DETAILED ACTION
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered.
1a. This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 03/20/2026. The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions.
1b. Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 7-9, 12, 14-15, and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed /03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A, Applicant argues that “Kundu and Rosetti, alone or in combination, are silent regarding obtaining "management information comprising cellular packaging information during cellular physical layer operations in an O-RAN distributed unit (DU),” as recited in claims 1. (Remarks, page 7).
In response to A, The Examiner disagrees because a new prior art is cited for “management information comprising cellular packaging information ” In addition, Kundu still teaches the amended limitation “obtaining management information during cellular physical layer operations in an O-RAN distributed unit (DU)”. Kundu discloses in paragraphs [0203];[0164]; [0099] receiving an API call to manage power of RF circuitry component (radio unit) from a network interface to a remote radio unit (RU) in a physical layer of a cellular network of a O-RAN distributed unit, Kundu; for clarification, additional details are given about radio unit and management information, radio unit is disclosed [0100] as being a hardware component having radio frequency circuitry; the interpretation of the management information is in light of the specification that disclosed in paragraph [0078] that disclosed information management as power level; therefore, Kundu still teach the second limitation also in a different section.
B, Applicant argues that “ While Rossetti describes direct GPU interaction with a NIC to transmit messages, this is different from "caus[ing] an accelerator of one or more GPUs to read management information directly from a network interface controller (NIC) memory," as claimed, because Rossetti teaches a GPU-initiated transmission of message data to the NIC, rather than reading management information from NIC memory ," as recited in claims 1. (Remarks, page 8).
In response to B, The Examiner disagrees because Rossetti is only cited because network interface controller (NIC) memory that is distinct from the one or more GPUs, Kundu teaches caus[ing] an accelerator of one or more GPUs to read management information directly from a network interface controller (NIC) memory. But because Kundu does not teach the network interface controller (NIC) memory that is distinct from the one or more GPUs.
C, Applicant argues that “ Integrating Rosetti's direct GPU-NIC hardware coupling into Kundu's layered, driver-managed telecommunications architecture would require replacing Kundu's API-based abstraction and driver-controlled data flow with Rosetti's direct hardware control model. Such a modification would not be trivial nor would there be motivation to make such a modification. Therefore, the combination of Kundu and Rosetti is improper," as recited in claims 1 and 12. (Remarks, page 9).
In response to C, The Examiner disagrees because Rossetti is only cited because network interface controller (NIC) memory that is distinct from the one or more GPUs, Kundu teaches caus[ing] an accelerator of one or more GPUs to read management information directly from a network interface controller (NIC) memory. The Applicant does not take into account the prospective of coexistence between two designs that is a practical choice in modern system rather than a complete replacement of technologies. Rosetti and Kundu fall in the case of integration of two technologies.
D, Applicant argues that “ Thus, Kundu and Rosetti fail to teach or suggest every element of claim 1. Further, Applicant respectfully submits that it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kundu with Rosetti. Rosetti and Kundu are directed to fundamentally different system architectures designed to address different technical problems. Rosetti depends on direct , bus-mapped GPU access to NIC control blocks and buffers to facilitate tightly coupled GPU-NIC communication within an HPC cluster node. In contrast, Kundu is directed to an API-driven workload submission and driver-mediated communication between layers, preserving abstraction between application software, hardware accelerators, and network interfaces. Integrating Rosetti's direct GPU-NIC hardware coupling into Kundu's layered, driver-managed telecommunications architecture would require replacing Kundu's API-based abstraction and driver-controlled data flow with Rosetti's direct hardware control model. Such a modification would not be trivial nor would there be motivation to make such a modification. Therefore, the combination of Kundu and Rosetti is improper ," as recited in claims 1 and 12. (Remarks, pages 8-9).
In response to D, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kundu discloses an accelerator of one or more graphics processing units (GPUs)to read the management information directly from memory and Fliam discloses memory of a network interface controller (NIC) that is distinct from the one or more GPUs . This is in addition of what was stated in section C.
E, Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination of Casas, Gowda, and/or Rasal does not teach or suggest such subject matter as recited in claims 8 and 15 for similar reasons that claim 1 does not teach such subject matter because they have similar subject matter ," (Remarks, page 9).
In response to E, The Examiner disagrees for similar reasons because claim 1 discloses the claims limitation.
F, Applicant argues that “ Kundu, and/or Rosetti, individually or in combination does not teach or renders obvious the subject matter teaches by their respective parent claims 1, 8, and 15 ," as recited in claims 2, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 19-20. (Remarks, page 10).
In response to F, The Examiner disagrees because Kundu, and/or Rosetti, individually or in combination discloses the claim limitations (see section above).
G, Applicant argues that “WO document does not cure the deficiencies of Kundu, Rasal, and/or Rosetti," as recited 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 (Remarks, page 10).
In response to G, The Examiner disagrees because WO document does not have to cure the deficiencies of Kundu, Rasal, and/or Rosetti. of Kundu, Rasal, and/or Rosetti discloses the claim limitations (see section above).
H, Applicant argues that “Cili document does not cure the deficiencies of Kundu, and/or Rosetti," as recited in claims 6 and 13 (Remarks, page 10).
In response to H, The Examiner disagrees because Cili document does not have to cure the deficiencies of Kundu, Rasal, and/or Rosetti. of Kundu, and/or Rosetti discloses the claim limitations (see section above).
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3a. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of US Patent Application 18/083548 in view of Kundu et al. (hereinafter “Kundu”) (US 2021/0390004 A1) and further in view of Ibars Casas et al. (hereinafter “Ibars”) (US 2021/0184795 A1).
Kundu and Ibars disclose graphics processing units to read (( multiple graphics processing units (“GPUs”) thread blocks reading in a shared memory (Kundu,[0563]-[0564]; [0563]-[0564]; Ibars, GPU [0132]; abstract discloses the network is a 5G network).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to implement Kundu’s teachings into US Patent Application 18/083548’s teachings in in order to improve the access of a system by adding the feature of reading on the system by doing so one ordinary skill will be able effectively to read and write in the system.
3b. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of US Patent Application 18/083548 in view of Kundu et al. (hereinafter “Kundu”) (US 2021/0390004 A1) and further in view of Ibars Casas et al. (hereinafter “Ibars”) (US 2021/0184795 A1).
3c. Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of US Patent Application 18/083548 in view of Kundu et al. (hereinafter “Kundu”) (US 2021/0390004 A1) and further in view of Ibars Casas et al. (hereinafter “Ibars”) (US 2021/0184795 A1).
3d. The independent claims 1, 8, an 15 of the instant application are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting against the other co-pending applications 18/083,544; 18/083,545, 18/083,546, and 18/083,547 for similar reason as the application 18/083548.
These are provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection(s) because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
4a. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu et al. (hereinafter “Kundu”) (US 2021/0390004 A1) in view of Rossetti (US 2015/0039793 A1), and further in view of ZHU et al. (hereinafter “ZHU”) (CN 105557018 B) .
Regarding claim 1, Kundu discloses one or more processors comprising:
circuity to:
receive an application programming interface (API) call to obtain management information of one or more radio units (RUs) during cellular physical layer operations in an O-RAN distributed unit (DU) ( receiving an API call to manage power of RF circuitry component (radio unit) from a net interface to a remote radio unit (RU) on a physical layer of a cellular network in a O-RAN distributed unit, Kundu, [0203];[0164]; [0099]); for clarification, additional details are given about radio unit and management information, radio unit is disclosed [0100] as being a hardware component having radio frequency circuitry; the interpretation of the management information is in light of the specification that disclosed in paragraph [0078] that disclosed information management as power level); and
in response to receipt of the API call ( in response to the request receiving an API call from a net interface to a remote radio unit (RRU) ,Kundu, [0501];[0203]),
cause an accelerator of one or more graphics processing units (GPUs) (CPU 202 contains AAL interface performing an API to hardware accelerators such as in Fig. 2 . acceleration abstraction (AAL) layer interface 206 that is used to process hardware accelerator such as GPU using acceleration model; where the acceleration model is for 5G new radio operations (Kundu, [0090-92]; Fig.2); the AAL interface 206 is the API -Paragraph 73 - and the hardware accelerator can be a GPU according to [0087]) to read the management information, directly from a
network interface controller (NIC) memory ( network unit 116 can comprises a network interface controller that is used to by hardware accelerator unit 114 to access 5G new radio data through functions of acceleration abstraction interface (Kundu, [0088];[0564]-[0565]; for clarification, additional details are given about radio unit and management information, radio unit is disclosed [0100] as being a hardware component having radio frequency circuitry; the interpretation of the management information is in light of the specification that discloses in paragraph [0078] that discloses information management is power level; accessing radio data includes accessing management information that is radio data(see [0078] of the specification); the information about the power level is equated to the management information; accessed (read) management information is also access (read) information about the power management of radio unit that provides the power capability of the radio unit Kundu [0243])).
Kundu does not disclose network interface controller (NIC) memory that is distinct from the one or more GPUs.
Rossetti discloses network interface controller (NIC) memory that is distinct from the one or more GPUs ( a buffer (memory) in the interface control that is separate from the GPU, Rossetti, Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate Rossetti’s teachings with Kundu’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently accelerate the exchange of data by directly exchange data between a GPU and its related NIC without going through intermediate host memory buffers.
Kundu in view of Rossetti do not disclose the management information comprising cellular packaging information.
ZHU discloses the management information comprising cellular packaging information ( IP data packets (packaging information) are provided as information management via cellular transmissions, ZHU page 7 paragraph 4 staring with setting the bit field (S) management property…; that interpretation of packaging information is in light of the specification that discloses in [0074] that packaging information is header information; IP data packets has the information about the address where the data packets have to be sent (by using the header of a packet address) as it is disclosed in [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate ZHU’s teachings with Kundu’s teachings in view of Rossetti’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently provide IP data packets in a cellular network efficient by providing management information associated with the cellular network that transmit the IP data packets.
Regarding claim 2, Kundu, Rossetti , and ZHU disclose the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the management information includes settings of the one or more RUs (radio units being used for processing data input/output (Kundu, [0161])).
Regarding claim 5, Kundu, Rossetti , and ZHU disclose the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the management information corresponding to operation of the one or more RUs (radio units being used for processing data input/output (Kundu, [0161])).
Regarding claim 7, Kundu, Rossetti , and ZHU disclose the processor of claim 1, wherein the API is to operate acceleration abstraction layer of an open radio access network (a computer program that operate to provide an interface for an acceleration abstraction layer interface (Kundu, [0084])).
Regarding claim 8, Kundu discloses a system, comprising memory to store instructions that, as a result of performance by one or more processors ( software programs stored in a memory executed by process (Kundu, [0080])); in addition, claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 7, thus the same rationale applies.
4b. Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu, in view of Rossetti, in view of ZHU, and further in view of WO document1 (WO 2022/089752 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kundu, Rossetti, and ZHU disclose the one or more processors of claim 1.
Kundu in view of Rossetti and in view of ZHU do not disclose wherein the one or more GPUs are part of a distributed unit, where the distributed unit is divided into two or more nodes.
WO document1 wherein the one or more GPUs are part of a distributed unit, where the distributed unit is divided into two or more nodes (different units that are in different nodes (WO document1, [0090])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate WO document1’s teachings with Kundu’s teachings in view of Rossetti’s teachings and in view of ZHU’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently transmit packets of data to different nodes with different functions in order to transmit similar packets to the same nodes by doing so a node that receives a packet having a function different than the function associated with the receiving node is efficiently identified and will not process.
Regarding claim 4, Kundu, Rossetti, and ZHU disclose the processor of claim 1.
Kundu in view of Rossetti and in view of ZHU do not disclose wherein the one or more GPUs are part of a distributed unit, wherein the distributed unit is divided into two or more nodes (different units that are in different nodes and wherein the first and second nodes perform different functions of an open radio access network.
WO document1 discloses wherein the one or more GPUs are part of a distributed unit ( Graphics Processing Units are elements among other elements such as complex programmable logics devices (WO document1, [0096])), wherein the distributed unit is divided into two or more nodes (different units that are in different nodes (WO document1, [0090])), and wherein the first and second nodes perform different functions of an open radio access network (functions of a radio access network are in different units that are in different nodes (WO document1, [0090])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate WO document1’s teachings with Kundu’s teachings in view of Rossetti’s teachings and in view of ZHU’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently transmit packets of data to different nodes with different functions in order to transmit similar packets to the same nodes by doing so a node that receives a packet having a function different than the function associated with the receiving node is efficiently identified and will not process.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 3, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 3, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 4, thus the same rationale applies.
4c. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu, in view of Rossetti, in view of ZHU, and further in view of Cili et al. (hereinafter “Cili”) (US 2020/0367316 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kundu, Rossetti, and ZHU disclose the one or more processors of claim 1.
Kundu in view of Rossetti and in view of ZHU do not disclose wherein the management information includes an error notification of the one or more RUs.
Cili discloses wherein the management information includes an error notification of the one or more RUs ( a push notification being send to a Radio devices (Cili, [0182];[0142])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cili’s teachings with Kundu’s teachings in view of Rossetti’s teachings and in view of ZHU’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently transmit data to a base station by using the error notification that will help preventing the system to be disrupted by using additional techniques that will provide a preventive action when a notification is received.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIEGEORGES A HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3226. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:00am -8:00pm East M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571 272-8365. 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.
/MARIEGEORGES A HENRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights