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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The IDS has been considered by the examiner.
The specification and drawings have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trueba (US 2020/0151304) in view of Vainshvani (US 20230412608).
Referring to claim 2, Trueba discloses a Radio equipment comprising: interface circuitry; machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed based on the machine-readable instructions (FIG. 1, Par. 5, 22, “apparatus includes a memory and a hardware processor. The memory stores a catalog of applications and a catalog of trusted sources. The processor detects that a first user attempted to install an application”) to:
determine whether a cybersecurity regulation applies to an application to be installed on the radio equipment (Par. 27, 28, 35, “security tool 125 also verifies that a license 165 to install application 150 exists. For example, license 165 may allow … to install application 150”, “By ensuring that license 165 exists, security tool 125 ensures that system 100 does not run afoul of any licensing requirements of application 150 or source 155”, “Scan 160 may reveal whether application 150 includes malware or viruses that could pose a security risk to network 115 or security 100”, note that verifying the existence of a license is equivalent to security regulation. Further, note that the security tool 125 verifying that a license to install exists is equivalent to determining whether a cybersecurity regulation applies to an application to be installed on the radio equipment. Further, note that the security tool is for protecting against viruses and malware that could cause a security risk, thus, the security license is for cybersecurity),
and after a determination that the cybersecurity regulation applies to the, perform validation of the based on a certificate (Par. 32 and 33, “If security tool 125 does not verify application 150 or source 155, then security tool 125 may prevent user 105A from downloading or installing application 150 on device 110A. Security tool 125 may refuse to add application 150 to catalog 140 and source 155 to catalog 145”, “After an application has been verified, security tool 125 may allow the application to be installed. In the illustrated example of FIG. 1, security tool 125 receives a request 175 from user 105B or device 110B to install application 150”, “verifies that a license 165 to install application 150 exists”, “Scan 160 may reveal whether application 150 includes malware or viruses that could pose a security risk to network 115 or security 100”, note an application is validated based on a license (e.g., license 165), this is equivalent to validation of the application based on a certificate), and accept or reject installation of the application on the radio equipment based on a result of the validation of the application (Par. 32-33, “After an application has been verified, security tool 125 may allow the application to be installed”, “If security tool 125 does not verify application 150 or source 155, then security tool 125 may prevent … installing application 150 on device 110A”. Note that the security tool accepts or prevents the installation of an application based on validation which reads on the claim language).
Trueba does not specifically disclose an xApp.
However, one skilled in the art would recognize that a cybersecurity regulation that applies to a mobile APP can also be applied to an xAPP, ass disclosed below by Vaishnavi.
Vainshnavi discloses authenticating xApps for security (Par. 61, 62, 91, “services to authenticate xApps”, “The API management services 606 authenticates the xApp 608 and authorizes that the xApp 608 can request registration to the xApp registry service producer”, note that xApps are authenticated for validation and security).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Trueba by incorporating the teachings of Vainshnavi so that xApps would be validated and authenticated efficiently using the known system of mobile applications validation, for the purpose of protecting the radio equipment by ascertaining that the xApps are legit and they don’t carry any viruses or malicious code. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the radio equipment of claim 2, wherein the radio equipment is a base station (Trueba, Par. 18, “This disclosure contemplates device 110 being any appropriate device for sending and receiving communications over network 115. As an example, and not by way of limitation, device 110 may be a computer, a laptop, a wireless or cellular telephone, an electronic notebook, a personal digital assistant, a tablet, or any other device capable of receiving, processing, storing, and/or communicating information with other components of system 100. Device 110 may also include a user interface, such as a display, a microphone, keypad, or other appropriate”, note that the device 110 can be any device that would allow sending and receiving communications over a network or any device that includes radio transmitting and reception means and a processor to allow it to electronically communicate through network 115 with the security tool 125, and a base station is a radio device that provides means for sending and receiving communications over network 115 and includes radio transmitting and reception means and a processor to allow it to electronically communicate through network 115 with the security tool 125).
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the radio equipment of claim radio equipment of claim 2, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to perform the validation of the xApp based on the certificate and communication with a compute device (Trueba, FIG. 1 and Par. 17-19 and 21, “Devices 110 include any appropriate device for communicating with components of system 100 over network 115”, “Security tool 125 verifies applications in system 100. As seen in FIG. 1, security tool 125 includes a processor 130 and a memory 135. This disclosure contemplates processor 130 and memory 135 being configured to perform any of the functions of security tool 125 described herein.” Note that the devices 110 communicate with Security tool 125 over Network 115. The Security Tool is equivalent to the compute device that computes using processor 130 to asses risks and security).
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the radio equipment of claim radio equipment of claim 2, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to accept the installation of the xApp after a determination that the cybersecurity regulation does not apply to the xApp (Trueba, Par. 32-33, “After an application has been verified, security tool 125 may allow the application to be installed”, note that when an application is verified, the application is allowed (or accepted)).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the radio equipment of claim radio equipment of claim 2, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to reject the installation of the xApp after a determination that the certificate does not correspond to a target certification level (Trueba, Par. 32 and 33, “If security tool 125 does not verify application 150 or source 155, then security tool 125 may prevent user 105A from downloading or installing application 150 on device 110A. Security tool 125 may refuse to add application 150 to catalog 140 and source 155 to catalog 145”).
Referring to claim 9, Trueba discloses the radio equipment of claim A system (FIG. 1, Par. 5, Par. 17, “3 100”, note that figure 1 describes a system that includes a Security Tool 125 in communication with a devices 110A) comprising: radio frequency circuitry; baseband circuitry; interface circuitry to interconnect the radio frequency circuitry and the baseband circuitry; machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed based on the machine-readable (FIG. 1, Par. 5, 22, “a memory and a hardware processor. The memory stores a catalog of applications and a catalog of trusted sources. The processor detects that a first user attempted to install an application”, note that the memory is the non-transitory machine readable medium and it gives instructions to the processor)) instructions to:
determine whether a cybersecurity regulation applies to an application to be installed on the radio equipment (Par. 27, 28, 35, “security tool 125 also verifies that a license 165 to install application 150 exists. For example, license 165 may allow … to install application 150”, “By ensuring that license 165 exists, security tool 125 ensures that system 100 does not run afoul of any licensing requirements of application 150 or source 155”, “Scan 160 may reveal whether application 150 includes malware or viruses that could pose a security risk to network 115 or security 100”, note that verifying the existence of a license is equivalent to security regulation. Further, note that the security tool 125 verifying that a license to install exists is equivalent to determining whether a cybersecurity regulation applies to an application to be installed on the radio equipment. Further, note that the security tool is for protecting against viruses and malware that could cause a security risk, thus, the security license is for cybersecurity),
and after a determination that the cybersecurity regulation applies to the, perform validation of the based on a certificate (Par. 32 and 33, “If security tool 125 does not verify application 150 or source 155, then security tool 125 may prevent user 105A from downloading or installing application 150 on device 110A. Security tool 125 may refuse to add application 150 to catalog 140 and source 155 to catalog 145”, “After an application has been verified, security tool 125 may allow the application to be installed. In the illustrated example of FIG. 1, security tool 125 receives a request 175 from user 105B or device 110B to install application 150”, “verifies that a license 165 to install application 150 exists”, “Scan 160 may reveal whether application 150 includes malware or viruses that could pose a security risk to network 115 or security 100”, note an application is validated based on a license (e.g., license 165), this is equivalent to validation of the application based on a certificate), and accept or reject installation of the application on the radio equipment based on a result of the validation of the application (Par. 32-33, “After an application has been verified, security tool 125 may allow the application to be installed”, “If security tool 125 does not verify application 150 or source 155, then security tool 125 may prevent … installing application 150 on device 110A”. Note that the security tool accepts or prevents the installation of an application based on validation which reads on the claim language).
Trueba does not specifically disclose an xApp.
However, one skilled in the art would recognize that a cybersecurity regulation that applies to a mobile APP can also be applied to an xAPP, ass disclosed below by Vaishnavi.
Vainshnavi discloses authenticating xApps for security (Par. 61, 62, 91, “services to authenticate xApps”, “The API management services 606 authenticates the xApp 608 and authorizes that the xApp 608 can request registration to the xApp registry service producer”, note that xApps are authenticated for validation and security).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Trueba by incorporating the teachings of Vainshnavi so that xApps would be validated and authenticated efficiently using the known system of mobile applications validation, for the purpose of protecting the radio equipment by ascertaining that the xApps are legit and they don’t carry any viruses or malicious code. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the system includes a base station (Trueba, Par. 18, “This disclosure contemplates device 110 being any appropriate device for sending and receiving communications over network 115. As an example, and not by way of limitation, device 110 may be a computer, a laptop, a wireless or cellular telephone, an electronic notebook, a personal digital assistant, a tablet, or any other device capable of receiving, processing, storing, and/or communicating information with other components of system 100. Device 110 may also include a user interface, such as a display, a microphone, keypad, or other appropriate”, note that the device 110 can be any device that would allow sending and receiving communications over a network or any device that includes radio transmitting and reception means and a processor to allow it to electronically communicate through network 115 with the security tool 125, and a base station is a radio device that provides means for sending and receiving communications over network 115 and includes radio transmitting and reception means and a processor to allow it to electronically communicate through network 115 with the security tool 125).
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the system of claim 9, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to perform the validation of the xApp based on the certificate and communication with a compute device (Trueba, FIG. 1 and Par. 17-19 and 21, “Devices 110 include any appropriate device for communicating with components of system 100 over network 115”, “Security tool 125 verifies applications in system 100. As seen in FIG. 1, security tool 125 includes a processor 130 and a memory 135. This disclosure contemplates processor 130 and memory 135 being configured to perform any of the functions of security tool 125 described herein.” Note that the devices 110 communicate with Security tool 125 over Network 115. The Security Tool is equivalent to the compute device that computes using processor 130 to assess risks and security).
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the system of claim 9, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to permit the installation of the xApp after a determination that the cybersecurity regulation does not apply to the xApp (Trueba, Par. 32-33, “After an application has been verified, security tool 125 may allow the application to be installed”, note that when an application is verified, the application is allowed (or accepted)).
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the system of claim 9, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to prevent the installation of the xApp after a determination that the certificate does not correspond to a target certification level (Trueba, Par. 32 and 33, “If security tool 125 does not verify application 150 or source 155, then security tool 125 may prevent user 105A from downloading or installing application 150 on device 110A. Security tool 125 may refuse to add application 150 to catalog 140 and source 155 to catalog 145”).
Referring to claim 16, Trueba discloses at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions to cause at least one processor circuit (FIG. 1, Par. 5, 22, “a memory and a hardware processor. The memory stores a catalog of applications and a catalog of trusted sources. The processor detects that a first user attempted to install an application”, note that the memory is the non-transitory machine readable medium and it gives instructions to the processor)) to at least: determine whether a cybersecurity regulation applies to an application to be installed on the radio equipment (Par. 27, 28, 35, “security tool 125 also verifies that a license 165 to install application 150 exists. For example, license 165 may allow … to install application 150”, “By ensuring that license 165 exists, security tool 125 ensures that system 100 does not run afoul of any licensing requirements of application 150 or source 155”, “Scan 160 may reveal whether application 150 includes malware or viruses that could pose a security risk to network 115 or security 100”, note that verifying the existence of a license is equivalent to security regulation. Further, note that the security tool 125 verifying that a license to install exists is equivalent to determining whether a cybersecurity regulation applies to an application to be installed on the radio equipment. Further, note that the security tool is for protecting against viruses and malware that could cause a security risk, thus, the security license is for cybersecurity), and after a determination that the cybersecurity regulation applies to the, perform validation of the based on a certificate (Par. 32 and 33, “If security tool 125 does not verify application 150 or source 155, then security tool 125 may prevent user 105A from downloading or installing application 150 on device 110A. Security tool 125 may refuse to add application 150 to catalog 140 and source 155 to catalog 145”, “After an application has been verified, security tool 125 may allow the application to be installed. In the illustrated example of FIG. 1, security tool 125 receives a request 175 from user 105B or device 110B to install application 150”, “verifies that a license 165 to install application 150 exists”, “Scan 160 may reveal whether application 150 includes malware or viruses that could pose a security risk to network 115 or security 100”, note an application is validated based on a license (e.g., license 165), this is equivalent to validation of the application based on a certificate), and
accept or reject installation of the application on the radio equipment based on a result of the validation of the application (Par. 32-33, “After an application has been verified, security tool 125 may allow the application to be installed”, “If security tool 125 does not verify application 150 or source 155, then security tool 125 may prevent … installing application 150 on device 110A”. Note that the security tool accepts or prevents the installation of an application based on validation which reads on the claim language).
Trueba does not specifically disclose an xApp.
However, one skilled in the art would recognize that a cybersecurity regulation that applies to a mobile APP can also be applied to an xAPP, ass disclosed below by Vaishnavi.
Vainshnavi discloses authenticating xApps for security (Par. 61, 62, 91, “services to authenticate xApps”, “The API management services 606 authenticates the xApp 608 and authorizes that the xApp 608 can request registration to the xApp registry service producer”, note that xApps are authenticated for validation and security).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Trueba by incorporating the teachings of Vainshnavi so that xApps would be validated and authenticated efficiently using the known system of mobile applications validation, for the purpose of protecting the radio equipment by ascertaining that the xApps are legit and they don’t carry any viruses or malicious code. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 17, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the radio equipment is a base station (Trueba, Par. 18, “This disclosure contemplates device 110 being any appropriate device for sending and receiving communications over network 115. As an example, and not by way of limitation, device 110 may be a computer, a laptop, a wireless or cellular telephone, an electronic notebook, a personal digital assistant, a tablet, or any other device capable of receiving, processing, storing, and/or communicating information with other components of system 100. Device 110 may also include a user interface, such as a display, a microphone, keypad, or other appropriate”, note that the device 110 can be any device that would allow sending and receiving communications over a network or any device that includes radio transmitting and reception means and a processor to allow it to electronically communicate through network 115 with the security tool 125, and a base station is a radio device that provides means for sending and receiving communications over network 115 and includes radio transmitting and reception means and a processor to allow it to electronically communicate through network 115 with the security tool 125).
Referring to claim 19, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to perform the validation of the xApp based on the certificate and communication with a compute device (Trueba, FIG. 1 and Par. 17-19 and 21, “Devices 110 include any appropriate device for communicating with components of system 100 over network 115”, “Security tool 125 verifies applications in system 100. As seen in FIG. 1, security tool 125 includes a processor 130 and a memory 135. This disclosure contemplates processor 130 and memory 135 being configured to perform any of the functions of security tool 125 described herein.” Note that the devices 110 communicate with Security tool 125 over Network 115. The Security Tool is equivalent to the compute device that computes using processor 130 to assess risks and security).
Referring to claim 20, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to accept the installation of the xApp after a determination that the cybersecurity regulation does not apply to the xApp (Trueba, Par. 32-33, “After an application has been verified, security tool 125 may allow the application to be installed”, note that when an application is verified, the application is allowed (or accepted)).
Referring to claim 21, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to reject the installation of the xApp after a determination that the certificate does not correspond to a target certification level (Trueba, Par. 32 and 33, “If security tool 125 does not verify application 150 or source 155, then security tool 125 may prevent user 105A from downloading or installing application 150 on device 110A. Security tool 125 may refuse to add application 150 to catalog 140 and source 155 to catalog 145”).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trueba (US 2020/0151304) in view of Vainshvani (US 20230412608) and further in view of Sommer (US 2017/0353482).
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Trueba/Vainshvani discloses the radio equipment of claim 2.
The combination is not relied on for wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine whether the cybersecurity regulation applies to the xApp based on communication with a database.
In an analogous art, Sommer discloses determining whether the cybersecurity regulation applies to the xApp based on communication with a database (Claim 11, “validate the application data against an infrastructure database data; validate the application data against a compliance database; validate the application data against a vulnerability database; calculate a vulnerability risk score of the application based on the application data and the validations of the application data”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Sommer so that the xApps would be validated and authenticated using a database having list of secure and non-secure xApps, for the purpose of expediting the protecting of the radio equipment using a list that already includes the secure applications. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim 12 recites features analogous to the features of claim 5, thus, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/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.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine whether the cybersecurity regulation applies to the xApp based on a tag associated with the xApp”, along with the other limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Error! Unknown document property name. whose telephone number is Error! Unknown document property name.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 to 5. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at (571) 270-5371. 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).
/FRED A CASCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights