DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 03/13/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
Note:
Claims 5 and 6 recite “the method further comprising” which is inconsistent with the rest of the application which recites “the method further comprises”.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controlling, by a processing device” and “processing device communicates” in claim 1 “processing device to perform operations comprising:” in claims 9 and 17.
generic placeholder (processing device)
[0072] recites generic hardware.
that is coupled with functional language (controlling/communicating)
without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function (neither the claims nor the specification provide sufficient structure to perform the recited function)
the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. (no modifier exists)
[0060-0062] recites controlling access but does not disclose an algorithm.
[0011, 0015, 0055, 0060] recite interfaces but do not disclose an algorithm.
[0058-0068] recite managing certificate data but do not disclose an algorithm.
[0065-0066] recites inspect virtualization data but do not disclose an algorithm.
[0065-0068] recite monitoring security event data but do not disclose an algorithm.
[0068] recites communicating with a plurality of radio network elements but do not disclose an algorithm.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1, 9 and 17 (and corresponding dependent claims) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “controlling, by a processing device” and “processing device communicates” in claim 1 and “processing device to perform operations comprising:” in claims 9 and 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of controlling/communicating is performed a processing device.” There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the controlling/communicating. The use of the term “controlling/communicating” is not adequate structure for performing the controlling/communicating because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “controlling/communicating” refers providing instructions and transmitting data and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which controlling/communicating structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 (and corresponding dependent claims) are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of controlling/communicating. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueck (U.S. 20220038902), in view of Baskaran (U.S. 20250350949).
Regarding claim 1,
Mueck discloses: A method of implementing open radio access network (O-RAN) standardized security management services in a cellular network, the method comprising: (Mueck [0040-0056, 0346, 0395-0404] teaches radio equipment cybersecurity and security management which provides access control O-RAN systems in cellular networks)
controlling, by a processing device, access to a plurality of radio access network elements in the cellular network based on permission data associated with the plurality of radio access network elements, wherein the permission data comprises at least one of authentication data or authorization data; (Mueck [0040-0056, 299-0331, 0395-0444] teaches a Service Management and Orchestration framework (SMO) which includes Identity Management and Authentication and Access Control (PR.AC) components of the [NIST] Framework Core which controls access, based on permission data (proof of identity/credentials) which is authorization/authentication data, which controls access to the O-RAN and O-RAN elements)
managing certificate data associated with the plurality of radio access network elements; (Mueck [0043-0056, 0395-0444] teaches a certificate authority which manages certificates that identify and match security levels and that the certificate data (certificates) are at least “associated” with elements of radio access networks)
inspecting virtualization data associated with the plurality of radio access network elements, wherein the virtualization data associated with the plurality of radio access network elements comprises at least one of: a container image, or a virtual network function (VNF) image; and (Mueck [0220-0236, 0322-0335, 0395-0444] teaches performing verification/authentication (inspecting) of virtualized containers. The virtualized containers are “associated with” radio access network elements)
wherein the processing device communicates with the plurality of radio access network elements via one or more standardized interfaces regarding the permission data, the certificate data, the virtualization data, and the security event data. (Mueck [0184-0193, 0359-0412, 0417-0433] teaches the communication standards which the radio access network elements use for communication and which have been standardized to provide standardized way to interface between devices/elements)
While Mueck teaches collecting data associated with radio access network elements Mueck does not explicitly disclose: monitoring security event data associated with the plurality of radio access network elements
However, in the same field of endeavor Baskaran discloses: monitoring security event data associated with the plurality of radio access network elements, (Baskaran [0004, 0030-0035, 0042-0058, 0071-0084] teaches monitoring 5G systems (including radio access network elements) for abnormal event related data including repeated authorization failures)
Mueck and Baskaran are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor radio network security.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mueck and Baskaran before him or her, to modify the method of Mueck to include the security event monitoring of Baskaran because it will to actions to be taken over the compromised NFs/entities)
The motivation for doing so would be [“The security evaluation and monitoring results may be sent back to NWDAF to any other network function (e.g., PCF/NRF or NF in the network) and/or OAM designated to perform further actions based on the obtained results to improve the security (i.e., to take actions over the compromised NFs/entities) in the network”] (Paragraph 0097 by Baskaran)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mueck and Baskaran to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 9 recites limitations substantially similar in scope as claim 1 above, therefore, is also rejected under the same rationale set forth above. Additionally claim 9 discloses: A computing system to facilitate a cellular network, the computing system comprising: (Mueck [0306, 0487] teaches computing system/node to facilitate a cellular network)
Claim 17 recites limitations substantially similar in scope as claim 1 above, therefore, is also rejected under the same rationale set forth above. Additionally claim 17 discloses: One or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media having computer-readable instructions thereon which, when executed by one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising: (Mueck [0487] teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage media)
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18,
Mueck in view of Baskaran discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Mueck additionally discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein each of the permission data, the certificate data, the virtualization data, and the security event data comprises data of one or more network functions and data of one or more cloud platforms. (Mueck [0040-0056, 0271, 0395-0424] teaches that the permission, certificate, virtualization and security data can be data related to network functions or cloud platforms)
Regarding claims 3 and 11,
Mueck in view of Baskaran discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Mueck additionally discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein controlling access to the plurality of radio access network elements further comprises: controlling access to a management function associated with a first radio access network element of the plurality of radio access network elements. (Mueck [0040-0056, 299-331, 0372, 0395-0444] teaches controlling access associated with elements of a radio access network including access to various logical/management functions)
Regarding claims 5 and 13,
Mueck in view of Baskaran discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Mueck further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein inspecting the virtualization data associated with the plurality of radio access network elements further comprises: determining whether a parameter associated with the virtualization data satisfies a threshold criterion, and responsive to determining that the parameter associated with the virtualization data satisfies the threshold criterion, outputting a notification associated with the parameter, and (Mueck [0291, 0316, 0417, 0432-437] teaches management and orchestration which includes a ResourceMonitor which continuously monitors resource utilization and takes actions with a threshold/boundary is crossed including auto scaling and auto healing; [0417, 0432-437, 0655] teaches that thresholds can be used to determine whether or not to send a notification)
wherein the method further comprising performing a remedy action responsive to a result of the inspecting. (Mueck [0417, 0432-437] teaches management and orchestration which includes a ResourceMonitor which continuously monitors resource utilization and takes actions with a threshold is crossed including auto scaling and auto healing)
Regarding claims 6 and 14,
Mueck in view of Baskaran discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
While Mueck teaches: satisfies a threshold criterion (Mueck [0417, 0432-437, 0655] teaches that thresholds can be used to determine whether or not to send a notification)
Mueck does not explicitly disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein monitoring the security event data associated with the plurality of radio access network elements further comprises: determining whether a parameter associated with the security event data
wherein the method further comprising performing a remedy action responsive to a result of the monitoring.
However, in the same field of endeavor Baskaran discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein monitoring the security event data associated with the plurality of radio access network elements further comprises: determining whether a parameter associated with the security event data (Baskaran [0004, 0030-0035, 0042-0063, 0071-0084] teaches monitoring 5G systems (including radio access network elements) for abnormal event related data including metrics specifying number of times the event occurred information authorization failures)
wherein the method further comprising performing a remedy action responsive to a result of the monitoring. (Baskaran [0004, 0030-0035, 0042-0063, 0071-0084] teaches monitoring security events; [0068, 0097] teaches performing remedy actions as a result of the monitoring)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify with Baskaran for similar reasons as cited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 19,
Mueck in view of Baskaran discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Mueck additionally discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of radio access network elements comprise: one or more open radio units (O-RUs), one or more open distributed units (O-DUs), and one or more open centralized units (O-CUs). (Mueck [0398-0421] teaches radio access network elements can include radio, distributed or centralized units)
Regarding claims 8, 16 and 20,
Mueck in view of Baskaran discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Mueck additionally discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the processing device comprises a service management and orchestration (SMO) or an element management system (EMS), wherein the processing device is specific to a first vendor, and wherein the plurality of radio access network elements are specific to various different vendors. (Mueck [0059-0071, 0357, 0395-0426] teaches service management and orchestration (SMO) which provides a framework to managing and interfacing multiple devices and elements which are form multiple different vendors)
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueck (U.S. 20220038902), in view of Baskaran (U.S. 20250350949) and in further view of Rivera (U.S. 20240187858).
Regarding claims 4 and 12,
Mueck in view of Baskaran discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
Mueck additionally discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein managing the certificate data associated with the plurality of radio access network elements further comprises: (Mueck [0043-0056, 0395-0444] teaches a certificate authority which manages certificates that identify and match security levels and that the certificate data (certificates) are at least “associated” with elements of radio access networks)
Mueck does not explicitly teach: managing generation, distribution, renewal, and revocation of one or more cryptographic certificates.
However, in the same field of endeavor Rivera discloses: managing generation, distribution, renewal, and revocation of one or more cryptographic certificates. (Rivera [0048-0069 teaches Certificate Lifecycle Management System (CLMS) which includes generation, sending (distribution) renewal, and revocation of certificates
Mueck in view of Baskaran and Rivera are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor Open RAN (O-RAN) technology.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mueck in view of Baskaran and Rivera before him or her, to modify the method of Mueck in view of Baskaran to include the Certificate Lifecycle Management System (CLMS) of Rivera because it will allow for an enhanced authentication procedure, enabling non-VM based NEs with and without 802.1x authentication support to coexist in an operator network (e.g., open fronthaul O-RAN operator network)
The motivation for doing so would be [“allow for non-virtual machine (VM) based network elements (NEs) in a radio access network (RAN) to perform certificate enrollment via a Certificate Authority (CA) server in a secure and authenticated manner.”] (Paragraph 0005-0010 by Rivera)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mueck in view of Baskaran and Rivera to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Emami 2023-12-19 (U.S. 20250202873) teaches operations include detecting a first event log associated with a first network component of an open-radio access network (O-RAN). The operations further include generating a first digest. The operations further include generating each encryption key of a first set of encryption keys, based on an encryption layer of a set of encryption layers, and the first event log. The operations further include generating a first set of encrypted digests for the first digest. The operations further include generating first log information associated with the first network component. The operations further include transmitting the first log information to a service management component of the O-RAN. The service management component is configured to pre-sort the first log information, based on the first set of encrypted digests. The operations further include controlling a first display device to render the first log information.
Cuavas 2023-10-10 (U.S. 20250119762 ) teaches Systems and methods for performing vendor RAN swapping is provided. An example method includes receiving a request to perform a vendor RAN swap of one or more first O-RAN components from a first vendor to one or more second O-RAN components from a second vendor within a cell site, determining one or more workflows to perform the vendor RAN swap, wherein the one or more workflows include first ZTP operations to reconfigure one or more computer environments from a first configuration to a second configuration to support the one or more second O-RAN components of the second vendor, and causing the one or more workflows to execute, wherein the one or more workflows perform the first ZTP operations to reconfigure the one or more computing environments to the second configuration and perform second ZTP operations to deploy the one or more second O-RAN components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A CARNES whose telephone number is (571)272-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached at (571) 272-4219. 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 A. CARNES
Examiner
Art Unit 2436
/THOMAS A CARNES/Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights