DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 12-14, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-5,11,15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 1, the claim recites a system, therefore is a machine.
“ . . . configure one or more … “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The limitation of “read … ”, amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, “read …”, amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, see rejection on claim 1. “the plurality . . . system “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Shimizu. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 3, see rejection on claim 1. “the plurality of applications implement part of an Open Radio Area Network (O-RAN) telecommunication system“ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Simizu. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 4, see rejection on claim 1. “ wherein the plurality of applications implement a distributed unit (DU) or centralized unit (CU) of an Open Radio Area Network (O-RAN) telecommunication system “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Shimizu. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 5, see rejection on claim 1. “wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of processor pinning, scheduler configuration, or timer resolution“ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See John. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 1. “detect . . . evaluate . . . “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. “relax . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Shibayama. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 15, the claim recites a method, therefore is a process.
“ . . . configuring … “ These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The limitation of “processing … executing … ” is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, “processing … executing … ” is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 19, see rejection on claim 11.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al (Guo, Yanfei, Palden Lama, and Xiaobo Zhou. "Automated and agile server parameter tuning with learning and control." 2012 IEEE 26th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium. IEEE, 2012).
As per claim 1, Guo teaches:
A system comprising:
one or more processing devices (Guo, V. SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION, A. The Testbed);
a kernel executing on the one or more processing devices (Guo, I. INTRODUCTION); and
a software component executing on the one or more processing devices is configured to:
read one or more kernel optimization files for a plurality of applications to be executed on the one or more processing devices (Guo, IV. APPROACHES WITH LEARNING AND CONTROL, A. An Enriched Neural Fuzzy Control based Approach, A. An Enriched Neural Fuzzy Control based Approach-- one or more kernel optimization files [under BRI] can be two inputs: error notated as e(k) and error changing rate noted as Δe(k)); and
configure one or more parameters of the kernel according to the one or more kernel optimization files (Guo, IV. APPROACHES WITH LEARNING AND CONTROL, A. An Enriched Neural Fuzzy Control based Approach, A. An Enriched Neural Fuzzy Control based Approach-- under BRI, configuring one or more parameters can be configuring with the parameter value ei(k) for the next tuning period).
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Shimizu (US 7369492) (hereinafter Shimizu).
As per claim 2, Guo teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Guo does not expressly teach:
wherein the plurality of applications implement part of a cellular telecommunication system.
However, Shimizu discloses:
wherein the plurality of applications implement part of a cellular telecommunication system (Shimizu, col 2, ll 14).
Both Shimizu and Guo pertain to the art of kernel execution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shimizu’s method to implement a cellular system because cellular systems offer unparalleled reliability and security by bypassing physical cables, which makes them highly resistant to outages, weather damage, and tampering.
As per claim 3, Guo teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Guo does not expressly teach:
wherein the plurality of applications implement part of an Open Radio Area Network (O-RAN) telecommunication system.
However, Shimizu discloses:
wherein the plurality of applications implement part of an Open Radio Area Network (O-RAN) telecommunication system (Shimizu, col 2, ll 14).
Both Shimizu and Guo pertain to the art of kernel execution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shimizu’s method to implement a O-RAN telecommunication system because ORAN (Open Radio Access Network) transforms traditional, closed telecom systems by decoupling hardware and software and standardizing interfaces. This architectural shift provides network operators with vendor interoperability, lower deployment costs, and greater scalability, while accelerating the integration of advanced technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML).
As per claim 4, Guo teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Guo does not expressly teach:
wherein the plurality of applications implement a distributed unit (DU) or centralized unit (CU) of an Open Radio Area Network (O-RAN) telecommunication system.
However, Shimizu discloses:
wherein the plurality of applications implement a distributed unit (DU) or centralized unit (CU) of an Open Radio Area Network (O-RAN) telecommunication system (Shimizu, col 2, ll 14—under BRI, centralized unit (CU) of an Open Radio Area Network (O-RAN) telecommunication system can be the entire O-RAN ).
Both Shimizu and Guo pertain to the art of kernel execution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shimizu’s method to implement a centralized unit (CU) of an Open Radio Area Network (O-RAN) telecommunication system because the Centralized Unit (CU) in an O-RAN architecture disaggregates baseband processing, isolating higher-layer protocols from the Distributed Unit. This enables cloud-based virtualization, vendor-neutral deployments, and centralized mobility management. By pooling resources, it significantly reduces both capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of John et al (US 2014/0019982) (hereinafter John).
As per claim 5, Guo teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Guo does not expressly teach:
wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of processor pinning, scheduler configuration, or timer resolution.
However, John discloses:
wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of processor pinning, scheduler configuration, or timer resolution (John, [0014]).
Both John and Guo pertain to the art of kernel execution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use John’s method to implement processor pinning because processor pinning (CPU affinity) is the practice of locking a specific software process or thread to a designated CPU core, preventing the operating system from migrating it. Its primary benefits include maximizing cache efficiency, reducing latency, and eliminating "noisy neighbor" interference for performance-critical applications
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Shibayama et al (US 11663029) (hereinafter Shibayama).
As per claim 11, Guo teaches:
The system of claim (see rejection on claim 1).
Guo does not expressly teach:
wherein the software component is further configured to:
detect a crash of the kernel following execution of the plurality of applications;
evaluate a cause of the crash; and
relax the one or more parameters according to the cause of the crash.
However, Shibayama discloses:
wherein the software component is further configured to:
detect a crash of the kernel following execution of the plurality of applications (Shibayama, Col 18, ll 59, Fig 23, 2301);
evaluate a cause of the crash (Shibayama, Col 18, ll 59—under BRI, a cause of the crash can be due to a node failure); and
relax the one or more parameters according to the cause of the crash (Shibayama, Fig 23 2308—under BRI, relax the one or more parameters can be running container in a new [another] node).
Both Shibayama and Guo pertain to the art of kernel execution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shibayama’s method to detect and evaluate errors and relax job execution conditions because it is well-known in the art that the primary benefit of detecting/evaluating errors and relaxing job execution conditions in workflow scheduling is increased system resilience and throughput. By handling failures gracefully, workflows avoid total pipeline crashes. Adjusting strict parameters prevents cascading delays, allowing productive tasks to complete while ensuring maximum uptime
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Wang et al (US 2025/0045093) (hereinafter Wang).
As per claim 15, Guo teaches:
A method comprising:
processing, by a software component executing on one or more processing devices, one or more kernel optimization files for a plurality of applications (Guo, IV. APPROACHES WITH LEARNING AND CONTROL, A. An Enriched Neural Fuzzy Control based Approach, A. An Enriched Neural Fuzzy Control based Approach);
configuring, by the software component, one or more parameters of a kernel executing on the one or more processing devices according to the one or more kernel optimization files (Guo, IV. APPROACHES WITH LEARNING AND CONTROL, A. An Enriched Neural Fuzzy Control based Approach, A. An Enriched Neural Fuzzy Control based Approach);
Guo does no expressly teach:
executing the plurality of applications by the kernel according to the one or more parameters.
However, Wang discloses:
executing the plurality of applications by the kernel according to the one or more parameters (Wang, [0069]).
Both Wang and Guo pertain to the art of task execution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wang’s method to execute tasks according to the one or more parameters because using parameters to guide task execution in a kernel is essential for achieving deterministic, highly efficient, and adaptable behavior.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo/Wang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Shibayama.
As per claim 19, Guo/Wang teaches:
The method of claim 15 (see rejection on claim 15).
Guo/Wang does not expressly teach:
further comprising: detecting, by the software component, a crash of the kernel following execution of the plurality of applications; evaluating, by the software component, a cause of the crash; and relaxing, by the software component, the one or more parameters according to the cause of the crash.
However, Shibayama discloses:
detect a crash of the kernel following execution of the plurality of applications (Shibayama, Col 18, ll 59, Fig 23, 2301);
evaluating, by the software component, a cause of the crash (Shibayama, Col 18, ll 59—under BRI, a cause of the crash can be due to a node failure); and
relaxing, by the software component, the one or more parameters according to the cause of the crash (Shibayama, Fig 23 2308—under BRI, relax the one or more parameters can be running container in a new [another] node).
Both Shibayama and Guo/Wang pertain to the art of kernel execution.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shibayama’s method to detect and evaluate errors and relax job execution conditions because it is well-known in the art that the primary benefit of detecting/evaluating errors and relaxing job execution conditions in workflow scheduling is increased system resilience and throughput. By handling failures gracefully, workflows avoid total pipeline crashes. Adjusting strict parameters prevents cascading delays, allowing productive tasks to complete while ensuring maximum uptime
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11620146 teaches a method of configuring parameters in an image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights