DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 10/07/2024.
Claims 1- 20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 10/07/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vankayala et al. (US20230164756A1), hereinafter “Vankayala”; and in further view of Khawer et al. (US20210352488A1), hereinafter “Khawer”.
Regarding claim 1, Vankayala teaches A system for optimizing at least one of shut-down and restart of an Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) radio unit (O-RU) deployed in an O-RAN Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) network serving at least one CBRS device (CBSD): Abstract teaches, comprising: spectrum access system (SAS);
CBRS Domain Proxy (DP) located in a Centralized Data Center (CDC); Cloud Management Service (CMS); a first CBRS Interface Monitoring and Alert (CIMA) located in the CDC;
a second CIMA located in a Distributed Data Center (DDC); at least one O-RAN Distributed Unit (O-DU) located in the DDC; a plurality of O-RAN Radio Units (O-RUs) located in the DDC; and [Vankayala: Abstract teaches system for Open Radio access network (RAN)-Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) interworking in a wireless network. The system includes a RAN including at least one Radio Unit (RU) and a RAN intelligence Controller (RIC), at least one Distributed Unit (DU) in communication with the at least one RU, and at least one CBRS-RU provided within the RAN and in communication with the at least one DU. The at least one CBRS-RU communicates with the at least one DU using a standard model to share between the at least one CBRS-RU and the at least one DU]
PNG
media_image1.png
492
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Vankayala does not teach an O1 interface connecting the CDC and DDC; wherein: i) the second CIMA located in the DDC is configured to monitor the O1 interface connection to the DDC, and in the case a failure of the O1 interface lasting longer than a specified time duration Sd is detected, alert the at least one O-DU regarding the failure of the O1 interface; and
ii) in response to the alert from the second CIMA, the at least one O-DU shuts down the plurality of O-RUs.
Nevertheless, Khawer, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches an O1 interface connecting the CDC and DDC; wherein: the second CIMA located in the DDC is configured to monitor the O1 interface connection to the DDC, and in the case a failure of the O1 interface lasting longer than a specified time duration Sd is detected, alert the at least one O-DU regarding the failure of the O1 interface [Khawer: Figs 1, 7; Par. 19- 20; 40- 47 teaches determine whether the connection is working properly or if there is a possible failure or disruption or degradation of the connection.]; and
ii) in response to the alert from the second CIMA, the at least one O-DU shuts down the plurality of O-Rus [Khawer: Par. 67 further teaches The method 1100 then flows to block 1140 and the base station or domain proxy sends one more alert messages to alert the system to the potential failure of the available backhaul links.]
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time when the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Khawer to alert the system to the potential failure of the available backhaul links. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Khawer in the Vankayala system with a motivation to make this modification in order to provide priority access and alert failure [Khawer: Par. 15].
Regarding claim 2, the combined Vankayala in view of Khawer teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Vankayala in view of Khawer further teaches the time duration Sd is specified based on i) a required time dictated by the SAS [Khawer: Par. 35], and ii) an expected latency from the time the alert from the second CIMA is generated to the time when shut-down of the O-RUs is completed [Khawer: Par. 44 teaches A possible failure of the connection is indicated by an increase in the message latency, e.g., a latency that exceeds a threshold value, or by a failure to receive a predetermined number of consecutive heartbeat messages.].
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3- 10 and 13- 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights