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 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) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivakumar (US 20220279421) in view of JIGALUR (US 20240231873).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/11/16, Sivakumar teaches A cellular network ([Fig.1 and 0054], “Mobile network system 100”), comprising:
a base station comprising a radio unit and an antenna ([Fig.1 and 0057], cellular network site RU 14);
a first server ([Fig.1], server 12A) in communication with the radio unit ([Fig.1], server 12A is connected to the RU 14.), wherein:
a pod ([0013], “DU functionality may be realized as Kubernetes Pods on these compute nodes.” And [0081 and 0098], pod is equivalent to a DU.) performing distributed unit (DU) ([Fig.2], DU 22A) functions is executing on the first server ([Fig.2], server 12A); and
a control plane ... on the first server ([0081 and Fig.2], “cRPD 24A (the control plane of vCSR 20A)” and [0098], “cRPD 324 operates as the control plane for a router implemented by server 600.”);
a second server ([Fig.1], server 12B) communicatively connected to the radio unit at the base station ([Fig.1], server 12B is connected to the RU 14.); and
an orchestration server system in communication with the first server and the second server ([0075], “orchestrator 50 controls the deployment, scaling, and operations of containers across clusters of servers 12.”).
However, Sivakumar does not specifically disclose managing execution of the pod is executing ... an orchestrator application executing on the orchestration server system monitors execution of the control plane on the first server; and in response to determining that the control plane is no longer executing on the first server, the orchestrator application instantiates a new instance of the control plane on the second server; and the orchestrator application configures the new instance of the control plane on the second server to manage the execution of the pod on the first server.
In an analogous art, JIGALUR discloses a control plane managing execution of the pod ([0041], “Scheduler 168 is a control plane 160 component configured to allocate new pods 152 to hosts 102. Additionally, scheduler 168 may be configured to distribute workloads, across containers 130, pods 152.” And [0018 and Fig.2A], when control plane 1601 acts an active control plane node, “the active control plane node may perform load balancing with other active control plane nodes in the cluster to manage pods and workloads running within the cluster.”) is executing on a node ([Fig.1B], pods 152 may located on Host 102(1), and the pods may be managed by Host 102(3).)
...
an orchestration server system ([Fig.2B and 0047], “a high availability orchestrator 204 is deployed on a second node 202.”) in communication with the first node ([Fig.2B], First node 202) and the second node ([Fig.2B], Third node), wherein:
an orchestrator application executing on the orchestration server system monitors execution of the control plane on the first node ([Fig.2B and 0057], “when heartbeat service 208 requests a heartbeat response (e.g., a packet response) from heartbeat agent 214 on first node 202 (via high availability network 170), heartbeat service 208 may not receive the requested response.”); and
in response to determining that the control plane ([Fig.2A], first node 2021) is no longer executing on the first node ([0058], “Based on receiving the notice, high availability orchestrator 204 may determine that active control plane 160.sub.1 on first node 202.sub.1 is no longer active.”), the orchestrator application instantiates a new instance of the control plane ([0058], “high availability orchestrator 204 requests that setnet service 212 enable/activate inactive control plane 1602 on third node 20 ... Activating eth0 at third node 2023 causes inactive control plane 1602 on third node 2023 to move from an inactive state to an active state at a sixth operation.”) on the second node ([Fig.2A], Third node 2023.); and
the orchestrator application configures the new instance of the control plane on the second server to manage the execution of the pod on the first server ([0058], “control plane components on inactive control plane 1602 on third node 2023 may need to be activated such that operations previously being performed by control pane components on active control plane 1601 can continue to be carried out.” And [0018 and Fig.2A], “the active control plane node may perform load balancing with other active control plane nodes in the cluster to manage pods.” Previously, when control plane 1601 acted as an active control plane, it performs “load balancing” to “manage pods.” When control plane 1602 replaces control plane 1601 to act as the active control plane, pods will be continued to “manage” by the control plane 1602.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sivakumar to specify enable inactive control plane as taught by JIGALUR. The motivation/suggestion would have been because “operations previously being performed by control pane components on active control plane 1601 can continue to be carried out.”
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2/12/17, JIGALUR teaches the orchestrator application determines that the control plane is no longer executing on the first server in response to determining that a predefined number of heartbeat messages were not received from the control plane, that the heartbeat messages were not received for a predefined amount of time, or both ([0057], “heartbeat service 208 requests more than one heartbeat response from heartbeat agent 214, and where a number of requested responses are not received (e.g., above a threshold) by heartbeat service 208, heartbeat service 208 may inform high availability orchestrator 204 of first node 202.sub.1's unresponsiveness.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sivakumar to specify enable inactive control plane as taught by JIGALUR. The motivation/suggestion would have been because “operations previously being performed by control pane components on active control plane 1601 can continue to be carried out.”
Regarding claim(s) 5/13/18, JIGALUR teaches the orchestrator application activates the new instance of the control plane on the second server in further response to determining that the control plane cannot be reactivated on the first server ([0057], “heartbeat service 208 requests more than one heartbeat response from heartbeat agent 214, and where a number of requested responses are not received (e.g., above a threshold) by heartbeat service 208, heartbeat service 208 may inform high availability orchestrator 204 of first node 202.sub.1's unresponsiveness.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sivakumar to specify enable inactive control plane as taught by JIGALUR. The motivation/suggestion would have been because “operations previously being performed by control pane components on active control plane 1601 can continue to be carried out.”
Regarding claim(s) 6/14/19, JIGALUR teaches the orchestrator application activates a new instance of the pod on the second server in response to determining that the first server is no longer available ([0058], “high availability orchestrator 204 requests that setnet service 212 enable/activate inactive control plane 1602 on third node 20 ... Activating eth0 at third node 2023 causes inactive control plane 1602 on third node 2023 to move from an inactive state to an active state at a sixth operation.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sivakumar to specify enable inactive control plane as taught by JIGALUR. The motivation/suggestion would have been because “operations previously being performed by control pane components on active control plane 1601 can continue to be carried out.”
Regarding claim(s) 8, Sivakumar teaches wherein the first server and the second server are virtual machines ([0063], “Each of servers 12 may be a real or virtual server that hosts/executes software that implements DUs 22.”).
However, Sivakumar does not teach the orchestrator application activates the second server as a new instance of the first server in response to determining that the first server cannot be reactivated.
In an analogous art, JIGALUR teaches the orchestrator application activates the second server as a new instance of the first server ([0058], “high availability orchestrator 204 requests that setnet service 212 enable/activate inactive control plane 1602 on third node 20 ... Activating eth0 at third node 2023 causes inactive control plane 1602 on third node 2023 to move from an inactive state to an active state at a sixth operation.”) in response to determining that the first server cannot be reactivated ([0058], “high availability orchestrator 204 may determine that active control plane 1601 on first node 2021 is no longer active.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sivakumar to specify enable inactive control plane as taught by JIGALUR. The motivation/suggestion would have been because “operations previously being performed by control pane components on active control plane 1601 can continue to be carried out.”
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivakumar in view of JIGALUR, and further in view of Kong (US 20230292175).
Regarding claim(s) 3, Kong teaches a public ([0063], “cloud 112 may be network(s) hosted by a public cloud provider.”) cloud-computing platform ([Fig.8], cloud 112) comprising a plurality of centralized units ([Fig.8], CU 108), wherein the first server ([Fig.8], DU gateway, and [0117], “interface circuitry 1010” in the DU gateway may be a “server.”) and the second server ([Fig.8], DU gateway, and [0117], “interface circuitry 1010” in the DU gateway may be a “server.”) are communicatively connected via a network with the public cloud-computing platform ([Fig.8]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sivakumar to specify cloud as taught by Kong. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to “execute an application (e.g., a software application, a cellular network application, etc.) to control, manage, and/or operate the cellular network.”
Regarding claim(s) 4, Kong teaches wherein the public cloud-computing platform further comprises a network core that manages network functions for the cellular network ([Fig.8], core unit 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sivakumar to specify cloud as taught by Kong. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to “execute an application (e.g., a software application, a cellular network application, etc.) to control, manage, and/or operate the cellular network.”
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivakumar in view of JIGALUR, and further in view of Bagasrawala (US 20250254563).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Bagasrawala teaches wherein the first server and the second server are located in different geographic locations within a predefined maximum distance from the base station ([0015], “To minimize latency, the DUs may be hosted on edge servers of a cloud provider network located at or near the cell site.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sivakumar to specify selecting a server near a cell site as taught by Bagasrawala. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to reduce latency.
Claim(s) 10, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivakumar in view of JIGALUR, and further in view of Balmakhtar (US 20240292196).
Regarding claim(s) 10/15/20, Sivakumar teaches a plurality of servers comprising the first server and the second server ([Fig.1], servers 12).
However, the combination of Sivakumar and JIGALUR does not teach wherein the orchestrator application identifies the second server for instantiation of the new instance of the control plane from the plurality of servers by determining that a distance from the base station to the second server is less than a predefined maximum distance.
In an analogous art, Balmakhtar teaches wherein the orchestrator application identifies the second server for instantiation of the new instance of the control plane ([0027], “orchestrator 332 selects one of servers 341 to serve the metaverse session based on its proximity to UE 301.”) from the plurality of servers by determining that a distance from the base station to the second server is less than a predefined maximum distance ([0027], “orchestrator 332 may determine geographic distances between UE 301 and the identified ones of servers 341 and select a server that comprises a minimum distance.” And [Fig.1], The UE is served by a base station.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Sivakumar to specify selecting a server near a UE as taught by Balmakhtar. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to reduce latency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues (Remark page 9, 1st paragraph)
“Since the cited references do not teach or suggest that the "control plane on the second server" is used to "manage the execution of the pod on the first server", the claim is not obvious in view of the cited references. Further, if Jigalur is combined with Sivakumar, each time a control plane failed, the server would be removed (including the DU pods) from the cluster (see paragraph 0058) and would be switched to a different server (including the DU pods), which would be inefficient, potentially even impracticable.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cited teaching from [0018 and 0058, JIGALUR], which discloses when second control plane replaces failed first control plane, the second control plane will take over and continue to manage pods in a host. See updated mappings in claim 1.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, the rejections are sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411.
