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 Amendment
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application. Claims 1-12 are currently amended. No claims have been canceled. Claims 13-19 are new.
Response to Arguments
With regard to Applicant’s remarks dated April 14, 2026:
Regarding the rejection of claims 6-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and is sufficient. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, it is noted that the rejection will be reinstated if the unsupported element of a “processor” is removed from the claim as part resolving the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, as explained below.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and is sufficient with respect to some of the identified issues. Therefore, the rejection of those claims/issues has been withdrawn. However, not all issues have been addressed and Applicant’s amendment has introduced new issues. Therefore, the overall rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims, Applicant’s amendment is sufficient. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been fully considered. Applicants argue at page 11 of the Remarks, as filed, that “while Lee discloses that signals are "translated to the OSS 110, 112, 114," they provide no disclosure of segregating specific data and restricting its transmission exclusively to a specific operator's OSS based on the results of a filtering.” Examiner disagrees. There is nothing in the claim that would require “filtering” to include segregating specific data and restricting its transmission exclusively to a specific operator’s OSS based on the results of a filtering, as argued. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is directed to unclaimed features. Reliance on Lee is maintained.
As to any arguments not specifically addressed, they are the same as those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1, 4, 6, 12-15, 17, and 19, these claims are amended or newly introduced to recite a “processor” as performing the method steps and the processor being comprised in the mediator. However, the disclosure fails to recite a processor. There is no description of the specification of a processor being a generic processor executing a computer-readable instructions nor a special purpose processor (e.g., FPGA) that is configured in hardware to perform the claimed steps. Therefore, these claims are reciting subject matter that is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason.
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 1-19 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 “Network Elements” recited in the preamble are being managed as a result of the method step. In particular, the preamble states “a method of managing Network Elements of a system”. However, none of the steps of the method actually manage (or even recite) such “Network Elements”. It appears that newly added claim 15 is the only claim directed to managing a Network Element. Applicants are advised to incorporate the subject matter of claim 15 into each independent claim.
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 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. In particular, it is unclear how a communication mediator comprising a processor (i.e., a piece of hardware) can be “designed to be interposed” between one or more functionalities (abstract functions), where a functionality is not an element, device, or a node that can be pointed to such as to establish interposition.
Line 3 recites “the management”. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The language “a processor configured to” is ambiguous because it is unclear how “configured” is accomplished in the absence of computer-executable instructions that are stored in memory. In particular, if Applicants intent the processor to be a generic CPU, then the claim is missing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure to the mediator to perform the claimed functions. However, no such instructions are recited in the claim (or the specification), merely stating that the processor is somehow configured. However, if Applicants intent the processor to be a specifically programmed FPGA or similarly programmed controller (which specification is lacking adequate description for that would comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a)), it is unclear what type of configuring is performed.
As to claim 12, unclear how a communications mediator comprising a processor (i.e., a piece of hardware) can be interposed between an operational support system, which is undefined and Network Element management functionalities (abstract functions), where a functionality is not an element, device, or a node that can be pointed to such as to establish interposition.
Line 4 recites “the management”. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The language “a processor configured to” is ambiguous because it is unclear how “configured” is accomplished in the absence of computer-executable instructions that are stored in memory. In particular, if Applicants intent the processor to be a generic CPU, then the claim is missing computer executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure to the mediator to perform the claimed functions. However, no such instructions are recited in the claim (or the specification), merely stating that the processor is somehow configured. However, if Applicants intent the processor to be a specifically programmed FPGA or similarly programmed controller (which specification is lacking adequate description for that would comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a)), it is unclear what type of configuring is performed.
As to claim 14, it is unclear what “enabling” entails as an active step such as to provide an off-line access, instead broadly covering all known and unknown ways of accomplishing off-line access, including an inaction.
As to claims 15, 17, and 19, the claim language “the management command including a target Network Element of the Network Elements” is ambiguous because it is unclear whether the actual Network Element is included in the command or an identifier of the Network Element. It is further unclear how verification of whether the specific one of the OSSs has permission to manage the Network Element can be part of “filtering”. In particular, it is unclear what type of filtering is performed as part of permission verification.
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 and 14 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) and in further view of Reeves et al. (US 2023/0208709 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 one or more telecommunications operators [OSS] (par. [0007]).
AAPA fails to teach receiving, via a processor, network data from the one or more Network Element management functionalities; performing, via the processor, a first filtering including filtering the network data according to predetermined filtering criteria; generating, via the processor, operator-specific filtered data based on the first filtering; and transmitting, via the processor, the operator-specific filtered data exclusively to a specific one of the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators.
Lee is directed to monitoring cellular sites (abstract). In particular, Lee teaches receiving, via a processor [system of Fig. 3], network data from the one or more Network Element management functionalities [network management interface, such as a base transceiver station operation and maintenance (BTSOM) interface] [receiving base station site status from one or more base stations] (par. [0017], [0030]);
performing, via the processor, a first filtering including filtering the network data according to predetermined filtering criteria [validating the status of the base station by checking for possible errors provided by the OSS and status inconsistencies] (par. [0030]);
generating, via the processor, operator-specific filtered data based on the first filtering [generating the actual status of the base station as compared to the status received from the OSS] (par. [0031]-[0032]).
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 receiving, via a processor, network data from the one or more Network Element management functionalities; performing, via the processor, a first filtering including filtering the network data according to predetermined filtering criteria; and generating, via the processor, operator-specific filtered data based on the first filtering, in order to allow for monitoring operational status of the managed network elements (base stations in Lee).
While Lee teaches communicating with one of the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators [OSS 110] (Fig. 1), Lee fails to expressly teach transmitting, via the processor, the operator-specific filtered data exclusively to a specific one of the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators.
Reeves is directed to an inspection system deployed in a core network that receives and analyzes network reports from access nodes (abstract). In particular, Rathinam teaches transmitting, via a processor [inspection manager] (Fig. 3), the operator-specific filtered data exclusively to a specific one of the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators [notifying OSS of the reconfiguration, where the OSS updates the internal status of the corresponding RAN] (par. [0032], [0040], [0045]).
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 in view of Lee by transmitting, via the processor, the operator-specific filtered data exclusively to a specific one of the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators, in order to notify the OSS that the actual status of the base station does not match the status received from the OSS so that OSS can update its records.
As to claim 2, AAPA teaches that the network data is associated with Fault Configuration Accounting Performance and Security, FCAPS, management operations on said Network Elements (par. [0004]-[0005]). It is noted that further defining network data to show what the network data is associated with without claiming how “Fault Configuration Accounting Performance and Security, FCAPS, management operations on said Network Elements” are utilized by the method, amount to a mere non-functional descriptive material.
As to claim 3, AAPA teaches that the one or more Network Element management functionalities are implemented by Element Managers (par. [0005]-[0007]).
As to claim 4, AAPA in view of Lee and Reeves teaches that the Element Managers expose a NorthBound interface (par. [0007] in AAPA) and the method is performed by a communications mediator that includes the processor and that is interposed between the NorthBound interface of the Element Managers and the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators [iOMS of Lee and inspection manager of Reeves would be positioned above the element manager of AAPA and below the OSS in Fig. 1 of Lee/Fig. 3 in Reeves).
As to claim 5, AAPA in view of Lee teaches that the one or more Network Element management functionalities are implemented by distributed partial services distributed among the Network Elements and the one or more 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 one or more Network Element management functionalities, responsible for the management of respective Network Elements of an access network system of a telecommunications system and Operational Support Systems of one or more telecommunications operators 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 OSSs, the communications mediator comprising a processor configured to perform the functionality as discussed above with respect to method steps of claim 1.
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 Systems and the Network Element management functionality by performing the functionality 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 OSSs, and configured to perform the functionality as discussed per claim 1 above, in order to allow for monitoring operational status of the managed network elements (base stations in Lee).
While Lee teaches communicating with one of the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators [OSS 110] (Fig. 1), Lee fails to expressly teach causing the communications mediator to transmit the operator-specific filtered data exclusively to a specific one of the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators.
Reeves is directed to an inspection system deployed in a core network that receives and analyzes network reports from access nodes (abstract). In particular, Rathinam teaches causing the communications mediator [inspection manager] (Fig. 3) to transmit the operator-specific filtered data exclusively to a specific one of the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators [notifying OSS of the reconfiguration, where the OSS updates the internal status of the corresponding RAN] (par. [0032], [0040], [0045]).
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 in view of Lee by causing the communications mediator to transmit the operator-specific filtered data exclusively to a specific one of the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators, in order to notify the OSS that the actual status of the base station does not match the status received from the OSS so that OSS can update its records.
As to claims 7-10, AAPA in view of Lee and Reeves teaches all the elements, as discussed above with respect to corresponding method claims 2-5.
As to claim 11, AAPA in view of Lee and Reeves teaches that the communications mediator comprises a programming interface configured to receive filtering parameters defining said predetermined filtering criteria [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 and Reeves 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;
Operational Support Systems of one or more telecommunications operators, as discussed per claim 1; and
a communications mediator [as discussed per claim 6] interposed between the one or more Network Element management functionalities and the Operational Support Systems of the one or more telecommunications operators [as discussed per claim 6], wherein the communications mediator includes a processor configured to perform the functionality, as discussed per claims 1 and 6 above.
As to claim 14, AAPA in view of Lee and Reeves teaches storing, via the processor, the operator-specific filtered data [discrepancy data is stored, at least temporarily, by the inspection manager to generate a notification] (par. [0040] in Reeves); and enabling, via the processor, off-line access to the operator-specific filtered data by the specific one of the Operational Support Systems [performing reconfiguration during off-peak hours] (par. [0040] in Reeves).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Lee in view of Reeves et al. and in further view of Barnes (US 2023/0300623 A1).
As to claim 13, AAPA in view of Lee and Reeves teaches all the elements except converting, via the processor, the network data from a proprietary data model into a standard data model prior to generating the operator-specific filtered data.
Barnes is directed to a computer system that obtains data associated with an electronic device and that has a first format. Then, the computer system may compute a context of the data. For example, the context may include: a location of the electronic device, a type of the data, a type of the electronic device, the first format, and/or a gateway (such as an access point or a radio node in a network) that forwards the data from the electronic device to the computer system. Next, the computer system may translate, based at least in part on the identified electronic device, the data from the first format to a second format, where the second format is common to additional data associated with multiple different types of electronic devices (abstract). In particular, Barnes teaches converting, via the processor, the network data from a proprietary data model into a standard data model prior to generating the operator-specific filtered data (par. [0123]).
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 in view of Lee and Reeves by converting, via the processor, the network data from a proprietary data model into a standard data model prior to generating the operator-specific filtered data, in order to map and log events from different type of hardware having different formats into a uniform format that is easier to manage (par. [0167]).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Lee in view of Reeves et al. and in further view of Haswarey et al. (US 2007/0240231 A1).
As to claims 15, 17, and 19, AAPA in view of Lee and Reeves teaches all the elements except receiving, via the processor, a management command from the specific one of the Operational Support Systems, the management command including a target Network Element of the Network Elements; performing, via the processor, a second filtering including filtering the management command based on the predetermined filtering criteria to verify that the specific one of the Operational Support Systems has permission to manage the target Network Element of the Network Elements; and transmitting, via the processor, the management command to a specific one of the Network Element management functionalities that manages the target Network Element based on a successful verification in the second filtering.
Haswarey is directed to managing objects in an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) system (abstract). In particular, Haswarey teaches receiving, via the processor, a management command from the specific one of the Operational Support Systems, the management command including a target Network Element of the Network Elements [a network operator uses an Operation Support System (OSS) to manage NEs and telecom services by performing O&M tasks. Such tasks may include, for example, re-parenting a Base Transceiver System (BTS) (i.e. moving support for a circuit-switched base station and/or packet-switched base station from its parent Central Base Station Controller (CBSC) to another CBSC), provisioning a BTS, collecting call logs, de-commissioning a BTS, performing software upgrades on BTS, PM report generation, etc.] (par. [0025]);
performing, via the processor, a second filtering including filtering the management command based on the predetermined filtering criteria to verify that the specific one of the Operational Support Systems has permission to manage the target Network Element of the Network Elements [validating user request] (par. [0035], step 4 I Fig. 9; step 5 in Fig. 10); and
transmitting, via the processor, the management command to a specific one of the Network Element management functionalities that manages the target Network Element based on a successful verification in the second filtering [executing a command against the object] (step 114 in Fig. 11, par. [0047]).
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 in view of Lee and Reeves by receiving, via the processor, a management command from the specific one of the Operational Support Systems, the management command including a target Network Element of the Network Elements; performing, via the processor, a second filtering including filtering the management command based on the predetermined filtering criteria to verify that the specific one of the Operational Support Systems has permission to manage the target Network Element of the Network Elements; and transmitting, via the processor, the management command to a specific one of the Network Element management functionalities that manages the target Network Element based on a successful verification in the second filtering, in order to control network access (par. [0002] in Haswarey).
As to claims 16 and 18, AAPA in view of Lee and Reeves teaches the network data and the management command are associated with Fault Configuration Accounting Performance and Security, FCAPS, management operations on said Network Elements (par. [0004]-[0005] in AAPA). It is noted that further defining network data and management command to show what the network data and management command is associated with without claiming how “Fault Configuration Accounting Performance and Security, FCAPS, management operations on said Network Elements” are utilized by the method, amount to a mere non-functional descriptive material.
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
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.
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
Prosecution Insights