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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
In paragraph 0003, line 21, “The method g” should read “The method”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informality:
claim 3,10 and 17, “network site comprises component” should be “network site comprises a component”
claim 4 and 11, “comprises a open radio access network” should be “comprises an open radio access network”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to independent claims 1, 9 and 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 1, Yes, the claim is to a process.
For claim 9, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
For claim 16, Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “Receiving… a first signal…; verifying… that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the first stage; … determining… an entity associated with a second stage…; transmitting… a signal to the entity…; receiving… a second signal… and verifying… that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the second stage” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitations “Receiving, by a computing system, a first signal…; verifying, by the computing system,; …determining, by the computing system, an entity…; transmitting, by the computing system, a signal to the entity…; receiving, by the computing system, a second signal…; and verifying, by the computing system, that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the second stage”, “one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions” are additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitations “Receiving, by a computing system, a first signal…; verifying, by the computing system, ; …determining, by the computing system, an entity…; transmitting, by the computing system, a signal to the entity…; receiving, by the computing system, a second signal…; and verifying, by the computing system, that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the second stage”, “one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions” are additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determining, by the computing system, that the component is not functioning according to the second stage; accessing, by the computing system, data associated with the first stage and the second stage; determining, by the computing system, an entity associated with the second stage; and transmitting, by the computing system, a repair order to the entity associated with the second stage” is a continuation of “Receiving… a first signal…; verifying… that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the first stage; … determining… an entity associated with a second stage…; transmitting… a signal to the entity…; receiving… a second signal… and verifying… that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the second stage” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 3,10,17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 3, Yes, the claim is to a process.
For claim 10, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
For claim 17, Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 4,11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 4, Yes, the claim is to a process.
For claim 11, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 5,12,18:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 5, Yes, the claim is to a process.
For claim 12, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
For claim 18, Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 6,13,19:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 6, Yes, the claim is to a process.
For claim 13, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
For claim 19, Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claim 7,14,20:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 7, Yes, the claim is to a process.
For claim 14, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
For claim 20, Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As to claims 8, 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 8, Yes, the claim is to a process.
For claim 15, Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blizzard et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 20230199518 A1 (hereinafter Blizard) in view of Hrbek et al., U.S. Patent 11528185 B1 (hereinafter Hrbek).
Regarding claim 1 Blizard teaches system and method of integrating a wireless network site compromising
(Blizard fig. 3, “The wireless telecommunication network 350 can be the network 100 in FIG. 1 or can be a portion of the network 100”, Blizzard [0034]; “one or more processors 702, main memory 706… a machine-readable (storage) medium 726”, Blizzard [0063])
“Receiving, by a computing system (Blizard’s platform 300), a first signal (indication of a configuration update, multiple stages defining an order) indicating that a component (devices)associated with the wireless network site (base station) is in a first stage (pre-check stage 320A);”
(Blizard teaches receiving a first signal indicating a component is in a first stage “the system obtains an indication of a configuration update to perform on a component of a network and an indication of the component associated with the network. The indication of the configuration update includes multiple stages defining an order in which to perform the configuration update. The multiple stages include a pre-check stage, a configuration stage, a verification stage, and optionally a rollback stage and a post-check stage. The device associated with the wireless telecommunication network can be a component of the wireless telecommunication network, such as a base station, the core network, a sector, an antenna, a wireless device, etc.”, [0050], step 600 in Figure 6 as described in section [0050]; “The definition of stages 320 can include five stages: pre-check 320A, configuration or implementation 320B, verification 320C, rollback 320D, and rollback post-check 320E”, [0035])
“Verifying, by the computing system, that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the first stage (Pre-check stage 320A);”
(Blizard teaches verifying (validate)component functioning at the first stage (Pre-check stage 320A), Fig.3, “Pre-check stage 320A validates that the wireless telecommunication network 350 is properly configured to receive the configuration update. For example, the pre-check stage 320A can verify that the network 350 is responsive.”, [0035]; “In step 610, the processor can perform the pre-check stage to determine whether the component is in an expected state in the pre-check stage. The expected state can include a parameter and an expected value of the parameter.”, [0051]; “In step 620, the processor can determine whether the device satisfies the expected value of the parameter by obtaining a value of the parameter associated with the device and comparing the obtained value to the expected value”, [0052])
“In response to verifying that the component associated with the wireless network is functioning according to the first stage (satisfies the expected value): determining, by the computing system, an entity associated with a second stage, based at least in part on the component associated with the wireless network site and the first stage;”
(Blizard teaches that verifying component is functioning, upon pre-check completion, the computing system identifies devices and processes involved in the next stage via its Device dependencies Facility 340; “In step 630, upon determining that the device satisfies the expected value of the parameter, the processor can perform the configuration stage by performing the configuration update.”, [0053];(see figure 3 described in section [0039]- [0040]) “Device dependencies facility 340 determines device interdependencies in the network 350. For example, if device A undergoes a configuration upgrade and device B depends on device A, that means that device B should also undergo the configuration upgrade…the system can automatically determine the devices to upgrade”)
“Transmitting, by the computing system, a signal to the entity, the signal associated with one or more… [notification] further associated with the second stage (status of configuration update);”
(Blizzard teaches transmitting notifications to users associated with the second stage; “The processor can send notifications to business users. Upon performing configuration update processor can update database and send notifications to business users with status of configuration update”, [0062])
“Receiving, by the computing system, a second signal indicating (second indication of configuration update) that the component associated with the wireless network site is in the second stage;”
(Blizard teaches receiving a second signal indicating stage advancement; “Upon obtaining the indication of a configuration update, the processor can store the indication of the configuration update in a database. The processor can receive a second indication of the configuration update.”, [0057]);
“Verifying (verification stage), by the computing system, that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the second stage.”
(“In step 640, upon performing the configuration update, the processor can perform the verification stage by testing whether the device is functioning.”, [0054]; “In step 650, upon determining that the device is functioning, the processor can provide the configuration update to UEs.”, [0055])
Blizard fails to expressly teach “transmitting, by the computing system, a signal to the entity, the signal associated with one or more tasks further associated with the second stage”. However, Hrbek teaches system and method comprising:
“transmitting, by the computing system, a signal to the entity (provisioning agent is provided), the signal (configuration script agent) associated with one or more tasks (jobs)further associated with the second stage”
(Hrbek teaches transmitting a signal to the entity associated with one or more tasks of the second stage; figure 4 step 409; “At 409, a provisioning agent is provided to the network device", Col 11 Lines 40-41 " At 411, processing waits for agent provisioning jobs to be completed", Col 12 Lines 1-2;” In various embodiments, the agent may be a configuration agent script for executing provisioning jobs”, Col 11 Lines 44-46);
“Receiving, by the computing system, a second signal (notification) indicating that the component associated with the wireless network site is in the second stage (Completion notification);”
(Hrbek discloses agent completion notification mechanism, providing a structured second stage completion signal to the computing system; "the provisioning server waits for the agent to complete its provisioning jobs. While waiting, the progress of the agent provisioning jobs can be monitored using feedback received from the agent"; Col 12 Lines 7-10; "a notification can be sent to inform administrators that the network device has been provisioned", Col 12 Lines 17-19)
“Verifying, by the computing system, that the component associated with the wireless network site is functioning according to the second stage.”
(Hrbek corroborates through its post-provisioning notification confirming device readiness; “a notification can be sent to inform administrators that the network device has been provisioned”, Co 12 Lines 17-20)
Blizard and Hrbek are both in the same field of endeavor, automated management and configuration of network infrastructure using computing systems, and are each directed to solving the identical problem: reducing manual intervention in multi-step network device configuration workflows. It would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hrbek’s agent identification and task dispatch mechanism into Blizard’s staged wireless network configuration framework for the benefit of automatically determine the correct entity and task set for each device based on its specific hardware and software attributes which directly reduces configuration errors.
Regarding claim 2, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Blizard teaches system and method further comprising:
“determining, by the computing system, that the component is not functioning according to the second stage;”
(Blizard teaches determining that the component is not functioning following the second stage; “Upon failing to verify functionality associated with the device”, [0055])
“accessing, by the computing system, data associated with the first stage and the second stage (accesses Database 360); and determining, by the computing system, an entity associated with the second stage (Device dependencies facility 340 determines device interdependencies); and transmitting, by the computing system, a repair order (rollback instruction) to the entity associated with the second stage.”
(Blizard teaches all three remaining limitations through its rollback and post-check stages. Upon the verification stage failing, Blizard’s system accesses Database 360, which stores pre-stage configuration information for each device (see section [0038] of Blizard). The device Dependency Facility 340 identifies the responsible entity (see section [0039]). The system then transmits a rollback instruction to restore the component and its dependent device to the pre-configuration stage “the processor can perform the rollback stage by restoring the state of the component to the expected state. Upon restoring the state of the component, the processor can perform the post-check stage by ensuring that the state of the component matches the expected state.”, [0056] ;”For example, the fact gathering facility 330 can gather the configuration information during the pre-check stage 320A on the devices that are undergoing the upgrade and store the configuration information in a database 360”,[0038], “Device dependencies facility 340 determines device interdependencies in the network 350”, [0039]; rollback instruction transmitted to the dependent device, restoring it to the expected pre-configuration state.)
Hrbek also teaches system and method comprising
“determining, by the computing system, that the component is not functioning according to the second stage”
(the failure determination through its agent’s completion monitoring loop; “At 607, a determination is made whether the progress feedback received at 605 is an agent complete message indicating that agent provisioning is complete. In response to an agent complete message, processing continues to 611. In response to progress feedback that is not an agent complete message, processing continues to 609”, Col5 Lines 52-57)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hrbek’s agent identification and task dispatch mechanism into Blizard’s staged wireless network configuration framework for the benefit of automatically determine the correct entity and task set for each device based on its specific hardware and software attributes which directly reduces configuration errors.
As for claim 3, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Blizard teaches a
“wireless network site comprises component associated with a standalone 5G network”:
(”the network 100 can include a 5G network”, Blizard [0019] and (see figure 2 described in section [0027]) illustrating components of a 5g standalone core network functions (AMF, SMF, UPF, PCF, AUSF, UDM, NSSF, NEF, NRF) communicating over a service-based architecture. Blizard therefore teaches a standalone 5G core network.)
As for claim 6 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Blizzard discloses system and method
“Wherein the component associated with the wireless network site comprises at least one of a server, a radio unit, and an antenna.”:
(“The device associated with the wireless telecommunication network can be a component of the wireless telecommunication network, such as a base station, the core network, a sector, an antenna, a wireless device, etc.”, [0050]).
As for claim 7 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Hrbek teaches
“wherein the first stage includes installing one or more radio units (network device) at the wireless network site.”:
(”At 305, the network device for provisioning is physically installed”; Hrbek Col 9 Lines 21-22”network device 101 is installed as part of network infrastructure 100. For example, network device 101 is a switch or a router that is installed in a rack in a data center and plugged into network infrastructure 100 via one or more network interfaces”, Col 5 Lines 13-17; “ At 305, the network device for provisioning is physically installed”, Col 9 Lines 21-22).
Hrbek does not appear to explicitly teach network device is a radio unit. However, Blizard teaches
network device is a radio unit
(“A base station is a type of network access node (NAN) that can also be referred to as a cell site, a base transceiver station, or a radio base station. The network 100 can include any combination of NANs, including an access point, radio transceiver”, Blizard [0015]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hrbek’s agent identification and task dispatch mechanism into Blizard’s staged wireless network configuration framework for the benefit of automatically determine the correct entity and task set for each device based on its specific hardware and software attributes which directly reduces configuration errors.
Regarding claims 8, limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Blizard teaches
“wherein the second stage includes provisioning a compute instance with one or more network functions associated with a 5G network.”
(configuration stage 320 B in figure 3 as described in section [0035]) configures to the 5G core network functions (see figure 2 described in section [0027] AMF, SMF, UPF, PCF, AUSF, UDM, NSSF, NEF, NRF). These software-based functions, by the nature of 3GPP 5G standalone architecture are instantiated and executed as software processes on underlying compute infrastructure; “the network 100 can include a 5G network”, [0019]; “FIG. 2 is a block diagram that illustrates an architecture 200 including 5G core network functions (NFs) that can implement aspects of the present technology. A wireless device 202 can access the 5G network”, Blizard [0027]).
As for claim 9, claim 9 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
(“FIG. 7 is a block diagram that illustrates an example of a computer system 700 in which at least some operations described herein can be implemented. As shown, the computer system 700 can include: one or more processors 702… a drive unit 724 that includes a machine-readable (storage) medium 726”, [0063]).
As for claim 10, Limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 10 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 13 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 15, Limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 15 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 8 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 16, claim 16 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
(“The machine-readable (storage) medium 726 can include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the computing system 700. The machine-readable (storage) medium 726 can be non-transitory or comprise a non-transitory device.”, [0066]).
As for claim 17, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 17 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 19, limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 20, limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Blizard in view of Hrbek and further in view of Guchhait et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 20220353828 A1 (hereinafter Guchhait).
As for claim 4, limitations of parent claim 3 have been discussed above. Blizard does not explicitly disclose an open radio access network, “wherein the standalone 5G network comprises a open radio access network”. However, Guchait discloses system and method wherein
“the standalone 5G network comprises a open radio access network”
(“system of operating an enhanced Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) fronthaul interface, i.e., FH 815, supporting 2G radio access technologies simultaneously or standalone operations along with 3G, 4G and 5G radio technologies”, [0132] As shown “open radio access network”, [0132]).
Guchhait is in the same field of endeavor as Blizard (wireless telecommunications network deployment and management) and is reasonable pertinent to the problem of integrating 5G wireless network components. Both Blizard and Guchhait are directed to systems managing wireless network operations, including 5G networks with defined architecture components. Therefore, as Blizard teaches a wireless network site and illustrates a standalone 5G core network, and Guchhait teaches a 5G standalone network with an open radio access network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Guchhait’s 5G standalone network with an O-RAN architecture to Blizard’s staged integration management frame work. One would have made been motivated to make such a modification as it is simple substitution of components and their functions known in the art yielding predictable results with reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 11, Limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 11 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1,9, and 16 above and further in view of Atwal et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 20220247678 A1 (hereinafter Atwal).
Regarding claims 5 limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Blizard teaches system and method
“wherein the component associated with the wireless network site comprises one or more network components hosted on … available cloud network.”:
(“In some implementations, the computer system 700… may include one or more cloud components in one or more networks”, [0064]; In addition, the 5G core network functions are cloud-native in nature (see figure 2 as described in sections [0027] – [0033])).
Blizzard does not appear to explicitly teach the components hosted on a publicly available cloud network However, Atwal teaches system method
“wherein the component associated with the wireless network site comprises one or more network components hosted on publicly available cloud network”
(“every applicable component of the platform may be cloud native. In these examples, all code may be ‘born in the cloud’ and in doing so, a microservice and may run in any public, private, or hybrid cloud environment.", [0083]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Atwal with Blizard and Hrbek. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because the combination applies cloud native 5G deployment principles to a staged configuration framework, is a simple substitution of known components and their function yielding predictable results with reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 12, Limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 12 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 18, Limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAVOUR O MADU whose telephone number is (571)272-9730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/F.O.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646