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 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.
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) 1-3, 6-12, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2026/0172866 A1) in view of Sundararajan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0007988 A1), Bhatia et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2022/0058177 A1) and Ranganath et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2024/0259879 A1).
Zhang teaches in FIG. 1 a system comprising: a cellular communication antenna (base station 104a); and a radio unit (RU) (RU 106d in cell 190d) coupled to the cellular communication antenna, the RU configured to: retrieve status data of the RU (Zhang teaches in paragraph [0131] that the measurement report configuration component 150 may sit at the RU 106; and in paragraph [0146] transmitting the measurement report). The difference between Zhang and the claimed invention is that Zhang does not teach “write a plurality of values of the status data in a file, wherein each row of a plurality of rows of the file stores a measurement group identifier and an object unit type and an object unit identifier corresponding to the measurement group identifier and the object unit type, and wherein the measurement group identifier, the object unit type, and the object unit identifier are assigned to values from the status data stored in each row of the plurality of rows; and at least one of store the file on the RU or transmit the file; wherein the object unit type indicates a level of granularity of the plurality of values from a plurality of levels of granularity, the plurality of levels of granularity corresponding to RU-level, transport-level, and port level”.
Sundararajan et al. teaches write a plurality of values of the status data in a file (Sundararajan et al. teaches in FIG. 8 a measurement report comprises rows), wherein each row of a plurality of rows of the file stores a measurement group identifier (for example, the measurement type ID can be considered as a measurement group identifier). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Sundararajan et al. with the system of Zhang because a table is convenient and human-readable way to record and organize status and measurement results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a table with group identifiers as the format for measurement report, as taught by Sundararajan et al., in the system of Zhang.
The combination of Zhang and Sundararajan et al. still fails to teach an object unit type. Bhatia et al. teaches in FIG. 5 using table for recording status/measurement results. Bhatia et al. teaches in paragraph [0055] hierarchical group which is equivalent to granularity of instant claim. For example, model ID can be used to differentiate different levels, and equipment ID identifies a particular instant of the type of equipment. Ranganath et al. teaches in paragraphs [0079], [0093] and [0094] various measurement data and telemetry data including packet throughputs and latencies between an RU and a DU (DU-level), network controller metrics (e.g., packets/second, errors/second, Tx/Rx queue metrics, and/or the like) at transport-level and port utilization for individual ports at port-level. For example, instead of the antenna element ID in FIG. 8 of Sundararajan et al., an ID can be used to identify a RU, a network controller of an RU or a port in an RU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. with the modified system of Zhang and Sundararajan et al. because including hierarchical group allows the measurement report to combine many measurement results while still can be easily read and interpreted by craftsperson. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include object unit type and object unit identifier in the table, as taught by Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al., in the modified system of Zhang and Sundararajan et al.
Regarding claim 2, Ranganath et al. teaches in paragraph [0093] O-RAN stats include packet throughputs and latencies between an RU and a DU.
Regarding claim 3, Sundararajan et al. teaches in paragraph [0044] received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurement.
Regarding claim 6, Bhatia et al. teaches in FIG. 5, Table 500 start timestamp and end timestamp.
Regarding claim 7, Bhatia et al. teaches in FIG. 5 tables 500 and 550 wherein table 500 arranges the various sensors in a column and the values as another column and table 550 arranges each sensor and its associated value as a column. The same method can be applied to table 580 where the information types, namely min, max, avg are arranged such that each is in a column with its associated value. That is, table 580 can be rearranged such that the information types are arranged in a single column and their associated values as another column. Such rearrangement is obvious by analogy.
Regarding claim 8, Ranganath et al. teaches in paragraph [0270] that measurement engine (equivalent to measurement report configuration component 150 of Zhang) provides report to the SMO (service management and orchestration framework).
Regarding claim 9, Bhatia et al. teaches in paragraph [0057] CSV (comma separated values) format.
Regarding claim 10, Bhatia et al. teaches in FIG. 5 row and column format.
Regarding claim 11, Bhatia et al. teaches in FIG. 5 that the row and column format has a fixed number of columns, and each column has a label.
Regarding claim 12, Bhatia et al. teaches in paragraph [0101] that null value can be used to indicate that there is no valid value.
Claim 14 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1 because an apparatus implies the method of using it.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches in FIG. 9 and paragraph [0131] computer-readable medium for storing executable code (software), which, when executed, implements a process.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6-12, 14 and 19 above, and further in view of Aldossari et al. (U.S. Patent 11,128,391 B1).
Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-3, 6-12, 14 and 19. The difference between Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. and the claimed invention is that Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. do not teach measurement object. Aldossari et al. teaches in col. 10, lines 19-31 Table III which includes a column labeled test which is equivalent to measurement object of instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Aldossari et al. with the modified system of Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. because the “test” column identifies the object of the measurement. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a column for identifying the measurement object, as taught by Aldossari et al., in the modified system of Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 6-12, 14 and 19 above, and further in view of Qian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0342286 A1).
Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-3, 6-12, 14 and 19. The difference between Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. and the claimed invention is that Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. do not teach that the plurality of rows of the file have a plurality of different numbers of columns, each row of the plurality of rows storing one or more attribute-value pairs. Qian et al. teaches in paragraph [0027] JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file and in paragraph [0032] that a JSON file consists of attribute-value pairs. Bhatia et al. teaches in paragraph [0101] that null value can be used to indicate that there is no valid value. For example, if the received signal is so weak that the received power is zero, the signal-to-noise ratio has no meaning. The field can be indicated as null. When this is written in a JSON file format, the fields with value null can be omitted. The result is a file having a plurality of different numbers of columns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Qian et al. and Bhatia et al. with the modified system of Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al. because Bhatia et al. teaches in paragraph [0057] JSON format. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a JSON file and omit inapplicable fields, as taught by Qian et al. and Bhatia et al., in the modified system of Zhang, Sundararajan et al., Bhatia et al. and Ranganath et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 (the arguments are applicable to claims 14 and 19) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl2 September 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights