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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 01/30/2026.
Claim(s) 73-82 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 63-72 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 63 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 63-66, 69-70, and 72 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 67-68, and 71 is/are objected to.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 63-65, and 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP_3637826_A1_Vierimaa.
Regarding claim 63, Vierimaa discloses an apparatus employed as measurement equipment, the apparatus comprising: memory circuitry to store instructions for operating the measurement equipment; and processor circuitry connected to the memory circuitry, wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the instructions to (Vierimaa figure , paragraphs 7, 72): send first signaling to an external radio equipment under test (REuT) via a testing access interface between the measurement equipment and the REuT (Vierimaa figure 14 step S2), wherein the first signaling includes data or commands for testing one or more components of the REuT (Vierimaa figure14 step S2, paragraphs 42-44); receive second signaling from the REuT over the testing access interface (Vierimaa figure15 step S2, paragraphs 42-44), wherein the second signaling includes data or commands based on execution of the first signaling by the one or more components of the REuT (Vierimaa figure15 step S2, paragraph 44, “After applying the channel model to the I/Q data, the processed baseband data representing I/Q data is transmitting, by way of the radio channel test apparatus…”); and verify or validate the execution of the first signaling by the one or more components of the REuT based on the second signaling (Vierimaa figure 20, step S13, paragraphs 59-60).
Regarding claim 64, Vierimaa discloses the apparatus of claim 63, wherein the testing access interface is a wired or wireless connection between the REuT and the measurement equipment (Vierimaa figure 20, step S13, paragraphs 33-34, the radio channel test apparatus and the radio equipment under test communicate via radio interface).
Regarding claim 65, Vierimaa discloses the apparatus of claim 63, wherein the measurement equipment is communicatively coupled with a Monitoring and Enforcement Function (MEF) via the testing access interface, the MEF is disposed between the REuT and the measurement equipment, and the first signaling is conveyed via the MEF over an Nmef service-based interface exposed by the MEF (Vierimaa figure 13, and paragraph 42, the JESD204C and/or (e)CPRI is analogous to the claimed “MEF”).
Regarding claim 72, Vierimaa discloses the apparatus of claim 63, wherein the measurement equipment is a user equipment (UE), a radio access network (RAN) node, a user plane function (UPF), or a data network (DN) node; and the REuT is a UE, a RAN node, a UPF, or a DN node (Vierimaa figures 7-11, paragraphs 9).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP_3637826_A1_Vierimaa in view of US_20100241902_A1_Gilbertson.
Regarding claim 66, Vierimaa discloses the apparatus of claim 63, but does not discloses wherein a translation entity within the REuT terminates the test access interface, and the translation entity is to convert the first signaling into an internal format for consumption by a component under test (CUT) within the REuT.
Gilbertson discloses wherein a translation entity within the REuT terminates the test access interface, and the translation entity is to convert the first signaling into an internal format for consumption by a component under test (CUT) within the REuT ( Gilbertson paragraphs 16, “…obtaining a test case description indicative of the nature of the test to be performed; generating a command file comprising a test case description by converting the test case description from an internal format to a format understood by the test set using the test set definition; and outputting the command file to enable the command file to be provided to the test set”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Gilbertson’s converting the test case description from an internal format to a format understood by the test set using the test set definition in Vierimaa’s system to enable the radio equipment under test to perform the instructed tasks. This method for improving the system of Vierimaa was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Gilbertson. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vierimaa and Gilbertson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 66.
Claim(s) 69-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP_3637826_A1_Vierimaa in view of US_20170013009_A1_Xie.
Regarding claim 69, Vierimaa discloses the apparatus of claim 63, but does not wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the instructions to: access attack history data from the REuT via a special access interface, wherein the special access interface is between the measurement equipment and a memory unit of the REuT.
Xie discloses wherein the processor circuitry is to execute the instructions to: access attack history data from the REuT via a special access interface, wherein the special access interface is between the measurement equipment and a memory unit of the REuT (Xie paragraph 78, “…Step 514 is to send the attack messages to the device under test. Step 515 is to judge whether response messages are received. If response messages are not received, it will proceed to Step 516 to judge whether there is a timeout to receive response messages. If there is no timeout, repeat Step 515; if there is timeout, proceed to Step 517. If it receives response messages in Step 515, it will proceed directly to Step 517. Step 517 is to record the results of this test on attack messages…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Xie’s access the record the results of this test on attack messages in Vierimaa’s system to validating security controls. This method for improving the system of Vierimaa was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Xie. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vierimaa and Xie to obtain the invention as specified in claim 69.
Regarding claim 70, Vierimaa and Xie disclose the apparatus of claim 69, wherein the memory unit is a shielded location or tamper-resistant circuitry configured to buffer history data related to exchanges with external entities and/or observed (attempted) attacks (Xie paragraph 62, “…the attack type library stores all of the attack types supported by this system”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 67-68, and 71 is/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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471