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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 5-8, and 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
The limitation at issue is “floating cpu core”, but floating is not a description that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied to processors of any kind. The specification also does not ascribe any differences between a floating core and a regular core. Accordingly, claims 5 and 15 are indefinite.
Claims 6-8, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to 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: a series of steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
allocate at least one first central processing unit (CPU) core to perform tasks corresponding to a first layer of the network environment;
allocate at least one second CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to a second layer of the network environment;
allocate at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the second layer of the network environment;
determine at least one network usage parameter corresponding to usage of at least one of the first layer and the second layer;
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.
all of which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include:
At least one (first, second, and third) Central processing unit core
Regarding the additional element (i), the limitation recited is mere instructions to implement the limitations which can be performed in the human mind, i.e., the judicial exception, on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
Regarding the additional element (i), the limitation is reciting generic computing components performing the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
The combination of these additional elements amounts to a method comprising steps which can be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising a step of insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Consequently, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 2 recites the at least one network usage parameter comprises at least one of: a number of radio resource control (RRC) users connected to the network environment, and a number of physical resource blocks (PRBs) to be processed in the network environment, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 2 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 2. Further, claim 3 recites 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 network environment, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 3 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 1 or 2.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 2, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 3. Further, claim 4 recites determin[ing] 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 network environment, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 4 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 1, 2 or 3.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 3, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 5 recites the at least one third CPU core comprises a first floating CPU core and a second floating CPU core allocated to perform tasks corresponding to the second layer of the network environment, which is effectively the same claim as claim 1 regarding judicial exceptions.
Claim 5 recites the additional element first [and second] floating CPU core, which is reciting generic computing components performing the steps that can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 5. Further, claim 6 recites determining whether the at least one network usage parameter is below a first network usage threshold; and reallocating the first floating CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the network environment based on the at least one network usage parameter being below the first network usage threshold, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 6 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in 1 or 5.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 5, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 6. Further, claim 7 recites determining whether the at least one network usage parameter is below a second network usage threshold; and reallocating the first floating CPU core and the second floating CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the network environment based on the at least one network usage parameter being below the second network usage threshold, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 7 recites no additional elements beyond those found in claims 1, 5, or 6.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 6, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 7 is not eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 7. Further, claim 8 recites that the at least one network usage parameter comprises a number of radio resource control (RRC) users connected to the network 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, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 8 recites no additional elements beyond those found in claims 1, 5, 6, or 7.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 7, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 8 is not eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 9 recites that the first layer is a physical layer of the network environment, and wherein the second layer is a data link/scheduling layer of the network environment, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 9 recites no additional elements beyond those found in claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 9 is not eligible.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 10 recites that the first layer is a data link/scheduling layer of the network environment, and wherein the second layer is a physical layer of the network environment, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 10 recites no additional elements beyond what is found in claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 10 is not eligible.
Step 1:
Claim 11 is directed to A method for resource management in a network environment, the method comprising:: a series of steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 11 recites the limitations:
allocating at least one first central processing unit (CPU) core to perform tasks corresponding to a first layer of the network environment;
allocating at least one second CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to a second layer of the network environment;
allocating at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the second layer of the network environment;
determining at least one network usage parameter corresponding to usage of at least one of the first layer and the second layer;
and reallocating 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.
all of which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 11 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements recited in claim 11 include:
At least one (first, second, and third) Central processing unit core
Regarding the additional element (i), the limitation recited is mere instructions to implement the limitations which can be performed in the human mind, i.e., the judicial exception, on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
Regarding the additional element (i), the limitation is reciting generic computing components performing the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
The combination of these additional elements amounts to a method comprising steps which can be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising a step of insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Consequently, claim 11 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 11. Further, claim 12 recites that the at least one network usage parameter comprises at least one of: a number of radio resource control (RRC) users connected to the network environment, and a number of physical resource blocks (PRBs) to be processed in the network environment., which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 12 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 11.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 11, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 12 is not eligible.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 12. Further, claim 13 recites 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 network environment, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 13 recites no additional elements beyond those found in claim 12.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 12, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 13 is not eligible.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 13. Further, claim 14 recites determining 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 network environment., which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 14 recites no additional elements beyond those found in claim 13.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 13, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 14 is not eligible.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 11, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 14. Further, claim 15 recites the at least one third CPU core comprises a first floating CPU core and a second floating CPU core allocated to perform tasks corresponding to the second layer of the network environment, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 15 recites the additional element first [and second] floating CPU core, which is reciting generic computing components performing the steps that can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 11, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 15 is not eligible.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 15, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 15. Further, claim 16 recites reallocating the at least one of the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the network environment comprises: determining whether the at least one network usage parameter is below a first network usage threshold; and reallocating the first floating CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the network environment based on the at least one network usage parameter being below the first network usage threshold, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 16 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 11 and 15.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 15, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 16 is not eligible.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 16, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 16. Further, claim 17 recites reallocating the at least one of the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the network environment further comprises: determining whether the at least one network usage parameter is below a second network usage threshold; and reallocating the first floating CPU core and the second floating CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the network environment based on the at least one network usage parameter being below the second network usage threshold, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 17 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 11, 15, and 16.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 16, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 17 is not eligible.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 17, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 17. Further, claim 18 recites The method of claim 17, wherein the at least one network usage parameter comprises a number of radio resource control (RRC) users connected to the network 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, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 18 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 11, 15, 16, and 17.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 17, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 18 is not eligible.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 11, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 11. Further, claim 19 recites that the first layer is a physical layer of the network environment, and wherein the second layer is a data link/scheduling layer of the network environment, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 19 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 11.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 11, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 19 is not eligible.
Step 1:
Claim 20 is directed to 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: a series of steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 20 recites the limitations:
allocate at least one first central processing unit (CPU) core to perform tasks corresponding to a first layer of a network environment;
allocate at least one second CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to a second layer of the network environment;
allocate at least one third CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the second layer of the network environment;
determine at least one network usage parameter corresponding to usage of at least one of the first layer and the second layer;
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.
all of which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 20 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements recited in claim 20 include:
At least one (first, second, and third) Central processing unit core
Regarding the additional element (i), the limitation recited is mere instructions to implement the limitations which can be performed in the human mind, i.e., the judicial exception, on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
Regarding the additional element (i), the limitation is reciting generic computing components performing the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
The combination of these additional elements amounts to a method comprising steps which can be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising a step of insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Consequently, claim 20 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-14, 19-20 is/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.
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;”)
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.”)
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;
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
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.”)
and reallocate at least one of the at least one third CPU core to perform tasks [] 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.
Regarding claim 2, Hamilton recites:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one network usage parameter comprises at least one of: a number of radio resource control (RRC) users connected to the network 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).”)
Regarding claim 3, Hamilton recites:
The apparatus of claim 2, 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 network 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 network 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.
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 network 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 network 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 floating CPU core and a second floating CPU core allocated 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.”) (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 network environment by: determining whether the at least one network usage parameter is below a first network usage threshold; and reallocating the first floating CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the network 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 network environment by: determining whether the at least one network usage parameter is below a second network usage threshold; and reallocating the first floating CPU core and the second floating CPU core to perform tasks corresponding to the first layer of the network 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 network 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 9, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer is a physical layer of the network environment, and wherein the second layer is a data link/scheduling layer of the network environment. (see e.g., columns [001 - 002], lines [063 - 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.”) (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.”) When one mentions multiple layers in the OSI model (i.e., transport and network layers), the remaining few layers can be considered obvious to try, given how the exemplified layers are seen as “tasks”. Therefore, using the system to try to accomplish sister tasks is not a very large stretch.
Regarding claim 10, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer is a data link/scheduling layer of the network environment, and wherein the second layer is a physical layer of the network environment. (see e.g., columns [001 - 002], lines [063 - 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.”) (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.”) When one mentions multiple layers in the OSI model (i.e., transport and network layers), the remaining few layers can be considered obvious to try, given how the exemplified layers are seen as “tasks”. Therefore, using the system to try to accomplish sister tasks is not a very large stretch. Changing the order of the tasks, especially since there is little difference between the two claimed “first layer” and “second layer”, doesn’t really change anything about how they would interact.
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 12, Thakur, in view of Hamilton recites:
Substantially the same limitations as claim 2, applied to the method of claim 11 As such, claim 12 is rejected as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Hamilton for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 2.
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 19, Thakur in view of Hamilton recites:
Substantially the same limitations as claim 9, applied to the method of claim 11. As such, claim 19 is rejected as being unpatentable over Thakur in view of Hamilton for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 9.
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.
Conclusion
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