DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, Remarks filed 10/8/2025, with respect to the objection to claims 22-31 are herein acknowledged. The examiner notes that the applicant has amended claims 22-31 to incorporate elements of the originally filed specification. Therefore, the arguments are persuasive and the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, Remarks filed 10/8/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are hereby acknowledged. The examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended limitations, therefore, a new grounds of rejection is set forth in order to address the new limitations with newly found prior art. The examiner will rely, in part, on Hymel; Darryl P. et al. US 20150286543 A1 (hereafter Hymel) with the same assignee as the current applicant and which is relevant to the current claim limitations and does not appear to have been previously disclosed.
The applicant’s arguments regarding claim 20-21 are also herein acknowledged. Whereas the applicant’s arguments address the scope of the claims, the claims appear to be broader in scope that representative claims 18-19. The elements not discussed in the rejection of claims 18-19 are further addressed in the rejection of claims 18-19. A prior art rejection to claims 22-31 is not set forth.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein; Jeff US 20150270988 A1 (hereafter Finkelstein) and in further view of Patrick; Michael W. et al. US 20170244577 A1 (hereafter Patrick) and in further view of Shen; Xiaowei et al. US 20190124407 A1 (hereafter Shen) and in further view of Hymel; Darryl P. et al. US 20150286543 A1 (hereafter Hymel) and in further view of DVB ORGANIZATION: "CM-SP-R-PHY-110-180509.pdf", DVB, DIGITAL VIDEO BROADCASTING, 12 September 2019 (2019-09-12) (hereafter DVB Standards).
Regarding claim 18, “A cable distribution system comprising: (a) a head end connected to a plurality of customer devices through a transmission network that includes a remote fiber node that converts received data to analog data suitable to be provided on a coaxial cable for said plurality of customer devices, where said head end includes at least one server each of which includes a respective processor; (b) a first vCore instantiated on one of said at least one server of said head end configured to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network; (c) a second vCore instantiated on one of said at least one server of said head end not configured to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network, said second vCore including environment configuration data; (d) a cache included on one of said at least one server of said head end that maintains network configuration data of a state of said plurality of customer devices where said cache is temporally updated with network configuration data related to said plurality of customer devices; (e) (e) a monitoring system that detects a failure of said first vCore to provide services to said plurality of customer devices and, in response to said detecting said failure to provide services to said plurality of customer devices, configures said second vCore based at least in part on said network configuration data to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network that would have otherwise been provided by said first vCore to said plurality of customer devices” Finkelstein para 123-129 disclosing a cable distribution system comprising headend 710A connected to a plurality of devices comprising a fiber node 718 that converts optical signals received from the head end to RF signals for transmission along a coaxial transmission medium to customer premises to elements 702(N) and wherein paras 26-27, 49-51, 59 explain that the disclosed head ends/hub comprise server(s) running on virtual machines and comprise processors and wherein the CCAP can be virtualized; Regarding “(b) a first vCore instantiated on one of said at least one server of said head end configured to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network; (c) a second vCore instantiated on one of said at least one server of said head end not configured to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network, said second vCore including environment configuration data; (d) a cache included on one of said at least one server of said head end that maintains network configuration data of a state of said plurality of customer devices where said cache is temporally updated with network configuration data related to said plurality of customer devices; (e) (e) a monitoring system that detects a failure of said first vCore to provide services to said plurality of customer devices and, in response to said detecting said failure to provide services to said plurality of customer devices, configures said second vCore based at least in part on said network configuration data to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network that would have otherwise been provided by said first vCore to said plurality of customer devices” Finkelstein para 19 discloses the terms CCAP is used interchangeably with the term CMTS such that a virtualized CCAP is interpreted as a virtualized CMTS; see also para 116-130 disclose Fig. 5-7 comprising a core for performing higher layer processing and correspond to the elements of the CMTS/CCAP for performing said functions; see also wherein para 26-27, 49-51, 59 explain that the disclosed head ends/hub comprise servers(s) running on virtual machines and comprise processors and wherein the CCAP can be virtualized. However, Finkelstein does not use the term “core” when disclosing vCCAP, however, the elements disclosed by Finkelstein corresponding to CMTS functions performed by a CCAP Core are understood as virtual “cores” by one of ordinary skill as will be discussed in the combined prior art below. Finkelstein [0026] “Decomposing aggregate functionality associated with multiple network communication layers and implementing respective functionality associated with each of one or more network communication layers on different devices also facilitates virtualization of one or more aspects of the decomposed functionality. For example, in the cable access network context, L1, L2, and L3 functionality is typically provided by a CMTS or CCAP located at a head end location. In accordance with certain example embodiments of the disclosure, L1 functionality may instead be implemented on a remote field device rather than at the head end, and L3 functionality (e.g., edge routing functionality) may be implemented by an edge router that is a separate from the CMTS or CCAP. In such embodiments, the CMTS or CCAP effectively becomes a L2 device, and one or more aspects of the L2 functionality typically implemented in hardware on the device may be virtualized and performed, at least in part, responsive to execution of one or more software modules.” See also Finkelstein para 115-127. See also Finkelstein para 51-54 disclosing how a single customer premises is delivered services by one or more virtual customer networks (VCNs). As such, wherein applicant’s claim 1 recites, inter alia, “where said headend includes at least one server each of which includes a respective processor” and further claims that a first VCMTS and a second VCMTS is “instantiated on one of said servers”, then viewing the teachings of Finkelstein as a whole, the prior art to Finkelstein render obvious having a plurality of vCMTS.
Furthermore, Finkelstein is silent with respect to a monitoring system that detects a failure of said first virtualized cable modem termination system and, in response to said detecting said failure, configures said second virtualized cable modem termination system to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network. Furthermore, Finkelstein is silent with respect to a second vCore including environment configuration data or based upon the failure of a first vCore to configure second vCore based at least in part on said network configuration data. Also, Finkelstein does not use the term “network” with respect to configuration data of a state of a plurality of customer devices as claimed.
In an analogous art, Patrick teaches virtual CAP Cores comprising a plurality of cores for providing redundant services (Patrick para 35-36, 80, 96) and further teaches a cable system operation may configure and manage Virtual CCAP Core 200 in the same manner as a chassis-based CCAP Core 110. See Patrick para 18. More importantly, with respect to the deficiency of Finkelstein (i.e., a monitoring system that detects a failure of said first virtualized cable modem termination system and, in response to said detecting said failure, configures said second virtualized cable modem termination system to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said transmission network; a second vCore including environment configuration data or based upon the failure of a first vCore to configure second vCore based at least in part on said network configuration data), Patrick para 28-30 teaches a “standby” VCCM may be configured or elected to takeover for the “active” VCCM should the active VCCM fail. The standby VCCM maintains a copy of the CCAP Core configuration. A person of ordinary skill would have understood that providing a plurality of cores in order to establish redundant services in the event of a failure of one core requires detecting of a failure in order to establish a connection with a working core and switching from a failure core.
Patrick does not use the term “network” with respect to configuration data of a state of a plurality of customer devices as claimed. In an analogous art, Shen para 18 teaches new vCMTS instance may be spawned in response to determining that the active vCMTS instances have failed; see para 21-25 teaches utilizing a single database for storing network configuration data for all vCMTS and discloses creating backhaul connection 146 between new vCMTS instance 140 and data center network 128 in stage 220, method 200 may continue to stage 230 where load balancer 120 or control device 130 may create a database connection between new vCMTS instance 140 and database 142; creating the database connection may comprise synchronizing a state of new vCMTS instance 140 with database 142. Consistent with embodiments of the disclosure, plurality of vCMTS instances 132 may share only one database (i.e., database 142) or file system. The state of the vCMTS may be stored in database 140; from database 142, new vCMTS instance 140 may know which one of plurality of nodes 104 it will start serving that was previously server by the active vCMTS instance switched from. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that each vCMTS comprises environment configuration data that will be synchronized with the database 142 of Shen such that the network configuration data is temporarily updated.
The motivation to modify Patrik and Shen is further evidenced by Hymel. For example, Patrick teaches a cable system operation may configure and manage Virtual CCAP Core 200 in the same manner as a chassis-based CCAP Core 110. See Patrick para 18. Shen as discussed above discloses claimed elements with respect to vCMTS. More importantly, Hymel teaches providing redundant and self-healing architecture for a CCAP device or like device comprising providing spare cable access modules to provide redundancy should one of the active cards in the device CCAP device fail. See Hymel para 19-25. Equally important is that Hymel para 27-34 teaches alternate sparing approaches comprising a first referenced sparing approach requires the spare DCAM to store state information for all of the active DCAMs in the sparing group. For instance, see the five sets of state information that must be stored in memory in DCAM or otherwise be acquired by DCAM after occurrence of a fault; additionally, since the sparing DCAM is aware of the possible lone sparing assignment, the DCAM card can have some or all of the state information pre-loaded into stand-by registers within the hardware and processors.
The motivation to modify Finkelstein, Patrick, Shen and Hymel is further evidenced by DVB Standards teaching utilizing a principal core and an auxiliary core in active or backup roles (Section 6.8 pg. 52, 66, Section 7.2 pg. 88, Section 7.4 pg. 92-93). Furthermore, with respect to the “cache” elements in relation to the claimed server, Finkelstein, Patrick, Shen, and Hymel rendered the limitation obvious wherein DVB Standards further discloses Section 5.2.4 and pg. 30 teaches a RPD as a device interpreted as a server remote from a first and second virtualized cable modem termination system; See also Section 7.4.2.4.1 teaches a RPD Backup Core Status table to identify which core is configured and Section 10.4.2 disclosing a cache for certificates interpreted as configuration data identifying which is good, revoked, unknown. All things considered, based on the combination of Finkelstein, Patrick, Shen, Hymel and DVB Standards wherein Patrick teaches virtual CCAP Cores comprising a plurality of cores for providing redundant services (Patrick para 35-36, 80, 96). A person of ordinary skill would have understood that providing a plurality of cores in order to establish redundant services in the event of a failure of one core requires detecting of a failure in order to establish a connection with a working core and switching from a failure core.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Finkelstein’s invention comprising a cable distribution system comprising headend connected to a plurality of devices comprising a fiber node that converts optical signals received from the head end to RF signals for transmission along a coaxial transmission medium to customer premises wherein the head ends/hub comprise servers(s) running on virtual machines and comprise processors and wherein the CCAP core can be virtualized by further incorporating known elements of Patrick’s invention comprising virtual CCAP Cores comprising a plurality of cores for providing redundant upstream and downstream services comprising a “standby” VCCM configured or elected to takeover for the “active” VCCM should the active VCCM fail and wherein the standby VCCM maintains a copy of the CCAP Core configuration before becoming active because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that based on established standards (i.e., DVB Standards) in the art, there is a benefit to identifying a failure in a first virtual core in order to switch to a second virtual core that is functional in order to avoid interruptions in service when a failure occurs in a cable distribution system utilizing virtual cores established in Finkelstein. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Finkelstein and Patrick’s invention, wherein Finkelstein recognizes that a cable system operation may configure and manage Virtual CCAP Core in the same manner as a chassis-based CCAP Core, by further incorporating known elements of Shen’s invention for providing redundant architecture in a vCMTS comprising new vCMTS instance may be spawned in response to determining that the active vCMTS instances have failed and utilizing a single database for storing network configuration data for all vCMTS and wherein each individual vCMTS has a database that is synchronized with a database for all vCMTS because Hymel recognizes providing redundant and self-healing architecture for a CCAP device or like device comprising providing spare cable access modules to provide redundancy should one of the active cards in the device CCAP device fail and requires the spare DCAM to store state information for all of the active DCAMs in the sparing group or alternatively since the sparing DCAM is aware of the possible lone sparing assignment, the DCAM card can have some or all of the state information pre-loaded into stand-by registers within the hardware and processors. The combination of Finkelstein, Patrick, Shen, Hymel would result in a benefit to identifying a failure in a first virtual core in order to switch to a second virtual core that is functional in order to avoid interruptions in service when a failure occurs in a cable distribution system utilizing virtual cores wherein DVB Standards teaches utilizing a principal core and an auxiliary core in active or backup roles (Section 6.8 pg. 52, 66, Section 7.2 pg. 88, Section 7.4 pg. 92-93).
Regarding claim 19, “wherein said configuration data includes at least one of (1) off-line, (2) on-line, (3) booting, and (4) cable source verify” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 18 wherein off-line and on-line correspond to an active and inactive state of cores based on the combination of Finkelstein, Patrick, and DVB Standards wherein Patrick para 17-25 further discloses a plurality of core servers. See also Finkelstein para 35 discloses network of optical fiber nodes (represented generically by fiber node 106) that receive data from the hub 126 via one or more optical fiber links. An optical fiber node 106 may be configured to convert downstream optically modulated signals received from the hub 126 to electrical signals (e.g., radio frequency (RF) modulated signals) for ultimate transmission to a customer premises 102(1). The optical fiber node 106 may also include a reverse/return path transmitter for transmitting upstream communications from the customer premises 102(1) to the hub 126; see also the combination of Patrick and DVB Standards disclosing a back-up virtual core to a first failure virtual core such that the services provided by a failed first core (i.e., RF services of Finkelstein); See Patrick para 17-25 further discloses a plurality of core servers; See also DVB Standards teaching utilizing a principal core and an auxiliary core in active or backup roles (Section 6.8 pg. 52, 66, Section 7.2 pg. 88, Section 7.4 pg. 92-93); see also DVB Standard pg. 61 – Auxiliary CCAP Core for performing DOCSIS Core; see also DVB Standard 6.4.3 CCAP Cores for DOCSIS for primary and backup when connecting to more than one CCAP Core; pg. 51 Cores have different roles such as active primary, backup, DOCSIS, etc. See also Shen para 18 teaches new vCMTS instance may be spawned in response to determining that the active vCMTS instances have failed; see para 21-25 teaches utilizing a single database for storing network configuration data for all vCMTS; creating the database connection may comprise synchronizing a state of new vCMTS instance 140 with database 142. Consistent with embodiments of the disclosure, plurality of vCMTS instances 132 may share only one database (i.e., database 142) or file system. The state of the vCMTS may be stored in database 140; from database 142, new vCMTS instance 140 may know which one of plurality of nodes 104 it will start serving that was previously server by the active vCMTS instance switched from. See also Hymel para 21 disclosing the spare is configured to be inactive and analogous to off-line but active or on-line but inactive because the spare becomes active due to a fault detected in one of the other cards.
Regarding the system claims 20-21 claims, the claims are grouped and rejected with the system claims 18-19 because the elements of the system claims are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 18-19 and because the elements of the system are easily converted into elements of computer implemented system by one of ordinary skill in the art. Whereas the rejection of claims 18-19 do not discuss the term “thread” for a plurality of threads as claimed, the combination of Finkelstein, Patrick, Shen, Hymel, and DVB Standards renders the limitation obvious. See Hymel teaches independent upstream and downstream cable access modules wherein Hymel para 33 teaches the cable access modules comprises a processor, this stand-by information is similar to a thread waiting to be initiated within a processor, and once a sparing event is triggered, the cable access modules card can instantly switch operation over to the stand-by information that is already pre-loaded in the stand-by registers. This leads to faster switch-over response since the transition occurs without delay. See also Patrick para 40-44 disclosing threads of operation and Fig. 2-5 disclosing a Virtual CCAP Core with a plurality of core servers comprising upstream and downstream cores. See also Shen para 14-18 disclosing a plurality of vCMTS instances may reside on the same server (i.e., service cluster 124) or may reside on different servers or in different data centers; a plurality of vCMTS instances for independently processing upstream and downstream data. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably inferred that upstream and downstream transmission processing are performed by a plurality of separate vCores providing redundant operations processing different relative threads for upstream and downstream traffic comprising active and inactive vCMTS analogous to Hymel para 33 plurality of cable access modules comprising processors, wherein stand-by information is similar to a thread waiting to be initiated within a processor, and once a sparing event is triggered, the cable access modules card can instantly switch operation over to the stand-by information that is already pre-loaded in the stand-by registers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-31 are allowed.
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 ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached generally Monday to Friday 10am-6pm (with alternative Fridays.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-270-3950. 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.
/ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421