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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the specification, abstract, and claims dated 09/30/2024 has been fully considered and is entered. Claims 1-12 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what “providing” a mediator module entails. In particular, it is unclear whether “providing” means that the module is transmitted, installed, programmed or whether “providing” simply means that it is allowed to be accessed, such as by failing to install any authentication or authorization policy that requires secured access. In other words, it is unclear whether “providing” is an active step or a statement of inaction that allows for the mediator to exist and utilized by the system. The specification failed to explain what “providing” actually does such as to establish metes and bounds of this term. It is also noted that “configured for mediating” is not an actual method step of mediating that would be necessary in the method claim for it be given full patentable weight.
It also unclear how a communication can be mediated between a support system, which is an element of the system and a “functionality”, where functionality is not entity (element, device, node, etc.) that can be pointed to.
Line 1 of the claim body recites “the communications”, line 3 of the claim body recites “the Network Element management functionality”, and line 7 of the claim body recites “the access network”. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that the preamble recites “one or more”. Therefore, “the” should be accompanied by “one or more” to recite “the one or more” access networks and network element management functionalities.
It is also noted that “for allowing” is a statement of intended use and the claim does not require the operational support system to actually manage anything. Applicants are advised to have this functionality positively recited as an active step so that it can be accorded patentable weight.
As to claim 2, the language “are intended for” is a statement of intended use and is not accorded patentable weight. Therefore, claim 2 fails to further limit claim 1 from which it depends.
As to claim 4, it is unclear what “expose” means rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, “expose” will be interpreted as “comprise”.
As to claim 6, it is unclear where the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins because there is no transitional word such as “comprising”. It is also unclear what “designed” entails and whether “designed” could be a drawing on a piece of paper, similar to one depicted in Figure 2 of the disclosure.
Line 3 recites “the management”, lines 5-6 recite “the at least one telecommunications operator”, line 7 recites “the communications” and “the operational support system”. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
It is also noted that “for allowing” is a statement of intended use and the claim does not require the operational support system to actually manage anything. Applicants are advised to have this functionality positively recited as an active step so that it can be accorded patentable weight.
As to claims 7-8 and 10, these claims fail to further limit the mediator of claim 6 by describing other elements of a network that are not the communications mediator.
As to claim 11, the claim limitation “a communications filtering module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) despite not reciting “means” because the word “module” is a nonce term analogous to “means”. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification mentions the communications filtering module only in paragraph [0035] as published and merely repeats the claim language without additional details of how this “module” (or any other modules mentioned in the specification) are implemented. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As to claim 12, unclear how a mediator can be interposed between an operational support system and network element management functionalities, where a functionality is not entity (element, device, node, etc.) that can be pointed to, as discussed per claim 1
Line 4 recites “the management”. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that the preamble recites “one or more”.
It is also noted that “for allowing” is a statement of intended use and the claim does not require the operational support system to actually manage anything. Applicants are advised to have this functionality positively recited as an active step so that it can be accorded patentable weight.
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 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 6, use of the word “mediator” does not inherently mean that the claim is directed to a machine. Only if at least one of the clamed elements of the mediator is a physical part of a device can the mediator as claimed constitute part of a device or a combination of devices to be a machine within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101.
In the instant case, the claimed mediator does not appear to comprise any elements and is broad enough to be implemented as a drawing sketched on a piece of paper. Therefore, claim 6 does not fall into one of the statutory categories on the invention under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7-10 fail to correct the deficiency of claim 6 and thus are rejected for analogous reasons.
As to claim 11, the communications mediator is further defined to comprise a communications module and a programming interface. However, none of these elements are claimed or described to necessarily include hardware. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected as failing to be a machine within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101.
As to claim 12, use of the word “system” does not inherently mean that the claim is directed to a machine. Only if at least one of the clamed elements of the system is a physical part of a device can the system as claimed constitute part of a device or a combination of devices to be a machine within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101.
In the instant case, the claimed system comprises an access network system comprising a plurality of network elements, one or more network element management functionalities, at least one operational support systems, and a communications mediator of claim 6. None of the above recited elements are claimed or disclosed as necessarily having hardware. “Network elements” under the BRI can be implemented in software, functionalities are not elements to begin with, and “system” does not inherently include hardware, as discussed above.
Therefore, the claimed telecommunications system is broad enough to be implemented completely in software and transitory medium, which renders claim 12 non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (US 2025/0219888 A1 under “Overview of the Related Art”) hereinafter AAPA in view of Lee (US 2021/0022016 A1).
As to claim 1, AAPA teaches a method of managing Network Elements of a system of access networks of a telecommunications network [Network Elements (Nes)] (par. [0003]) by one or more telecommunications operators through one or more Network Element management functionalities [Element Managers (EMs)] (par. [0005]-[0006]) by Operational Support Systems of the telecommunications operators [OSS] (par. [0007]).
AAPA fails to teach providing a mediator module configured for mediating the communications between the Operational Support Systems of the telecommunications operators and the Network Element management functionality by filtering said communications according to predetermined filtering criteria for allowing the Operational Support System of each of the one or more telecommunications operators to manage only a respective part of the Network Elements of the access network depending on said filtering criteria.
Lee is directed to monitoring cellular sites (abstract). In particular, Lee teaches providing a mediator module [integrated operation and mediation system [iOMS] 116] (Fig. 1) configured for mediating the communications between the Operational Support Systems [OSS 110] (Fig. 1) of the telecommunications operators and the Network Element management functionality [network management interface, such as a base transceiver station operation and maintenance (BTSOM) interface] (par. [0017]) by filtering said communications according to predetermined filtering criteria [iOMS acts as a gateway between the signals received from the eNB base stations and translated to the OSS where each iOMS may communicate with respective OSS through a network interface, such as NetWork Interface V3 (NWI3) or common object request broker architecture (CORBA)] (par. [0017]-[0018]) for allowing the Operational Support System of each of the one or more telecommunications operators to manage only a respective part of the Network Elements of the access network depending on said filtering criteria [OSS can only manage those base stations that are part of the same network management system and are accessible through the iOMS] (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the admittedly known structure of a radio communication network by providing a mediator module configured for mediating the communications between the Operational Support Systems of the telecommunications operators and the Network Element management functionality by filtering said communications according to predetermined filtering criteria for allowing the Operational Support System of each of the one or more telecommunications operators to manage only a respective part of the Network Elements of the access network depending on said filtering criteria, in order to allow for monitoring operational status of the managed network elements (base stations in Lee).
As to claim 2, AAPA teaches that said communications between the Operational Support Systems of the telecommunications operators and the Network Element management functionality are intended for Fault Configuration Accounting Performance and Security, FCAPS, management operations on said Network Elements (par. [0004]-[0005]).
As to claim 3, AAPA teaches that said Network Element management functionalities are implemented by Element Managers (par. [0005]-[0007]).
As to claim 4, AAPA in view of Lee teaches that the Element Managers expose a NorthBound interface (par. [0007] in AAPA) and the mediator module is interposed between the NorthBound interface of the Element Managers and the Operational Support Systems of the telecommunications operators [iOMS of Lee would be positioned above the element manager of AAPA and below the OSS in Fig. 1 of Lee).
As to claim 5, AAPA in view of Lee teaches that said Network Element management functionalities are implemented by distributed partial services distributed among the Network Elements and the Operational Support Systems of the telecommunications operators, said distributed partial services altogether implementing the Network Element management functionalities [network provider implements management services and iOMS being an element of the network performs network management functions] (par. [0017]-[0018] in Lee).
As to claim 6, AAPA teaches a Network Element management functionality, responsible for the management of respective Network Elements of an access network system of a telecommunications system, and at least one Operational Support System of the at least one telecommunications operator of said telecommunications system, as discussed per claim 1 above.
AAPA fails to teach a communications mediator designed to be interposed between NE management functionality and OSS, and configured to mediate the communications between the Operational Support System and the Network Element management functionality by filtering said communications according to predetermined filtering criteria for allowing the Operational Support System to manage only a respective part of the Network Elements of the access network depending on said filtering criteria.
Lee teaches a communications mediator [iOMS 116] (Fig. 1) designed to be interposed between NE management functionality and OSS, and configured to mediate the communications between the Operational Support System and the Network Element management functionality by filtering said communications according to predetermined filtering criteria for allowing the Operational Support System to manage only a respective part of the Network Elements of the access network depending on said filtering criteria, as discussed per claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the admittedly known structure of a radio communication network by providing a communications mediator designed to be interposed between NE management functionality and OSS, and configured to mediate the communications between the Operational Support System and the Network Element management functionality by filtering said communications according to predetermined filtering criteria for allowing the Operational Support System to manage only a respective part of the Network Elements of the access network depending on said filtering criteria, in order to allow for monitoring operational status of the managed network elements (base stations in Lee).
As to claims 7-10, AAPA in view of Lee teaches all the elements, as discussed above with respect to corresponding method claims 2-5.
As to claim 11, AAPA in view of Lee teaches that the communications mediator comprises:
- a communications filtering module configured to filter said communications between the Operational Support System and the Network Element management functionality according to said predetermined filtering criteria [iOMS acts as a gateway between the signals received from the eNB base stations and translated to the OSS] (par. [0017]-[0018] in Lee),
- a programming interface configured to receive filtering parameters, defining said predetermined filtering criteria, for configuring said communications filtering module [iOMS may communicate with respective OSS through a network interface, such as NetWork Interface V3 (NWI3) or common object request broker architecture (CORBA)] (par. [0017]-[0018] in Lee).
As to claim 12, AAPA in view of Lee teaches a telecommunications system comprising:
- an access network system comprising a plurality of Network Elements, as discussed per claim 1;
- one or more Network Element management functionalities, each one responsible for the management of a respective group of Network Elements of said plurality, as discussed per claim 1;
- at least one Operational Support Systems of a respective at least one telecommunications operator, as discussed per claim 1, characterized by comprising:
- a communications mediator according to claim 6, interposed between the Network Element management functionalities and the at least one Operational Support System of the at least one telecommunications operator, configured to mediate the communications between the Operational Support System and the Network Element management functionalities by filtering said communications according to predetermined filtering criteria for allowing the Operational Support System to manage only a respective part of the Network Elements of the access network depending on said filtering criteria, as discussed per claims 1 and 6.
Related Prior Art
Simon et al. (US 2019/0268777 A1) is directed to a multi-channel-tenant virtualized broadcast platform and 5G convergence (abstract). In particular, Simon teaches a BMX orchestration entity 113 that validates all resource used from spectrum pools and is responsible for the exchange-to-exchange (E2E) orchestration of IP content and/or data flows and on the platform 100 (par. [0045]-[0047], Fig. 1). Therefore, Simon teaches filtering communications between at least one telecommunications operator and managed network elements and thus can be relied on to teach the mediator module of the pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG SURVILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/OLEG SURVILLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/MOUSTAFA M MEKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457