DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 11/11/2025
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 8 and dependent claims 2-4, 10-11 to include new/old limitations in a form not previously presented necessitating new search and considerations. Claims 7, 9 and 14 have been canceled by the Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 4, 8, 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
-- at least task -- should be -- at least one task of plurality of tasks-- in claim 1 line 3. Similar deficiency exists in claim 8.
-- n -- is not defined in claims 4 and 11
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13 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.
The following terms lack proper antecedent basis:
-- the same -- in claim 1 line20.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 step (a) recites “one by one executing at least one task”. It is unclear what is meant by one by one executing one task i.e. if a single task is executed multiple times or multiple tasks are being executed one after another i.e. sequentially executing multiple tasks or multiple tasks executing sequentially in parallel.
Claim 1 step (c) recites “ after recording the status of the at least one task, determining whether all of the statuses of the at least one tasks of a previous kth time slot”. It is unclear if the status of the at least one task and statuses of the at least one tasks of a previous kth time slot correspond to same single at least one task or these are statuses of different tasks in the previous time slots. Similar deficiencies exist in claim 1 line 12, 14, 19.
Claim 1 step (b) recites “after one by one executing the at least task, recording the status of the at least one task into a task vector table”. It is unclear status is recorded after the at least one task start executing or after the execution of at least one task is completed or both.
Claim 8 recite elements similar to claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-6 and 10-13 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further
defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfill et al. (US 2019/0129993 A1, hereafter Stanfill) in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2007/0050779, hereafter Hayashi), and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2024/0223344 A1, hereafter Huang).
Stanfill was cited in the last office action.
As per claim 1, Stanfill teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a self-recovering method of a physical layer, executed by a processor of a apparatus ([0018] apparatus, processor [0026] processing system, recover from any processing errors), and comprising steps of:
(a) one by one executing at least one task during a time period of one of m time slots in a normal mode in a thread pool ([0009] number of processing nodes i.e. processing threads, processing number of sets of state update requests i.e. tasks, associated with a corresponding time interval of a number of time intervals [0051] fig. 2 number of workers 150 i.e. threads process requests [0057] normal operation);
(b) after one by one executing the at least one task, recording status of the at least one task into a task status vector table ([0010] maintain, count of issued requests, count of state updates performed, updating state consistency indicator [0012] each processing nodes , maintain a local count of state update that it has performed , global count [0014] state consistency indicator, indicate that all state updates associated with the first time interval and any time intervals of number of time intervals prior to the first time interval are stored [0057] normal operation, request, processed at a worker 150, transitions between different states, request), wherein the task status vector table further records statuses of tasks of the m time slots other than the one of the m time slots having the at least one task ([0010] maintaining a count of state updates performed for the first set of state update requests; updating a state consistency indicator; state update requests associated with the first time interval have been performed [0012] local / global count of state update requests performed [0014] updated state consistency indicator, state updates associated with the first time interval and any time intervals of the number of time intervals );
(c) after recording the status of the at least one task, determining whether all of the statuses of the at least one task of a previous kth time slot of the m time slots recorded in the task status vector table are executed statuses ([0010] updating a state consistency indicator to indicate that state updates associated with all state requests of the first set of update requests associated with the first time interval have been performed in response to determining that the count of state updates performed for the first set of state update requests equals to the count of issued state update requests for the first set of state update requests i.e. all of the status of task is executed state [0014] state consistency indicator, indicate that all state updates associated with the first time interval and any time intervals of number of time intervals prior to the first time interval are stored);
when the statuses of the at least one task of the previous kth time slot recorded in the task status vector table are all executed statuses ([0010] updating a state consistency indicator to indicate that state updates associated with all state requests of the first set of update requests associated with the first time interval have been performed in response to determining that the count of state updates performed for the first set of state update requests equals to the count of issued state update requests for the first set of state update requests i.e. all of the status of task is executed state [0015] updating the state consistency indicator), returning to the step (a) ([0015] updating the state consistency indicator, incrementing time interval counter; [0010] updating a state consistency indicator to indicate that state updates associated with all state requests of the first set of update requests associated with the first time interval have been performed in response to determining that the count of state updates performed for the first set of state update requests equals to the count of issued state update requests for the first set of state update requests i.e. all of the status of task is executed state); and
when any one of the statuses of the at least one task of the previous kth time slot recorded in the task status vector table is not the executed status ([0010] updating a state consistency indicator to indicate that state updates associated with all state requests of the first set of update requests associated with the first time interval have been performed i.e. also indicate when not in response to determining that the count of state updates performed for the first set of state update requests equals to i.e. also indicate when not equal to the count of issued state update requests for the first set of state update requests i.e. all of the status of task is executed state [0015] updating the state consistency indicator [0089] second situation, request, started execution, has not completed), at least one task of the previous kth time slot having an unexecuted status ([0089] second situation i.e. not normal mode, request has started execution, has not completed [0091] request received, roll back, new request associated with same request identifier as original request is received), and returning to the step (a) ([0094] cluster, Proceeds, normal operation [0014] start/end times of time intervals, state updates associated with the first time interval and any time intervals of the number of time intervals [0015] incrementing time interval counter);
wherein the at least one task of the previous kth time slot having an unexecuted status in the thread pool is executed in the same thread pool within the next p consecutive time slots ([0009] number of processing nodes i.e. processing threads, processing number of sets of state update requests i.e. tasks, associated with a corresponding time interval of a number of time intervals [0051] fig. 2 number of workers 150 i.e. threads process requests [0057] normal operation);
wherein m, k, and p are positive integers;
wherein p + k <= m ([0014] number of time intervals, first time interval and any time intervals of the number of time intervals i.e. number of time interval can never be more than total time interval ): and
wherein the base station apparatus is a cell site for communicating with mobile devices.
Stanfill doesn’t specifically teach physical layer of base station apparatus, method executed by processor of a base station apparatus; executing the at least one task of the previous kth time slot having an unexecuted status within next p consecutive time slots in a load reduction mode; wherein the at least one task of the previous kth time slot having an unexecuted status in the thread pool is executed in the same thread pool within the next p consecutive time slots; wherein the base station apparatus is a cell site for communicating with mobile devices.
Hayashi, however, teaches method executed by processor ([0025] fig. 1 task execution device, hardware structure, processor);
executing the at least one task of the previous kth time slot having an unexecuted status within next p consecutive time slots in a load reduction mode ([0028] task scheduling unit; time slot, task [0057] time slot switched, instruction, program, currently being executed, saves, context, tasks, executed, subsequently fig. 4 S301 [0068] resumes the execution of task fig. 4 S306 [0010] scheduling device, reduce, load, task execution time);
wherein the at least one task of the previous kth time slot having an unexecuted status in the thread pool is executed in the same thread pool within the next p consecutive time slots ([0026] task execution device, handle, every plurality of tasks, in one processor, execute the program [0057] time slot switched, instruction, program, currently being executed, saves, context, tasks, executed, subsequently fig. 4 S301 [0068] resumes the execution of task fig. 4 S306 ).
wherein the base station apparatus is a cell site for communicating with mobile devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Stanfill with the teachings of Hayashi of processor executing the task, saving the task context and resuming the saved task upon time slot switching with reduced load on the same execution unit to improve efficiency and allow task executed by processor; executing the at least one task of the previous kth time slot having an unexecuted status within next p consecutive time slots in a load reduction mode; wherein the at least one task of the previous kth time slot having an unexecuted status in the thread pool is executed in the same thread pool within the next p consecutive time slots to the method of Stanfill as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art because applying known method of Hayashi saving/resuming task context upon slot switching and executing with adjusted/reduced load to the method Stanfill to yield predictable results and improved efficiency.
Stanfill and Hayashi, in combination, do not specifically teach physical layer of base station apparatus, processor of a base station apparatus, wherein the base station apparatus is a cell site for communicating with mobile devices.
Huang, however, teaches physical layer of base station apparatus, processor of a base station apparatus ([0060] scheduler is part of gNB [0061] scheduler includes processing system, GPU, PPU, CPU ), wherein the base station apparatus is a cell site for communicating with mobile devices ([0059] fig. 1 gNB 102 Cell 103 user device 101).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Stanfill and Hayashi with the teachings of Huang of scheduling including processing system included with gNB of cell site serving user devices to improve efficiency and allow physical layer of base station apparatus, processor of a base station apparatus, wherein the base station apparatus is a cell site for communicating with mobile devices to the method of Stanfill and Hayashi as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because substituting the scheduling method of gNB as taught by Huang with the method taught by Stanfill and Hayashi to yield predictable results with improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Stanfill teaches wherein the task status vector table is stored in a memory of the base station apparatus ([0010] maintain, count of issued requests, count of state updates performed, updating state consistency indicator [0012] each processing modes , maintain a local count of state update that it has performed [0014] state consistency indicator, indicate that all state updates associated with the first time interval and any time intervals of number of time intervals prior to the first time interval are stored [0042] storage device, data structure, local, execution environment, remote).
Huang teaches claim elements of base station apparatus (fig. 1 gNB base stations ).
As per claim 3, Hayashi teaches herein when the processor executes tasks in the load reduction mode ([0010] scheduling device, reduce, load, task execution time), a workload for processing the subsequent tasks within the next p consecutive time slots is reduced (0010] updating a state consistency indicator; state update requests associated with the first time interval have been performed, scheduling device, reduce, load, task execution time [0012] local / global count of state update requests performed [0014] updated state consistency indicator, state updates associated with the first time interval and any time intervals of the number of time intervals).
As per claim 4, Hayashi teaches wherein when the workload is reduced, the processor executes i tasks within the next p consecutive time slots in the load reduction mode; wherein i is a positive integer, and i≤n ([0014] updated state consistency indicator, state updates associated with the first time interval and any time intervals of the number of time intervals; [0010] scheduling device, reduce, load, task execution time).
As per claim 5, Stanfill teaches wherein p is determined according to the statuses of the tasks of the previous kth time slot recorded in the task status vector table ([0010] updating a state consistency indicator to indicate that state updates associated with all state requests of the first set of update requests associated with the first time interval have been performed i.e. also indicate when not in response to determining that the count of state updates performed for the first set of state update requests equals to the count of issued state update requests for the first set of state update requests i.e. all of the status of task is executed state [0015] updating the state consistency indicator [0089] second situation, request, started execution, has not completed).
Hayashi teaches remaining claim elements of wherein p is determined according to the statuses of the tasks of the previous kth time slot ([0044] time slot data, slots to which type A task has been assigned, remaining time slot data, type B task has been assigned [0059] time slots, t1-tn, n type A tasks, t0m type B task).
Claim 8 recites base station apparatus, comprising: a memory, storing a task status vector table; a processor, electrically connected to the memory, and executing steps similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 10 recites the base station apparatus for elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 11 recites the base station apparatus for elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 12 recites the base station apparatus for elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
The previous specification objections have been withdrawn.
The previous 101 objections have been withdrawn.
The previous 112(b) objections have been withdrawn. However, some new objections have been made.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection. In addition, Applicant has argued that Stanfill needs to reschedule unfinished task based on time parameters and mobile communication applications have tasks that are time-dependent, and in contrast, the present maintains a first-in-first-out (FIFO) principle and present invention doesn’t require rescheduling. Examiner respectfully indicates claim neither recites FIFO nor not requiring rescheduling. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., FIFO, rescheduling) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Li can be reached on 571-272-4169. 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.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195