CTNF 19/057,949 CTNF 82470 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claims 1-20 are pending. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/30/2025 and 10/6/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 5-9, 11, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 5-9, 11, 14-16, and 18 recite limitations that have insufficient antecedent basis for limitations in the claims and their respective parent claims: Claim 5 – “the interface services application” Claim 6 – “the at least one external communication interface” Claim 7 – “the at least one common service application” Claims 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 – “the at least one system service application” Claim 14 – “the identified user applications” Claims 15 and 16 – “the plurality of RT user applications” Claim 18 – “the plurality of mailbox transmission protocols” Note, all these antecedent issues appear to essentially be dependency issues (e.g. claim 5 should depend from claim 4 as claim 4 recites, “at least one interface services application”, claim 6 should depend from claim 5 as claim 5 recites, “at least one external communication interface”, etc.) and the above list may not be exhaustive. The examiner advises the applicant to review and fix the dependency issues rather than address the antecedence issues directly. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by LIU et al., (LIU et al., "TinyRIC: Supercharging O-RAN Base Stations with Real-time Control", Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, October 02-06, 2023, pp. 1534-1536, cited on IDS), hereafter, “Liu.” As to claim 1, Liu discloses a radio access network (RAN) node (Fig. 2, Abstract) comprising: a real-time (RT) application platform configured to execute at least one RT user application, the at least one RT user application being a non-native RAN node application (Fig. 2, page 1535, sec. 2, paragraphs 2-4, particularly, “At the outset,the TinyRIC consists of two key components the TinyRIC Platform and the TinyRIC Agent. The TinyRIC Platform forms the core of the TinyRIC architecture and serves as a host for lightweight applications called tApps (or TinyApps) which function as enablers for the RT control loop.”); and a RT agent application configured to, monitor events generated by at least one native RAN node function, and transmit a mailbox message to the at least one RT user application in response to the generated event (Fig. 2, page 1535, sec. 2, paragraphs 2-4, particularly, “Examples of shared services include lifeycle management for tApps and read-write capabilities to TinyRIC’s in-memory data store. In the interest of modularity, all tApps can be dynamically deployed and updated during run-time. The TinyRIC interfaces with other base station components through the TinyRIC Agent. In addition, we introduce the Mailbox (MB) messaging architecture for inter-component communication within the TinyRIC. MB abstracts away the complexities of message passing and incorporates an extensible multi-carrier approach to messaging, wherein a carrier refers to a specific messaging library”). As claims 19 and 20, they are rejected by a similar rationale to that set forth in claim 1’s rejection . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-6, 8, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(2 ) as being anticipated by Forenza et al (US Pub. No. 2024/0214833), hereafter, “Forenza.” As to claim 1, Forenza discloses a radio access network (RAN) node (Abstract) comprising: a real-time (RT) application platform configured to execute at least one RT user application (Fig. 5), the at least one RT user application being a non-native RAN node application ([0062], particularly, “The RT RIC is a software-defined component that hosts one or a plurality of microservices or applications (referred herein by way of non-limiting example as zApps). The zApps implement methods or techniques to provide services, automation, control, optimization, etc., on a real-time basis (or at less than 10 ms latency). The zApps communicate with the Near-RT RIC, the Non-RT RIC, and other network components (e.g., O-DU, O-CU-CP, O-CU-UP, O-eNB) via above-described interfaces of the RT RIC. The zApps are implemented via proprietary or alternatively standard-defined multi-vendor interfaces. According to an example embodiment, the zApps communicate over open interfaces, therefore allowing them to be developed by multiple vendors and to be integrated into the O-RAN without opening any source code or proprietary software, or otherwise requiring access by the O-RAN operator (e.g., telco operator) or O-Cloud operator (e.g., telco operator or third-party data center) to the application's source code in order to integrate into the network.”; “zApps” reading on “RT user application”); and a RT agent application configured to, monitor events generated by at least one native RAN node function ([0089]-[0092], particularly, “For example, the RT RIC can hosts one or more zApps to facilitate the following real-time implementation: a) Collect and/or report information about the current state of assets, network infrastructure and communications at real-time observability platform in critical assets like O-RU and O-DU. b) Continuously analyze the reported data and imposes required security controls at real-time to improve the security posture in the impacted asset. c) Dynamically push security policies to detect and mitigate zero-day attacks that are otherwise not detected by existing tools. d) Push security centric information to an upstream device for later analysis, which can then be used to refine policies and/or warn of possible attacks against critical/exposed assets (like O-RU).”, and transmit a mailbox message to the at least one RT user application in response to the generated event ([0099]-[0103], particularly, “In accordance with example embodiments, the RT RIC hosts one or more zApps that can subscribe to one or more of the above-described services (report, insert, control, and policy)”). As to claim 2, Forenza discloses the at least one native RAN node function is at least one of: an Open-RAN RAN application programming interface (API) function; an operation, administrative, and management (OAM) API function; a native base station API function; a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) protocol API function; or any combinations thereof (Abstract and [0050]). As to claim 3, Forenza discloses a control loop execution time period of the at least one RT user application is less than 10 ms (Abstract). As to claim 4, Forenza discloses the RT application platform is further configured to execute at least one of: at least one interface services application, at least one common services application, at least one system services application, or any combinations thereof (Abstract and [0098]). As to claim 5, Forenza discloses the interface services application is configured to: communicate with at least one non-RT application or at least one near-RT application over at least one external communication interface ([0012] and [0050]). As to claim 6, Forenza discloses the at least one external communication interface includes at least one of:at least one first non-3GPP interface configured to communicate with the at least one non-RT application;at least one second non-3GPP interface configured to communicate with the at least one near-RT application; or a combination thereof (Abstract, [0050], and [0075]). As to claim 8, Forenza discloses the at least one system service application is configured to: manage access of the at least one RT user application to the at least one requested native RAN node function ([0062]). As to claim 17, Forenza discloses the RT application platform and the RT agent application support a plurality of mailbox transmission protocols (Fig. 4, [0055]-[0060], multiple interfaces including E2 and O1). As to claim 18, Forenza discloses wherein the plurality of mailbox transmission protocols includes at least two of: ZeroMQ (ZMQ), nng, E2 Application Protocol (E2AP) ([0055]-[0060], “E2”), O1 ([0055]-[0060], “O1”), NG Application Protocol (NGAP), X2 Application Protocol (X2AP), Si Application Protocol (S lAP), Xn Application Protocol (XnAP), El Application Protocol (ElAP), F1 Application Protocol (F 1 AP), Kafkor any combinations thereof . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forenza in view of Ranganath et al (US Pub. No. 2024/0259879), hereafter, “Ranganath.” As to claim 7, Forenza discloses the at least one common services application is configured to: receive a function list mailbox message from the RT agent application indicating a plurality of native RAN node functions supported by the RAN node, the plurality of native RAN node functions including the at least one native RAN node function ([0099]); receive a system service setup request from the system service application, the system service setup request including at least one requested native RAN node function of the plurality of native RAN node functions ([0100]-[0103]). However, Forenza does not disclose determine whether to grant access to the system service application to the at least one requested native RAN node function based on permissions of the system service application; and transmit a response to the system service setup request based on results of the determination. But, Ranganath discloses determine whether to grant access to a system service application to at least one requested native RAN node function based on permissions of a system service application ([0204]); and transmit a response to the system service setup request based on results of the determination ([0204]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Forenza and Ranganath in order to provide greater control over the applications that are deployed in a system thereby improving overall security. As to claim 9, Forenza discloses the parent claim but does not disclose the at least one system service application is configured to manage the access of the at least one RT user application by: receiving an onboarding request from the at least one RT user application, the onboarding request including a requesting access to the at least one native RAN node function; determining whether to grant access to the at least one RT user application to the requested at least one native RAN node function based on permissions of the at least one RT user application and a status of the at least one native RAN node function; and transmitting the onboarding request to the RT agent application based on results of the determination. However, Ranganath discloses at least one system service application is configured to manage the access of the at least one RT user application by: receiving an onboarding request from the at least one RT user application, the onboarding request including a requesting access to the at least one native RAN node function ([0029], [0047], and [0173]); determining whether to grant access to the at least one RT user application to the requested at least one native RAN node function based on permissions of the at least one RT user application and a status of the at least one native RAN node function ([0204]); and transmitting the onboarding request to the RT agent application based on results of the determination ([0173] and [0204]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Forenza and Ranganath in order to provide greater control over the applications that are deployed in a system thereby improving overall security. As to claim 10, Forenza discloses the parent claim but does not disclose the RT agent application is further configured to: receive the onboarding request from the at least one system service application; determine a status of the at least one native RAN node function; add the at least one RT user application to an activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function based on the determined status of the at least one native RAN node function; and transmit a response to the onboarding request to the at least one system service application based on the addition of the at least one RT user application to the activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function, the response including a rules list associated with the at least one native RAN node function and the at least one RT user application. However, Ranganath discloses an RT agent application is further configured to: receive the onboarding request from the at least one system service application ([0029], [0047], and [0173]); determine a status of the at least one native RAN node function ([0150]); add the at least one RT user application to an activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function based on the determined status of the at least one native RAN node function ([0178]); and transmit a response to the onboarding request to the at least one system service application based on the addition of the at least one RT user application to the activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function, the response including a rules list associated with the at least one native RAN node function and the at least one RT user application ([0173], [0178] and [0204]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Forenza and Ranganath in order to provide greater control over the applications that are deployed in a system thereby improving overall security. As to claim 11, Forenza discloses the parent claim but does not disclose at least one system service application is configured to manage the access of the at least one RT user application by: receiving a replacement onboarding request from a second RT user application different from the at least one RT user application, the replacement onboarding request indicating that the second RT user application is to replace the at least one RT user application; determining whether to grant access to the second RT user application to the requested at least one native RAN node function based on permissions of the second RT user application and a status of the at least one native RAN node function; and transmitting the replacement onboarding request to the RT agent application based on results of the determination. However, Ranganath discloses at least one system service application is configured to manage the access of the at least one RT user application by: receiving a replacement onboarding request from a second RT user application different from the at least one RT user application, the replacement onboarding request indicating that the second RT user application is to replace the at least one RT user application ([0029], [0047], and [0173]); determining whether to grant access to the second RT user application to the requested at least one native RAN node function based on permissions of the second RT user application and a status of the at least one native RAN node function ([0173] and [0204]); and transmitting the replacement onboarding request to the RT agent application based on results of the determination ([0173], [0178] and [0204]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Forenza and Ranganath in order to provide greater control over the applications that are deployed in a system thereby improving overall security. As to claim 12, Forenza discloses the parent claim but does not disclose the RT application platform includes a lifecycle management application; the RT agent application is further configured to, receive the replacement onboarding request from the at least one system service application, determine a status of the at least one native RAN node function, add the second RT user application to an activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function based on the determined status of the at least one native RAN node function, remove the at least one RT user application from the activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function, and transmit a response to the replacement onboarding request to the at least one system service application based on the addition of the second RT user application to the activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function, the response including a rules list associated with the at least one native RAN node function and the second RT user application; and the lifecycle management application is configured to remove the at least one RT user application based on the response to the replacement onboarding request. But, Ranganath discloses the RT application platform includes a lifecycle management application ([0178]-[0180]); the RT agent application is further configured to, receive the replacement onboarding request from the at least one system service application, determine a status of the at least one native RAN node function, add the second RT user application to an activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function based on the determined status of the at least one native RAN node function, remove the at least one RT user application from the activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function, and transmit a response to the replacement onboarding request to the at least one system service application based on the addition of the second RT user application to the activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function, the response including a rules list associated with the at least one native RAN node function and the second RT user application; and the lifecycle management application is configured to remove the at least one RT user application based on the response to the replacement onboarding request ([0060] and [0178]-[0180]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Forenza and Ranganath in order to provide greater control over the applications that are deployed in a system thereby improving overall security. As to claim 13, Forenza discloses the parent claim but does not disclose the at least one RT user application is a plurality of RT user applications; and the RT agent application is further configured to monitor the events generated by the at least one native RAN node function by, identifying RT user applications included in an activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function, the identified RT user applications being included in the plurality of RT user applications, and transmitting the mailbox message to the identified RT user applications in response to the generated event. However, Ranganath discloses the at least one RT user application is a plurality of RT user applications; and the RT agent application is further configured to monitor the events generated by the at least one native RAN node function by, identifying RT user applications included in an activation list associated with the at least one native RAN node function, the identified RT user applications being included in the plurality of RT user applications, and transmitting the mailbox message to the identified RT user applications in response to the generated event (0061]-[0064] and [0178]-[0180]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Forenza and Ranganath in order to provide greater control over the applications that are deployed in a system thereby improving overall security. As to claim 14, Forenza discloses the parent claim but does not disclose the RT application platform is further configured to execute at least one system service application; and the at least one system service application is configured to: receive control messages from the identified RT user applications in response to the transmitted mailbox message, perform resource conflict mitigation in response to the received control messages, the resource conflict mitigation including determining resource availability associated with the at least one native RAN node function, and transmit updated control messages to the RT agent application in response to the resource conflict mitigation. However Ranganath discloses the RT application platform is further configured to execute at least one system service application; and the at least one system service application is configured to: receive control messages from the identified RT user applications in response to the transmitted mailbox message, perform resource conflict mitigation in response to the received control messages, the resource conflict mitigation including determining resource availability associated with the at least one native RAN node function, and transmit updated control messages to the RT agent application in response to the resource conflict mitigation ([0189]-[0193]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Forenza and Ranganath in order to provide greater control over the applications that are deployed in a system thereby improving overall security. As to claim 15, Forenza discloses the plurality of RT user applications includes a first RT user application, the first RT user application including a first handler function; and the first RT user application is configured to,receive a second handler function from at least one user, the second handler function replacing the first handler function, and transmit a control message to the at least one system service application using the second handler function in response to a received mailbox message. However Ranganath discloses a plurality of RT user applications includes a first RT user application, the first RT user application including a first handler function; and the first RT user application is configured to, receive a second handler function from at least one user, the second handler function replacing the first handler function, and transmit a control message to the at least one system service application using the second handler function in response to a received mailbox message ([0061]-[0063]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Forenza and Ranganath in order to provide greater control over the applications that are deployed in a system thereby improving overall security. As to claim 16, Forenza discloses the RT application platform is further configured to execute a first system service application, the first system service application including a plurality of supported functions and a plurality of supported rules, each of the plurality of supported functions corresponding to at least one RT user application of the plurality of RT user applications; and the first system service application is configured to, receive a replacement message from at least one user, the replacement message indicating at least one function from the plurality of functions to be replaced, transmit a close connection message to the corresponding at least one RT user application of the at least one function to be replaced, and transmit a remove message to the RT agent application, the remove message causing the RT agent application to remove the corresponding at least one RT user application of the at least one function to be replaced from the activation list. However Ranganath discloses a RT application platform is further configured to execute a first system service application, the first system service application including a plurality of supported functions and a plurality of supported rules, each of the plurality of supported functions corresponding to at least one RT user application of the plurality of RT user applications; and the first system service application is configured to, receive a replacement message from at least one user, the replacement message indicating at least one function from the plurality of functions to be replaced, transmit a close connection message to the corresponding at least one RT user application of the at least one function to be replaced, and transmit a remove message to the RT agent application, the remove message causing the RT agent application to remove the corresponding at least one RT user application of the at least one function to be replaced from the activation list ([0173], [0178] and [0204]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Forenza and Ranganath in order to provide greater control over the applications that are deployed in a system thereby improving overall security. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J DAILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1246. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm. 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, Umar Cheema can be reached on 571-270-3037. 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. /THOMAS J DAILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 2 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 3 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 4 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 5 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 6 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 7 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 8 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 9 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 10 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 11 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 12 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 13 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 14 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 16 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 17 Art Unit: 2458 Application/Control Number: 19/057,949 Page 18 Art Unit: 2458
Prosecution Insights