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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-18 are pending and remain for further examination.
The old rejection maintained
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1-18 filed on October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the claims 1-18. The rejection is respectfully maintained as set forth in the last Office Action mailed on July 30, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of title AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grayson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0314211 A1). Grayson’s patent application meets all the limitations for claims 1-16 recited in the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, Grayson discloses a radio access network control apparatus (see abstract, figures 1-4) configured to perform: by a test profile management unit, managing a test profile of interoperability test of M-Plane in open radio access network (O-RAN) compliant device capable of supporting IPv6 (figure 1, pars. 0017 & 0020-0021, figure 2, pars. 0022-0024, element manager and management logic checking M-plan interface and supporting IPv6), wherein the managing comprises administering, by the test profile management unit, the test profile to test interoperability of a communication device connected to an O-RAN radio unit (O-RU), the O-RU being communicatively between the test profile management unit and the communication device and being connected to the test profile management unit via the M-Plane (figure 2, pars. 0022-0024, figure 3, pars.0027-0028, ORU and ORU controller connected via M-plain interface for checking and establishing session between them), and wherein the test profile is for a hierarchical architectural model (par. 0075).
As to claim 2, Grayson discloses that the test profile includes a description on IPv6 in the “IP Version” item (pars. 0020 & 0040).
As to claim 3, Grayson discloses that the test profile includes a description on DHCPV6 in the “O-RU identification by DHCP option” item (figure 4, pars. 0037-0040).
As to claims 4-5, Grayson discloses that the test profile includes a description on state-full address configuration in the “IP address assignment” item and a description on stateless address auto-configuration in the “IP address assignment” item (pars. 0020, 0023, & 0039-0040).
As to claim 6, Grayson discloses that the test profile includes a description on DHCPVv6 in the “O-RU controller discovery” item (figure 4, pars. 0037-0040 & 0042-0043).
As to claim 7, Grayson discloses a radio access network control apparatus configured to perform: by a test profile management unit, managing a test profile of interoperability test of M- Plane in O-RAN compliant device capable of supporting TLS (figure 1, pars. 0017 & 0020, figure 2, pars. 0023-0024, figure 3, par. 0028).
As to claims 8-11, Grayson discloses that the test profile includes a description on TLS in the “Hash algorithm for data integrity” item, in the “Cyphering algorithm” item, the “NETCONF Call Home” item, and in the “NETCONF Authentication” item (pars. 0017 & 0023).
As to claim 12, Grayson discloses that the test profile includes descriptions on both TLS and SSH in at least one item (par. 0023).
As to claims 13-14, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1 & 7 above, since claims 13-14 are merely method of operations for the apparatus defined in the claims 1 & 7 and claims 13-14 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1 & 7.
As to claims 15-16, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1 & 7 above, since claims 15-16 are merely a program product for the apparatus defined in the claims 1 & 7 and claims 15-16 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1 & 7.
As to claims 17-18, Grayson discloses that the radio access network control method, further comprising setting an Internet Protocol (IP) version of the O-RU to one of a plurality of selectable, predetermined IP version settings which comprise (a) IPv4, (b) IPv6, or (c) both IPv4 and IPv6 and detecting an Internet Protocol (IP) version supported by the O-RU as one of a plurality of detectable, predetermined IP version information which comprise (a) IPv4, (b) IPv6, or (c) both IPv4 and IPv6 (pars. 0020, 0039-0040, 0058, establishing and stopping session using IPv4 and IPv6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the claims 1-18 filed on October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the claims 1-18 and moot in a new modified rejection is made. The examiner has attempted to answer (response) to the remarks (arguments) in the body of the Office Action (see new modified rejection of claims 1-18).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Additional References
The examiner as of general interest cites the following references.
Shibata et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/006509 A1.
Engstrom et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0053609 A1.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453January 21, 2026