Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 08/18/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
2. In Remarks, applicant presents the arguments for the amended claim limitations. However, the amended claim limitations are considered obvious by the rationales found in the newly cited prior art.
In fact, claim does not specifically define what are required to be “a delay pattern” except that it’s based on a timestamp of each packet in microsecond. In accordance with MPEP 2111, “a delay pattern” could be reasonably interpreted as a repetitive delay value. Indeed, the newly cited prior art Vaez-Ghaemi teaches a fixed delay between O-DU and O-RU for 2-14 microseconds (fig. 3 and par. 0081). See greater details in the claim rejection section set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaffry et al. Pub. No.: US 2024/0073716 A1 in view of Vaez-Ghaemi et al. Pub. No.: US 2025/0106691 A1.
Claim 1
Jaffry discloses an apparatus (apparatus in fig. 1-3 & 9-10) comprising:
one or more memories (RAM 1012, HDD 1014, storage device 1020 and ROM 1010 in fig. 10) storing computer executable instructions (as depicted in fig. 10, RAM and HDD would store OS, applications to execute the instructions in fig. 4-8); and
one or more processors (processing unit 1004 in fig. 10) coupled with the one or more memories and, individually or in combination (as depicted in fig. 10, processing unit 1004 is connected system memory 1006 via BUS 1008), configured to:
monitor characteristics (802 in fig. 8 for determining if changed in a defined deviation from a specification for the network performance; see KPI measured in units of minutes in par. 0093) of a plurality of packets transmitted over an interface (interfacing between RU and DU in fig. 1-2 such as a wired and wireless communication network interface or adapter 1058 of fig. 10 and par. 0172) between a radio unit (RU 101 in fig. 1 and Rus in fig. 2) and a distributed unit (DU 104 in fig. 1 and DUs in fig. 2) including information of the plurality of packets (total amount of transmitted bits over a certain interval in fig. 5-7 and par. 0093) transmitted over the interface (KPI with packet transmission in par. 0072 and fig. 3 monitored as depicted in fig. 4 and described in par. 0088);
PNG
media_image1.png
594
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
detect an anomaly (detecting anomaly in par. 0039) based at least in part on a deviation (deviation from a specification for the performance metric in par. 0065, deviation in par. 0076, 0126) in the information among the plurality of packets transmitted over the interface (par. 0039, at a time t+i, the initial anomaly occurred at time t; par. 0072, a packet KPI defined as average time taken between packet transmission and ACK, or a block error rate KPI or a throughput KPI defined as a total number of bits divided by slot durations with data transmitted over the air, i.e., via interface such as network adaptor 1058 of fig. 10); and
identify the interface between the radio unit and the distributed unit (par. 0039, an anomaly detected at an RU in par. 00390) as potentially compromised based at least in part on the anomaly (818 in fig. 8 for identifying a subset of additional cells; par. 0056 and fig. 3, anomaly detected regarding KPIs from RU/DU/CU).
Although Jaffry does not explicitly show: “an interface between a radio unit and a distributed unit including a microsecond level timing information; wherein the microsecond level timing information is a delay pattern among the plurality of packets based on a timestamp of each packet; and the interface from a baseline delay pattern previously detected over the interface”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
PNG
media_image2.png
476
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “an interface between a radio unit and a distributed unit including a microsecond level timing information”, initially, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are required to be an interface such as wired interface or a wireless interface or a cellular interface or a WLAN interface. Initially, Jaffry discloses a wired and wireless communication network interface or adapter (1058 of fig. 10 and par. 0172). In particular, Vaez-Ghaemi teaches fronthaul link (130 in fig. 3) for using ethernet, eCPRI (par. 0021) with an accuracy of about 20-30 ns with some fixed delay of about 2-25 microseconds (par. 0081 and see fig. 2A; and see using counter for timing information in par. 0058-0060).
Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “wherein the microsecond level timing information is a delay pattern among the plurality of packets based on a timestamp of each packet; and the interface from a baseline delay pattern previously detected over the interface”, recall that Jaffry discloses an anomaly for being excessive delay (par. 0139). In addition, claim does not specifically define what are required to the delay pattern. In accordance with MPEP 2111, “the delay pattern” is reasonably interpreted as a repetitive delay or the same dealy or the fixed delay. In particular, Vaez-Ghaemi teaches timestamping incoming packet and fixed delay of about 2-15 microseconds (par. 0081 and see fig. 3 & 5-6) and UL delay and DL delay between O-DU and O-RU (see fig. 2B & 3 and par. 0031-0032 for how timing delays are calculated, i.e., including a baseline delay previously detected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify anomaly prediction in open RAN mobile networks of Jaffry by providing real-time O-RAN fronthaul analyzer as taught in Vaez-Ghaemi. Such a modification would have included a real-time fronthaul analyzer to monitor the packet traffic flow between an O-DU and an O-RU so that the interoperability, flexibility and disaggregation would have been enabled in Open Radio Access Network O-RAN environment for enhanced user experience as suggested in par. 0001-0002 of Vaez-Ghaemi.
Claim 2
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein to detect the anomaly, the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to correlate a first characteristic based on a physical layer measurement of the plurality of packets transmitted over the interface with second characteristic based on quantity of radio link control layer messages or radio resource control layer messages (Jaffry, correlating the measured metrics from the first cell and the second cells in steps 806-808-810-812 in fig. 8 as depicted in fig. 6-7 and protocol layers in par. 0036; Vaez-Ghaemi, PHY layer in par. 0021, 0023, 0047 & 0080 and see fig. 1; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 3
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first characteristic is the microsecond level timing information of the plurality of packets transmitted over the interface (Vaez-Ghaemi, 2-15 microseconds in par. 0081) and the deviation is a variation in the microsecond level timing information that is greater than a threshold (Vaez-Ghaemi, a second deviation in nanosecond timing resolution in par. 0056, the range 2-15 microseconds in par. 0081 can be said variation; “a variation in the microsecond level timing information that is greater than a threshold” can be considered as finding optimum value, and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 CCPA 1980).
Claim 4
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the characteristics include a rate of radio link failures reported over the interface between the radio unit and the distributed unit (Jaffry, anomaly within network, failures with radio networks in par. 0024 connecting to fig. 8 and key performance indicator KPI in par. 0056 & 0068-0070; Vaez-Ghaemi, error in par. 0040 and see counter for timing information in par. 0056-0060; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to obtain the claimed invention, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F-G).
Claim 5
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the characteristics include a channel quality indicator reported by user equipment connected to the radio unit (Jaffry, KPI and fig. 8, UE reports negative ACK to KPI and see anomaly report in fig. 4; Vaez-Ghaemi, KPI in par. 0042, measurement quality for FH link 130 of fig. 1-2 in par. 0030 & 0044 and see fig. 5-6; therefore, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious) .
Claim 6
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the characteristics include a quantity of measurement reports indicating handover conditions within a window of time (Jaffry, anomaly report in fig. 4 and number of handover in fig. 5; Vaez-Ghaemi, delay caused by congestion in par. 0056 and error in par. 0040 and see fig. 5-6; accordingly, the combined prior art would have read on the claim).
Claim 7
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to control one or both of the radio unit or the distributed unit to perform a mitigation action in response to identifying the interface as potentially compromised (Jaffry, anomaly report in fig. 4 and number of handover to adapt with resource allocation in fig. 5; Vaez-Ghaemi, balancing packet flow in fig. 6-8; accordingly, the combined prior art would have rendered the claim obvious).
Claim 8
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the mitigation action includes shutting down one or more cells associated with the distributed unit and offloading UEs to neighbor cells (Jaffry, anomaly report in fig. 4 and number of handover to adapt with resource allocation in fig. 5; Vaez-Ghaemi, multiple cells in par. 0022; accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim requirement).
Claim 9
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the mitigation action includes temporarily limiting a number of UEs permitted to perform a handover (Jaffry, handover numbers in fig. 5 and mitigating resource allocation to eliminate anomaly at the second cell in step 820 of fig. 8; Vaez-Ghaemi, limiting packet flow in par. 0072, 0090 & 0110; for these reasons, the one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 10
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the mitigation action includes performing integrity protection on packets transmitted over an Ethernet connection between a distributed unit and a radio unit (Jaffry, OS kernel level enabling security in par. 0168 and see mitigation in fig. 8; Vaez-Ghaemi, O-RAN security test in par. 0041 & 0077; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 11
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the integrity protection includes encoding an Ethernet frame including a fronthaul traffic packet using hardware accelerated encryption (Jaffry, kernel level enabling security in par. 0168; Vaez-Ghaemi, ethernet frame and payload in par. 0021, 0025 and packet security in par. 0077, fronthaul traffic in fig. 1-2 & 5-6; and hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 14
Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. All of the limitations in claim 14 are reciting the same scope of the respective limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 14 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 1 set forth above.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 3. All of the limitations in claim 15 are reciting the same scope of the respective limitations of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 15 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 3 set forth above.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 2. All of the limitations in claim 16 are reciting the same scope of the respective limitations of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 2 set forth above.
Claim 17
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the characteristics include one or more of:
a rate of radio link failures reported over the interface between the radio unit and the distributed unit (Jaffry, anomaly within network, failures with radio networks in par. 0024 connecting to fig. 8 and key performance indicator KPI in par. 0056 & 0068-0070; Vaez-Ghaemi, KPI in par. 0042 and error in par. 0070 and fronthaul link in fig. 1-2 & 5-6);
a channel quality indicator reported by user equipment connected to the radio unit (Jaffry, KPI and fig. 8, UE reports negative ACK to KPI and see anomaly report in fig. 4; Vaez-Ghaemi, KPI in par. 0042, quality in par. 0044 and error in par. 0070 and fronthaul link in fig. 1-2 & 5-6); or
a quantity of measurement reports indicating handover conditions within a window of time (Jaffry, anomaly report in fig. 4 and number of handover in fig. 5; Vaez-Ghaemi, KPI in par. 0042, measurements in par. 0061 and error in par. 0070 and see fronthaul link in fig. 1-2 & 5-6; accordingly, the combined prior art would have met the alternative claim limitations requirement in the claim).
Claim 18
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising controlling one or both of the radio unit or the distributed unit to perform a mitigation action in response to identifying the interface as potentially compromised (mitigation in fig. 8 of Jaffry and fig. 5-6 of Vaez-Ghaemi renders the claim obvious).
Claim 19
Jaffry, in view of Vaez-Ghaemi, discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the mitigation action includes one or more of:
shutting down one or more cells associated with the distributed unit and offloading UEs to neighbor cells (mitigating in fig. 8 of Jaffry; Vaez-Ghaemi, multiple cells in par. 0022 );
temporarily limiting a number of UEs permitted to perform a handover (Jaffry, handover numbers in fig. 5 and mitigating resource allocation to eliminate anomaly at the second cell in step 820 of fig. 8); or
integrity protection on packets transmitted over an Ethernet connection between a distributed unit and a radio unit (Jaffry, OS kernel level enabling security in par. 0168 and see mitigation in fig. 8; Vaez-Ghaemi, O-RAN security test in par. 0041 & 0077; for these reasons, the combined prior art meets the claim condition of alternative limitations requirement).
Claim 20
Claim 20 is a computer product corresponding to apparatus claim 1. All of the limitations in claim 20 are reciting the same scope of the respective limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claim 1 set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 12-13 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.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Machireddy et al. Pub. No.: US 2025/0007806 A1 teach delay measurement in fronthaul network using hardware timestamping (see fig. 1-6); and
Li et al. Pub. No.: US 2019/0124577 A1 teach open flow switching between CU and RU (see fig. 3-7).
However, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or renders the claim limitations, as a whole, obvious particularly:
For claim 12, “monitor characteristics of a plurality of packets transmitted over an interface between a radio unit and a distributed unit including a microsecond level timing information of the plurality of packets transmitted over the interface, wherein the microsecond level timing information is a delay pattern among the plurality of packets based on a timestamp of each packet; detect an anomaly based at least in part on a deviation in the microsecond level timing information among the plurality of packets transmitted over the interface from a baseline delay pattern previously detected over the interface; and identify the interface between the radio unit and the distributed unit as potentially compromised based at least in part on the anomaly; wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to control one or both of the radio unit or the distributed unit to perform a mitigation action in response to identifying the interface as potentially compromised; The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the mitigation action includes performing integrity protection on packets transmitted over an Ethernet connection between a distributed unit and a radio unit; and wherein the integrity protection includes encoding an Ethernet frame including a fronthaul traffic packet using hardware accelerated encryption”; and
For claim 13, “monitor characteristics of a plurality of packets transmitted over an interface between a radio unit and a distributed unit including a microsecond level timing information of the plurality of packets transmitted over the interface, wherein the microsecond level timing information is a delay pattern among the plurality of packets based on a timestamp of each packet; detect an anomaly based at least in part on a deviation in the microsecond level timing information among the plurality of packets transmitted over the interface from a baseline delay pattern previously detected over the interface; and identify the interface between the radio unit and the distributed unit as potentially compromised based at least in part on the anomaly; wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to control one or both of the radio unit or the distributed unit to perform a mitigation action in response to identifying the interface as potentially compromised; The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the mitigation action includes performing integrity protection on packets transmitted over an Ethernet connection between a distributed unit and a radio unit; and wherein the integrity protection includes encoding one or more parts of an Ethernet frame including a fronthaul traffic packet that are not protected by a higher layer protocol”, as detailed in light of fig. 1-8 and the corresponding paragraphs in this instant application.
Conclusion
8. 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.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit
