ 103) including one or more electronic processors (Fig.3 @ 103b) configured to perform CU deployment associated with cell sites (Fig.1A), wherein the system (Fig(s).1 @ 103 and 3 @ 103) comprises:
one or more processors configured to determine parameters to deploy the one or more CUs (Fig.3 @ 103b);
generate CU deployment data that includes the parameters (read as “the auto-commissioning server 103 integrates with the name controller 104c to generate the unique hostname for the network function(s) and a gNodeB ID for vRAN network service.”(Paragraph [0043])); and
cause one or more workflows to perform CU deployment based, at least in part, on the IP addresses and parameters. (read as automatic deployment of one or more network functions (Paragraph(s) [0040] and [0063]) For example, “the 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))”(Paragraph [0040]) For example, “the auto-commissioning engine 103d receives the plurality of IP addresses for the network function(s) and the RU 109 of the cell site from the IP address controller 104b. The plurality of IP addresses is generated based on the selected inventory 102 for the deployment of the network function(s).” (Paragraph [0063]))
However, Madan et al. fail to explicitly teach an orchestrator configured to:
determine one or more workflows to deploy one or more CUs,
wherein the one or more workflows cause operations to execute to deploy the one or more CUs; and
orchestrate execution of the one or more workflows to perform the CU deployment;
programmatically determining Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for the one or more CUs based, at least in part, on a relative placement of individual ones of the one or more CUs within a cluster of a computing environment;
Sambandan et al. teach an orchestrator (read as a service orchestration tool (Fig.2 @ 227, 4C-4E, and 5A-5B; Paragraph(s) [0038], [0041]-[0042], and [0045]-[0046])) configured to:
determine one or more workflows to deploy one or more CUs (read as service orchestration tool generating a deployment VNF file based on common configuration parameter(s) and/or site-specific configuration(s) (Fig.2 @ 227, 4C-4E, and 5A-5B; Paragraph(s) [0038], [0041]-[0042], and [0045]-[0046])),
wherein the one or more workflows cause operations to execute to deploy the one or more CUs (read as common configuration parameter(s) and/or site-specific configuration(s) (Paragraph(s) [0038]-[0039])); and
orchestrate execution of the one or more workflows to perform the CU deployment (read as service orchestration tool (Fig.2 @ 227, 4C-4E, and 5A-5B; Paragraph(s) [0038], [0041]-[0042], and [0045]-[0046]));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the service orchestration tool as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of enhancing access management of devices in a communication network.
However, Madan et al. and Sambandan et al. fail to explicitly teach programmatically determine Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for the one or more CUs based, at least in part, on a relative placement of individual ones of the one or more CUs within a cluster of a computing environment;
Suzuki et al. teach a method for programmatically determine Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for the one or more CUs (Fig.1 @ 230) based, at least in part, on a relative placement of individual ones of the one or more CUs (Fig.1 @ 230) within a cluster of a computing environment (read as “the MTU value determined based on the packet size of the incoming packets received from the CU 230 may be applied to outgoing packets to be transmitted from the AMF 210 to the CUs 230 in the group to which the CU 230 concerned belongs.”(Fig.1; Paragraph [0132]) Further, “the nodes belonging to the same group can be determined to be nodes of which IP addresses are within a predetermined IP address range or nodes belonging to the same subnet.”(Fig.1;Paragraph [0132]));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for determining IP addresses that are within IP address range for nodes in a subnet as taught by Suzuki et al. and the service orchestration tool as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of improving identifying devices in a subnet based on IP addresses.
Regarding claim 15, Madan et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig.3 @ 103a) configured to perform CU deployment associated with cell sites (Fig.1A @ S4-S7), and
wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig.3 @ 103a), when executed by a computer (Fig(s).1 @ 103 and 3 @ 103), causes the computer (Fig(s).1 @ 103 and 3 @ 103) to:
receive a request to deploy one or more CUs (read as receiving inputs parameters for one or more network functions (e.g.: CUCP, CUUP) (Fig.1A; Paragraph [0040]));
generate CU deployment data that includes the parameters (read as “the auto-commissioning server 103 integrates with the name controller 104c to generate the unique hostname for the network function(s) and a gNodeB ID for vRAN network service.”(Paragraph [0043]));
cause an automatic deployment of the one or more CUs within one or more computing environments based, at least in part, on the IP addresses and parameters. (read as automatic deployment of one or more network functions (Paragraph(s) [0040] and [0063]) For example, “the 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))”(Paragraph [0040]) For example, “the auto-commissioning engine 103d receives the plurality of IP addresses for the network function(s) and the RU 109 of the cell site from the IP address controller 104b. The plurality of IP addresses is generated based on the selected inventory 102 for the deployment of the network function(s).” (Paragraph [0063]))
However, Mandan et al. fail to explicitly teach the step to determine parameters used to deploy the CUs;
programmatically determine Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for the one or more CUs based, at least in part, on a relative placement of individual ones of the one or more CUs within a cluster of a computing environment;
Sambandan et al. teach a method to determine parameters used to deploy the one or more CUs. (read as a service orchestration tool (Fig.2 @ 227, 4C-4E, and 5A-5B; Paragraph(s) [0038], [0041]-[0042], and [0045]-[0046]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the service orchestration tool as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of enhancing access management of devices in a communication network.
However, Madan et al. and Sambandan et al. fail to explicitly teach programmatically determine Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for the one or more CUs based, at least in part, on a relative placement of individual ones of the one or more CUs within a cluster of a computing environment;
Suzuki et al. teach a method for programmatically determine Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for the one or more CUs (Fig.1 @ 230) based, at least in part, on a relative placement of individual ones of the one or more CUs (Fig.1 @ 230) within a cluster of a computing environment (read as “the MTU value determined based on the packet size of the incoming packets received from the CU 230 may be applied to outgoing packets to be transmitted from the AMF 210 to the CUs 230 in the group to which the CU 230 concerned belongs.”(Fig.1; Paragraph [0132]) Further, “the nodes belonging to the same group can be determined to be nodes of which IP addresses are within a predetermined IP address range or nodes belonging to the same subnet.”(Fig.1;Paragraph [0132]));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for determining IP addresses that are within IP address range for nodes in a subnet as taught by Suzuki et al. and the service orchestration tool as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of improving identifying devices in a subnet based on IP addresses.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, and as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, Madan et al., as modified by Sambandan et al. and Suzuki et al., teach a method (Fig.1A) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig.3 @ 103a) wherein causing the automatic deployment of the one or more CUs within a cloud network comprises executing one or more workflows to deploy the one or more CUs (read as automatic deployment (Paragraph [0040])),
wherein the one or more workflows cause operations to execute to deploy the one or more CUs. (read as inputs parameters (Paragraph [0040]))
Regarding claims 3 and 17, and as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, Madan et al. teach “a method and system for auto-commissioning of virtualized Radio Access Networks (vRANs).”(Fig(s).1A and 3; Paragraph [0002]) Also, Madan et al. teach a method wherein the operations comprise first operations to instantiate the one or more CUs (read as network function(s)) within one or more networks (read as “The auto-commissioning server 103 identifies the datacenter(s)/cluster where the network function(s) needs to be instantiated.”(Paragraph [0041])), and
Suzuki et al. teach “the MTU value determined based on the packet size of the incoming packets received from the CU 230 may be applied to outgoing packets to be transmitted from the AMF 210 to the CUs 230 in the group to which the CU 230 concerned belongs.”(Fig.1; Paragraph [0132]) Further, Suzuki et al. teach “the nodes belonging to the same group can be determined to be nodes of which IP addresses are within a predetermined IP address range or nodes belonging to the same subnet.”(Fig.1;Paragraph [0132])
However, Madan et al. and Suzuki et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the second operations to provision individual ones of the one or more CUs after instantiation.
Sambandan et al. teach a method wherein the second operations to provision individual ones of the one or more CUs after instantiation. (read as “the service orchestration tool is configured to use a consistent theme for automatically assigning the identifiers to the various components of the VNFs.”(Paragraph [0041]) For example, “interfaces in respective VNFs (for example, the CU-CP and CU-UP) that are configured to communicate the same type of traffic will be assigned the same identifier.”(Paragraph [0041]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for determining IP addresses that are within IP address range for nodes in a subnet as taught by Suzuki et al. and the service orchestration tool as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of enhancing access management of devices in a communication network.
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 18, and as applied to claims 3, 9, and 15 above, Madan et al., as modified by Sambandan et al. and Suzuki et al., teach a method (Fig.1A), a computer system (Fig.1A @ 103 and 3 @ 103), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig.3 @ 103a) wherein obtaining and determining the CU deployment data comprises querying an inventory management component that includes data related to a planned deployment of the one or more CUs (Fig.1A), and
wherein the CU deployment data identifies IP addresses to be used by the one or more CUs. (read as IP address (Fig.1A; Paragraph [0040]))
Regarding claims 5 and 12, and as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, Madan et al., as modified by Sambandan et al. and Suzuki et al., teach a method (Fig.1A) and a computer system (Fig(s).1A @ 103 and 3 @ 103) wherein the operations comprise first operations to configure one or more computing environments (read as inputs parameters (Paragraph [0040])),
wherein the first operations, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig.3 @ 103b), perform one or more of configuring computer hosts including operations, hypervisor changing operations, firmware changing operations, BIOS changing operations, driver changing operations, inventory verification operations, or reserving IP addresses operations. (read as input parameter(s) (e.g.: IP address) (Paragraph [0040]))
Regarding claim 8, and as applied to claim 2 above, Madan et al. teach “a method and system for auto-commissioning of virtualized Radio Access Networks (vRANs).”(Fig(s).1A and 3; Paragraph [0002])
Suzuki et al. teach “the MTU value determined based on the packet size of the incoming packets received from the CU 230 may be applied to outgoing packets to be transmitted from the AMF 210 to the CUs 230 in the group to which the CU 230 concerned belongs.”(Fig.1; Paragraph [0132]) Further, Suzuki et al. teach “the nodes belonging to the same group can be determined to be nodes of which IP addresses are within a predetermined IP address range or nodes belonging to the same subnet.”(Fig.1;Paragraph [0132])
However, Madan et al. and Suzuki et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein execution of the one or more workflows is orchestrated by a workflow engine that executes in a network separately from the one or more computer environments.
Sambandan et al. teach a method wherein execution of the one or more workflows is orchestrated by a workflow engine that executes in a network separately from the one or more computer environments. (Fig.2 @ 230)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for determining IP addresses that are within IP address range for nodes in a subnet as taught by Suzuki et al. and the cloud master node as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of enhancing access management of devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 11, and as applied to claim 9 above, Madan et al., as modified by Sambandan et al. and Suzuki et al., teach a computer system (Fig(s).1A @ 103 and 3 @ 103) further comprising an inventory management component that stores data related to a planned deployment of the one or more CUs (Fig.1B @ 107); and
wherein determining the parameters to deploy the one or more CUs comprises querying the inventory management component that includes data related to a planned deployment of the one or more CUs (Fig(s).1A and 1B), and
wherein the CU deployment data one or more DUs assigned to report to the one or more CUs.(Fig(s).1A and 1B)
Regarding claim 20, and as applied to claim 16 above, Madan et al. teach “a method and system for auto-commissioning of virtualized Radio Access Networks (vRANs).”(Fig(s).1A and 3; Paragraph [0002])
Suzuki et al. teach “the MTU value determined based on the packet size of the incoming packets received from the CU 230 may be applied to outgoing packets to be transmitted from the AMF 210 to the CUs 230 in the group to which the CU 230 concerned belongs.”(Fig.1; Paragraph [0132]) Further, Suzuki et al. teach “the nodes belonging to the same group can be determined to be nodes of which IP addresses are within a predetermined IP address range or nodes belonging to the same subnet.”(Fig.1;Paragraph [0132])
However, Madan et al. and Suzuki et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise other operations to associate individual ones of the one or more CUs with one or more DUs.
Sambandan et al. teach a method wherein the operations further comprise other operations to associate individual ones of the one or more CUs with one or more DUs.(read as “RAN configurations for CU-CP VNF 216, CU-UP VNF 218, and DU VNF 205”(Paragraph [0033]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for determining IP addresses that are within IP address range for nodes in a subnet as taught by Suzuki et al. and the service orchestration tool as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of enhancing access management of devices in a communication network.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0224122 A1), in view of Sambandan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0029632 A1), Suzuki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2024/0236763 A1), and Mehta et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0385051 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, and as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above, Madan et al. teach “a method and system for auto-commissioning of virtualized Radio Access Networks (vRANs).”(Fig(s).1A and 3; Paragraph [0002])
Sambandan et al. teach a service orchestration tool (Fig.2 @ 227, 4C-4E, and 5A-5B; Paragraph(s) [0038], [0041]-[0042], and [0045]-[0046])
Suzuki et al. teach “the MTU value determined based on the packet size of the incoming packets received from the CU 230 may be applied to outgoing packets to be transmitted from the AMF 210 to the CUs 230 in the group to which the CU 230 concerned belongs.”(Fig.1; Paragraph [0132]) Further, Suzuki et al. teach “the nodes belonging to the same group can be determined to be nodes of which IP addresses are within a predetermined IP address range or nodes belonging to the same subnet.”(Fig.1;Paragraph [0132])
However, Madan et al., Sambandan et al., and Suzuki et al. fail to explicitly teach accessing, via the one or more processors, validation data associated with the execution of the one or more workflows;
determining, via the one or more processors and based on the validation data, an occurrence of an error;
determining, via the one or more processors, that the error is resolved; and
causing the one or more workflows to resume execution.
Mehta et al. teach a method for accessing, via the one or more processors, validation data associated with the execution of the one or more workflows (Fig.8 @ 850)
determining, via the one or more processors and based on the validation data, an occurrence of an error (Fig.8 @ 845);
determining, via the one or more processors, that the error is resolved (Fig.8 @ 845); and
causing the one or more workflows to resume execution. (Fig.8 @ 860)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the authentication module as taught by Mehta et al., the function for determining IP addresses that are within IP address range for nodes in a subnet as taught by Suzuki et al., and the service orchestration tool as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of enhancing access management of devices in a communication network.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, and as applied to claims 6 and 9 above, Madan et al. teach “a method and system for auto-commissioning of virtualized Radio Access Networks (vRANs).”(Fig(s).1A and 3; Paragraph [0002])
Sambandan et al. teach a service orchestration tool (Fig.2 @ 227, 4C-4E, and 5A-5B; Paragraph(s) [0038], [0041]-[0042], and [0045]-[0046])
Suzuki et al. teach “the MTU value determined based on the packet size of the incoming packets received from the CU 230 may be applied to outgoing packets to be transmitted from the AMF 210 to the CUs 230 in the group to which the CU 230 concerned belongs.”(Fig.1; Paragraph [0132]) Further, Suzuki et al. teach “the nodes belonging to the same group can be determined to be nodes of which IP addresses are within a predetermined IP address range or nodes belonging to the same subnet.”(Fig.1;Paragraph [0132])
However, Madan et al., Sambandan et al., and Suzuki et al. fail to explicitly teach a method further comprising causing a validation app to perform a validation,
wherein the validation is one or more of
a pre-check validation of the workflow that validates a data readiness before performing operations to deploy the one or more CUs,
a validation that validates the deployment of the one or more CUs, or
a post-check validation that validates a successful completion of the one or more workflows.
Mehta et al. teach a method further comprising causing a validation app to perform a validation (Fig.8 @ 850),
wherein the validation is one or more of
a pre-check validation of the workflow that validates a data readiness before performing operations to deploy the one or more CUs,
a validation that validates the deployment of the one or more CUs (Fig.8 @ 850), or
a post-check validation that validates a successful completion of the one or more workflows.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the authentication module as taught by Mehta et al., the function for determining IP addresses that are within IP address range for nodes in a subnet as taught by Suzuki et al., and the service orchestration tool as taught by Sambandan et al. with the auto commissioning server as taught by Madan et al. for the purpose of enhancing access management of devices in a communication network.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Xu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0409328 A1) teach “… all IAB nodes hold IP addresses, which are routable from the IAB donor CU-CP.” (Fig(s).3-5; Paragraph [0044]) Further, Xu er al. teach “when the Donor-CU sends an IP packet (for example, carrying the F1 application protocol (F1AP) message, or SCTP packet) with destination IP address set to the IAB node's IPv6 address, the IP packet shall be routed to the Donor-DU. That is, Donor-DU is acting as an anchor and the message is routed via the Donor-DU to the IAB node.” (Fig(s).3-5; Paragraph [0050])
Zhuo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2025/0286858 A1) teach “In the case of BS-based IP address allocation, the IP address(es) may be allocated by the CU or DU of a BS (e.g., an IAB donor).” (Paragraph [0065])
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.
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights