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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 9, 10, 12, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 13-18, and 20 are pending in the present Office Action.
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, 3-8, 11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakur (US Patent no. 8533312 B2), hereinafter Thakur in view of Hamilton (US Patent App. Publication no. US-2004/0230981 A1), hereinafter Hamilton, and further in view of Mitola (US Patent App. Publication no. US 2014/0269526), hereinafter Mitola.
Regarding Claim 1, Thakur teaches:
An apparatus for resource management in a [network] environment, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: (see e.g., abstract, “The present application is directed towards systems and methods for managing server-initiated connections via a multi-core system that provides VPN access between clients and servers. The solution described herein provides a mechanism by which server and client communications via the multi-core system for a server-initiated connection may be received on different cores and for the system to manage these communications across different cores to provide an end-to-end connectivity between the client and the server.”)
allocate at least one first central processing unit (CPU) core to perform tasks corresponding to a first layer of the [network] environment; (see e.g., column [001], lines [046 – 062], “The method further includes receiving, by a first core of the plurality of cores, a packet from a client to the server for a transport layer connection between the server and the client established by a second core of the plurality of cores;”) This shows tasks associated with the transport layer of the OSI model.
allocate at least one second CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to a second layer of the [network] environment; (see e.g., columns [001 – 002], lines [043 – 017], “In other embodiments, the second core may establish the transport layer connection between the client and the server responsive to a request by the server.”) This shows tasks associated with the Network layer of the OSI model (i.e., establishing the transport layer via traffic control [responsibility for the connection’s lifespan belongs to the second core as it established the connection])
allocate at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the second layer of the [network] environment; (see e.g., column [039], lines [053 - 065], “The functionality or tasks may be distributed in any arrangement and scheme. For example, FIG. 5B illustrates a first core, Core 1 505A, processing applications and processes associated with network I/O functionality 510A. Network traffic associated with network I/O, in some embodiments, can be associated with a particular port number. Thus, outgoing and incoming packets having a port destination associated with NW I/O 510A will be directed towards Core 1 505A which is dedicated to handling all network traffic associated with the NW I/O port. Similarly, Core 2 505B is dedicated to handling functionality associated with SSL processing and Core 4 505D may be dedicated handling all TCP level processing and functionality.”)
Measuring total and per session resource usage for purposes of performance management, i.e., a parameter corresponding to usage of at least one of the first layer and the second layer (see e.g., column [012], lines [027 - 045], “In one embodiment, the monitoring service 198 and/or monitoring agent 197 is designed and constructed to provide application performance management for the application delivery system 190. For example, […] application and networking performance. The monitoring service 198 and/or monitoring agent 197 may identify the active servers for a given user and/or user session. In some embodiments, the monitoring service 198 and/or monitoring agent 197 monitors back-end connections between the application delivery system 190 and an application and/or database server. The monitoring service 198 and/or monitoring agent 197 may measure network latency, delay and volume per user-session or ICA session.”)
Thakur doesn’t explicitly teach to:
determine at least one network usage parameter corresponding to usage of at least one of the first layer and the second layer, wherein the at least one network usage parameter comprises at least one of: a number of [] users connected to the [network] environment, and a number of physical resource blocks (PRBs) to be processed in the [network] environment.;
and reallocate at least one of the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the [network] environment based on the at least one network usage parameter
A Radio Access Network (RAN) environment as an applicable network environment
A number of Radio Resource Control users as the users connected to the network environment
However, Hamilton teaches:
determine at least one network usage parameter []; (see e.g., paragraph [0019], “As used herein, the term "performance parameter" means one or more parameters used to measure the workload on a processor. Performance parameters include run queue, system time, and/or user time. Other performance parameters are known by persons skilled in the art. Performance parameters may also include a combination of several individual performance parameters.”)
wherein the at least one network usage parameter comprises at least one of: a number of [workloads] connected to the [environment], and a number of physical resource blocks (PRBs) to be processed in the network environment. (see e.g., paragraphs [0019 - 0020], “As used herein, the term ‘performance parameter’ means one or more parameters used to measure the workload on a processor. Performance parameters include run queue, system time, and/ or user time. Other performance parameters are known by persons skilled in the art. Performance parameters may also include a combination of several individual performance parameters. As used herein, the term ‘run queue’ means the number of activities or applications waiting in line for the processor(s).”)
and reallocate at least one of the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks [as above] based on the at least one [above] usage parameter. (see e.g., paragraph [0023], “As used herein, the term “donor candidate” means a System which is designated by a user as eligible to donate a processor to another System. The group of all donor candidates is referred to as the donor candidate pool. A donor candidate will become a donor if the System's composite parameter is less than the donor load threshold”) (see e.g., paragraph [0034], “As used herein, the term “composite parameter” means the average of the processor data accumulated over the Sampling interval. The average used to calculate the composite parameter may be the mean, median, mode, or norm. Smoothing criteria may optionally be used to determine the composite parameter. An example of Smoothing would be removing the high and low values of the data collected during the Sampling interval.”)
Thakur and Hamilton are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of managing system resources. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the methods used by Thakur and Hamilton in order to achieve Hamilton’s goal of more efficiently managing processing resources (see e.g., Hamilton, paragraph [0001], “The present invention is related generally to method for increasing computer system efficiency and specifically to a computer program for reallocating processors amongst virtual systems.”). Using the strategy employed by Hamilton, we could more simply watch specific parameters, and donate/receive from task groups based off of thresholds that are set beforehand. Thakur already collects information that could be considered a parameter for such a purpose (see e.g., Thakur, column [065], lines [001 - 018], “For example, the packet engine or core may launch the listening service and pass parameters identifying the network id and port number on which to listen. The listening service may identify the network id and port number on which to listen from any configuration file. The listening service may identify the network id and port number on which to listen from any configuration stored in memory. The listening service may determine the network id and port number from an API call to the packet engine or network OS of the device.”), so this would be a relatively simple addition, with no expectation of failure by one of ordinary skill in this area.
Thakur and Hamilton fail to teach:
A Radio Access Network (RAN) environment as an applicable network environment
A number of Radio Resource Control users as the users connected to the network environment
However, Mitola teaches:
A Radio Access Network (RAN) environment as an applicable network environment (see e.g., page [01], abstract, “Methods and systems described herein relate to more optimally allocating and scheduling radio resources simultaneously in space, time, and frequency to enhance user quality of experience according to use context within the constraints of maximizing long term service provider revenue expectation for a given investment in radio access network infrastructure for improved radio resource management, such methods optionally including use of heat maps of user trajectories as a factor in a process for resource allocation.”) This shows that, similar to a network environment, a radio access network environment has similar problems as those solved by Thakur and Hamilton. In addition, they are solved in similar ways (Thakur and Hamilton teach a composite parameter which uses user activity as one of its composite components, while Mitola specifically mentions heat maps as their way of tracking the amount of work a user may require.
A number of Radio Resource Control users as the users connected to the network environment (see e.g., page [07], paragraph [0049], “In embodiments, a heat map may be generated by counting MMSj $ at 401 obtained from a shadow pricing arrangement of FIGS. 2 and 3, per an element of information e 440. The network may count the user upon the user beginning to access service MMSj 401. Such counts may quantify user behavior and establish user-awareness of a given user by a radio resource control entity for IRRM.”) This shows that the heat map specifically gives awareness (and a count) of the users that are connected to the radio resource control entity, and uses that to manage resources for the network.
Thakur in view of Hamilton and Mitola are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field as the claimed invention of managing a network environment to more efficiently use available resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Thakur in view of Hamilton to incorporate the teachings of Mitola such that the network environment and efficiencies taught by Thakur in view of Hamilton is applied to the more specific radio access network as applied to Mitola. Doing so would provide new strategies to the revenue expectation of Mitola (see e.g., page [01], abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Hamilton recites:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to reallocate at least one of the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the RAN environment by: determining whether the number of RRC users is below an RRC user threshold; and based on determining that the number of RRC users is below the RRC user threshold, reallocating the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the RAN environment. (see e.g., paragraph [0023], “As used herein, the term ‘donor candidate’ means a system which is designated by a user as eligible to donate a processor to another system. The group of all donor candidates is referred to as the donor candidate pool. A donor candidate will become a donor if the system’s composite parameter is less than the donor load threshold.”) (see e.g., paragraphs [0019 - 0020], “As used herein, the term ‘performance parameter’ means one or more parameters used to measure the workload on a processor. Performance parameters include run queue, system time, and/ or user time. Other performance parameters are known by persons skilled in the art. Performance parameters may also include a combination of several individual performance parameters. As used herein, the term ‘run queue’ means the number of activities or applications waiting in line for the processor(s).”) The specification does not give guidance on how it obtains or what metrics it uses to obtain the quantity of RRC users, so the Examiner will consider the broadest reasonable interpretation to include a counting of connections, which would include a number of connections that need some network-related action or task to be performed concerning them. RRC users and RAN are interpreted as they are for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hamilton recites:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, after reallocating the at least one of the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the RAN environment: determine whether the number of RRC users is above the RRC user threshold; and based on determining that the number of RRC users is above the RRC user threshold, reallocating the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the second layer of the RAN environment. (see e.g., paragraph [0025], “As used herein, the term ‘recipient candidate’ means a system which is designated by a user as eligible to receive a processor from another system. The group of all recipient candidates is referred to as the recipient candidate pool. A recipient candidate will become a recipient if the system’s composite parameter is greater than the recipient load threshold.”) (see e.g., paragraphs [0019 - 0020], “As used herein, the term ‘performance parameter’ means one or more parameters used to measure the workload on a processor. Performance parameters include run queue, system time, and/ or user time. Other performance parameters are known by persons skilled in the art. Performance parameters may also include a combination of several individual performance parameters. As used herein, the term ‘run queue’ means the number of activities or applications waiting in line for the processor(s).”)
Regarding claim 5, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one third CPU core comprises a first reallocatable CPU core and a second reallocatable CPU core allocated to perform tasks corresponding to the second layer of the RAN environment. (see e.g., column [039], lines [053 - 065], “The functionality or tasks may be distributed in any arrangement and scheme. For example, FIG. 5B illustrates a first core, Core 1 505A, processing applications and processes associated with network I/O functionality 510A. Network traffic associated with network I/O, in some embodiments, can be associated with a particular port number. Thus, outgoing and incoming packets having a port destination associated with NW I/O 510A will be directed towards Core 1 505A which is dedicated to handling all network traffic associated with the NW I/O port. Similarly, Core 2 505B is dedicated to handling functionality associated with SSL processing and Core 4 505D may be dedicated handling all TCP level processing and functionality.”) (see e.g., column [038], lines [012 - 023], “In one embodiment, work, load or network traffic can be distributed among a first core 505A, a second core 505B, a third core 505C, a fourth core 505D, a fifth core 505E, a sixth core 505F, a seventh core 505G, and so on such that distribution is across all or two or more of the n cores 505N (hereinafter referred to collectively as cores 505.)”)
Regarding claim 6, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to reallocate the at least one of the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the RAN environment by: determining whether the at least one network usage parameter is below a first network usage threshold; and reallocating the first reallocatable CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the RAN environment based on the at least one network usage parameter being below the first network usage threshold. (see Hamilton e.g., paragraph [0023], “As used herein, the term ‘donor candidate’ means a system which is designated by a user as eligible to donate a processor to another system. The group of all donor candidates is referred to as the donor candidate pool. A donor candidate will become a donor if the system’s composite parameter is less than the donor load threshold.”) (see Hamilton e.g., paragraphs [0019 - 0020], “As used herein, the term ‘performance parameter’ means one or more parameters used to measure the workload on a processor. Performance parameters include run queue, system time, and/ or user time. Other performance parameters are known by persons skilled in the art. Performance parameters may also include a combination of several individual performance parameters. As used herein, the term ‘run queue’ means the number of activities or applications waiting in line for the processor(s).”)
Regarding claim 7, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to reallocate the at least one of the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the RAN environment by: determining whether the at least one network usage parameter is below a second network usage threshold; and reallocating the first reallocatable CPU core and the second reallocatable CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the RAN environment based on the at least one network usage parameter being below the second network usage threshold. (see Hamilton e.g., paragraph [0023], “As used herein, the term ‘donor candidate’ means a system which is designated by a user as eligible to donate a processor to another system. The group of all donor candidates is referred to as the donor candidate pool. A donor candidate will become a donor if the system’s composite parameter is less than the donor load threshold.”) (see Hamilton e.g., paragraph [0025], “As used herein, the term ‘recipient candidate’ means a system which is designated by a user as eligible to receive a processor from another system. The group of all recipient candidates is referred to as the recipient candidate pool. A recipient candidate will become a recipient if the system’s composite parameter is greater than the recipient load threshold.”)
Regarding claim 8, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the at least one network usage parameter comprises a number of radio resource control (RRC) users connected to the RAN environment, wherein the first network usage threshold is determined based on a first amount of RRC connected users, wherein the second network usage threshold is determined based a second amount of RRC connected users, and wherein the second amount of RRC connected users is less than the first amount of RRC connected users. (see Hamilton e.g., paragraph [0023], “As used herein, the term ‘donor candidate’ means a system which is designated by a user as eligible to donate a processor to another system. The group of all donor candidates is referred to as the donor candidate pool. A donor candidate will become a donor if the system’s composite parameter is less than the donor load threshold.”) (see Hamilton e.g., paragraph [0025], “As used herein, the term ‘recipient candidate’ means a system which is designated by a user as eligible to receive a processor from another system. The group of all recipient candidates is referred to as the recipient candidate pool. A recipient candidate will become a recipient if the system’s composite parameter is greater than the recipient load threshold.”)
Regarding claim 11, Thakur, in view of Hamilton recites:
A method for resource management in a network environment, the method comprising: the method performed by the apparatus of claim 1. As such, claim 11 is rejected as being anticipated by Thakur, in view of Hamilton for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Thakur, in view of Hamilton recites:
Substantially the same limitations as claim 3, applied to the method of claim 11. As such, claim 13 is rejected as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Hamilton for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 3
Regarding claim 14, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
Substantially the same limitations as claim 4, applied to the method of claim 11. As such, claim 14 is rejected as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Hamilton for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 4
Regarding claim 15, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
Substantially the same limitations as claim 5, applied to the method of claim 11. As such, claim 15 is rejected as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Hamilton for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
Substantially the same limitations as claim 6, applied to the method of claim 11. As such, claim 16 is rejected as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Hamilton for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
Substantially the same limitations as claim 7, applied to the method of claim 11. As such, claim 17 is rejected as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Hamilton for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
Substantially the same limitations as claim 8, applied to the method of claim 11. As such, claim 18 is rejected as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Hamilton for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: perform the method of claim 11. As such, claim 20 is rejected as being anticipated by Thakur, in view of Hamilton for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-16 of the Remarks, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 in view of the amended claims have been fully considered and also are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive, due to them being moot because the new ground of rejection in question does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 Connor Imiola Blackburn whose telephone number is (571)272-6547. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270 - 3180. 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.
/C.I.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2194 /KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights