DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the 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.
This action is in response to application 18/757,021 filed 6/27/24.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 13 & 19 is/are unclear to the examiner; what does it mean by stating “receiving a user input regarding a test of a wireless communication system, the user input indicating to test an interoperability between an interface in the wireless communication system and one or more components in the wireless communication system”? the claim languages are not entirely clear what exactly the claimed invention is? To test between the interface with the components? What components? Please clarify
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 17 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaasila, U.S. Pub/Patent No. US 2014/0047417 A1.
As to claim 1, Kaasila teaches a method comprising:
receiving a user input regarding a test of a wireless communication system, the user input indicating to test an interoperability between an interface in the wireless communication system and one or more components in the wireless communication system (Kaasila, page 2, paragraph 25-32; i.e., [0025] to provide a system which provides a test environment in which software products can be tested for compatibility and performance issues; [0028] and one or more test routines for use in testing the wireless communication devices or terminals; [0030] providing corresponding test results to the one or more user interfaces; [0032] one or more software application stores in response to instructions input at the one or more user interfaces; [NOTE: test of the wireless includes testing environment or laboratory environment]);
determining, based on the user input, one or more parameters for the test of the wireless communication system (Kaasila, page 1, paragraph 14-15; page 2, paragraph 44; i.e., [0014] to provide corresponding test results to the one or more user interfaces, operating system compatibility for the wireless communication devices or terminals; [0015] to provide a method of providing a test environment in which software products can be tested for compatibility and performance issues; [0044] mobile wireless communication device 106, which is connectable via wireless communication links to the aforesaid software development environment; [NOTE: parameter includes functional test, protocol test, performance test or security test]); and
generating, based on performing the test of the wireless communication system using the one or more parameters, an output that indicates the interoperability between the interface and the one or more components (Kaasila, page 2, paragraph 25-32; i.e., [0025] to provide a system which provides a test environment in which software products can be tested for compatibility and performance issues; [0028] and one or more test routines for use in testing the wireless communication devices or terminals; [0030] providing corresponding test results to the one or more user interfaces; [0032] one or more software application stores in response to instructions input at the one or more user interfaces; [NOTE: test of the wireless includes testing environment or laboratory environment]).
As to claim 6, Kaasila teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of a functional test parameter, a protocol test parameter, a performance test parameter, or a security test parameter (Kaasila, page 2, paragraph 25-32; i.e., [0025] to provide a system which provides a test environment in which software products can be tested for compatibility and performance issues; [0028] and one or more test routines for use in testing the wireless communication devices or terminals; [0030] providing corresponding test results to the one or more user interfaces; [0032] one or more software application stores in response to instructions input at the one or more user interfaces; [NOTE: test of the wireless includes testing environment or laboratory environment]).
As to claim 8, Kaasila teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the test of the wireless communication system is performed in a testing environment or a laboratory environment (Kaasila, page 8, paragraph 44; i.e., [0044] mobile wireless communication device 106, which is connectable via wireless communication links to the aforesaid software development environment; [NOTE: test of the wireless includes testing environment or laboratory environment]).
As to claim 9, Kaasila teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the output that indicates the interoperability between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system includes a pass condition or a fail condition (Kaasila, page 5, paragraph 85; i.e., [0085] performance of developed software for various mobile wireless devices. Moreover, the system 10 can also be used to visualize for the software developer a manner in which different use cases, navigation paths and usage load scenarios are handled by the developed software under test conditions; [NOTE: test of the wireless includes testing environment or laboratory environment]).
As to claim 11, Kaasila teaches the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising:
determining, based on the user input, a testing resource for the test of the wireless communication system (Kaasila, page 2, paragraph 25-32; i.e., [0025] to provide a system which provides a test environment in which software products can be tested for compatibility and performance issues; [0028] and one or more test routines for use in testing the wireless communication devices or terminals; [0030] providing corresponding test results to the one or more user interfaces; [0032] one or more software application stores in response to instructions input at the one or more user interfaces; [NOTE: test of the wireless includes testing environment or laboratory environment]); and
initiating the test of the wireless communication system using the testing resource (Kaasila, page 2, paragraph 25-32; i.e., [0025] to provide a system which provides a test environment in which software products can be tested for compatibility and performance issues; [0028] and one or more test routines for use in testing the wireless communication devices or terminals; [0030] providing corresponding test results to the one or more user interfaces; [0032] one or more software application stores in response to instructions input at the one or more user interfaces; [NOTE: test of the wireless includes testing environment or laboratory environment]).
As to claim 12, Kaasila teaches the method as recited in claim 11, further comprising adding the test of the wireless communication system to a queue based on the testing resource not being available or not having end-to-end connectivity (Kaasila, page 3, paragraph 64; i.e., [0064] the connected terminals or any of the connected
terminals or emulators/simulators;; [NOTE: test of the wireless includes testing environment or laboratory environment]).
Claim(s) 13 & 17 is/are directed to a system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1 & 6. Therefore, claim(s) 13 & 17 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1 & 6.
Claim(s) 19 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium claim and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 19 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 10,14-16 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaasila, U.S. Pub/Patent No. US 2014/0047417 A1 in view of Joshi, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2025/0386221 A1.
As to claim 2, Kaasila teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Kaasila failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the wireless communication system is an open radio access network (ORAN) wireless communication system.
However, Joshi teaches the limitation wherein the wireless communication system is an open radio access network (ORAN) wireless communication system (Joshi, page 4, paragraph 36 & 40; i.e., [0036] RICs 115, and the SMO Framework 105 via a wired or wireless transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kaasila to substitute FDMA from Joshi for API from Kaasila to enables different wireless devices to communicate on a municipal, national, regional, and even global level (Joshi, page 1, paragraph 3).
As to claim 3, Kaasila-Joshi teaches the method as recited in claim 2. But Kaasila failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the interface is an ORAN interface, and wherein the one or more components include one or more other ORAN interfaces.
However, Joshi teaches the limitation wherein the interface is an ORAN interface, and wherein the one or more components include one or more other ORAN interfaces (Joshi, page 4, paragraph 36 & 40; i.e., [0036] RICs 115, and the SMO Framework 105 via a wired or wireless transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kaasila to substitute FDMA from Joshi for API from Kaasila to enables different wireless devices to communicate on a municipal, national, regional, and even global level (Joshi, page 1, paragraph 3).
As to claim 4, Kaasila teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Kaasila failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the interface is an open fronthaul (OFH) interface, an open midhaul (OMH) interface, an open backhaul (OBH) interface, a radio access network (RAN) intelligence controller (RIC) interface, a service management and orchestration (SMO) interface, or an Xn interface.
However, Joshi teaches the limitation wherein the interface is an open fronthaul (OFH) interface, an open midhaul (OMH) interface, an open backhaul (OBH) interface, a radio access network (RAN) intelligence controller (RIC) interface, a service management and orchestration (SMO) interface, or an Xn interface (Joshi, page 4, paragraph 36 & 40; i.e., [0036] RICs 115, and the SMO Framework 105 via a wired or wireless transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kaasila to substitute FDMA from Joshi for API from Kaasila to enables different wireless devices to communicate on a municipal, national, regional, and even global level (Joshi, page 1, paragraph 3).
As to claim 5, Kaasila-Joshi teaches the method as recited in claim 4. But Kaasila failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the OFH interface is a management plane OFH interface, a control plane OFH interface, a user plane OFH interface, or a synchronization plane OFH interface; wherein the OMH interface is a control plane F1 interface or a user plane F1 interface; wherein the OBH interface is a control plane NG interface or a user plane NG interface; wherein the RIC interface is an E2 interface or an A1 interface; and wherein the SMO interface is an O1 interface or an O2 interface.
However, Joshi teaches the limitation wherein the OFH interface is a management plane OFH interface, a control plane OFH interface, a user plane OFH interface, or a synchronization plane OFH interface (Joshi, page 3, paragraph 31; i.e., [0031] user interface); wherein the OMH interface is a control plane F1 interface or a user plane F1 interface (Joshi, page 3, paragraph 35; i.e., [0035] F1 interface); wherein the OBH interface is a control plane NG interface or a user plane NG interface (Joshi, page 6, paragraph 51; i.e., [0051] NG interface); wherein the RIC interface is an E2 interface or an A1 interface (Joshi, page 4, paragraph 40; i.e., [0040] O1 interface and SMO interface); and wherein the SMO interface is an O1 interface or an O2 interface (Joshi, page 4, paragraph 40; i.e., [0040] O1 interface and SMO interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kaasila to substitute FDMA from Joshi for API from Kaasila to enables different wireless devices to communicate on a municipal, national, regional, and even global level (Joshi, page 1, paragraph 3).
As to claim 10, Kaasila teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Kaasila failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the output that indicates the interoperability between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system includes a value that indicates a level of interoperability between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system.
However, Joshi teaches the limitation wherein the output that indicates the interoperability between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system includes a value that indicates a level of interoperability between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system (Joshi, figure 8A-8B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kaasila to substitute FDMA from Joshi for API from Kaasila to enables different wireless devices to communicate on a municipal, national, regional, and even global level (Joshi, page 1, paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are directed to a system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 2-5. Therefore, claim(s) 14-16 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 2-5.
Claim(s) 20 is/are directed to a system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 3-4. Therefore, claim(s) 20 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 3-4.
Claim(s) 7 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaasila, U.S. Pub/Patent No. US 2014/0047417 A1 in view of Haddad, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2011/0261753 A1.
As to claim 7, Kaasila teaches the method as recited in claim 6. But Kaasila failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the functional test parameter indicates a connection property, a data transfer property, or a handover property associated with communications between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system; wherein the protocol test parameter indicates a signaling message property, an error handling property, or a protocol compliance property associated with communications between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system; wherein the performance test parameter indicates a network load property, a mobility property, or an interference property associated with communications between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system; and wherein the security test parameter indicates a vulnerability property, an encryption property, or a communication security property associated with communications between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system.
However, Haddad teaches the limitation wherein the functional test parameter indicates a connection property, a data transfer property, or a handover property associated with communications between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system (Haddad, page 4, paragraph 37; i.e., [0037] the communications link between MTl and MT2 (i.e., on the path between their WLAN s interfaces), communication session. Therefore, to provide a secure transfer of communications, MTl calculates one or more security parameters to authenticate itself to MT2 (box 56), and then generates a new signaling message, the Path Probe Request
(PPR) message, to include the calculated security parameters); wherein the protocol test parameter indicates a signaling message property, an error handling property, or a protocol compliance property associated with communications between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system (Haddad, page 4, paragraph 37; i.e., [0037] the communications link between MTl and MT2 (i.e., on the path between their WLAN s interfaces), communication session. Therefore, to provide a secure transfer of communications, MTl calculates one or more security parameters to authenticate itself to MT2 (box 56), and then generates a new signaling message, the Path Probe Request (PPR) message, to include the calculated security parameters); wherein the performance test parameter indicates a network load property, a mobility property, or an interference property associated with communications between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system (Haddad, page 4, paragraph 37; i.e., [0037] the communications link between MTl and MT2 (i.e., on the path between their WLAN s interfaces), communication session. Therefore, to provide a secure transfer of communications, MTl calculates one or more security parameters to authenticate itself to MT2 (box 56), and then generates a new signaling message, the Path Probe Request
(PPR) message, to include the calculated security parameters); and wherein the security test parameter indicates a vulnerability property, an encryption property, or a communication security property associated with communications between the interface and the one or more components in the wireless communication system (Haddad, page 4, paragraph 37; i.e., [0037] the communications link between MTl and MT2 (i.e., on the path between their WLAN s interfaces), communication session. Therefore, to provide a secure transfer of communications, MTl calculates one or more security parameters to authenticate itself to MT2 (box 56), and then generates a new signaling message, the Path Probe Request (PPR) message, to include the calculated security parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Kaasila to substitute LTE from Joshi for API from Haddad to the wireless communication device performs the migration while protecting against malicious hijacking attacks (Haddad, page 1, paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 18 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium claim and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 7. Therefore, claim(s) 18 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 7.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Goswami, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20230033886 A1 discloses performance testing and interoperability testing.
He, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20220361144 A1 discloses F1 & NG interface, interoperability testing and wireless communication.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. 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.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights