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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 labels “Hybrid Scheduling System” as “116.” It appears that element should be labeled “118” (see Spec at paragraph [0043]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (series of steps) and is therefore a process which is one of the statutory categories of inventions. Claims 11-19 are directed to a system and therefore is a machine which is one of the statutory categories of inventions. Claim 20 is directed to a method (series of steps) and is therefore a process which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the limitations “designating a first real-time core (R-core) and a second R-core of a vRAN virtual machine (VM) operating on a server device” and “deriving a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs) for the vRAN VM based on network traffic between the vRAN VM and one or more virtual network functions, and utilization data from multiple processing layers associated with the vRAN VM;”. These limitations as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “vRAN virtual machine”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a human operator could mentally designate cores as real-time cores. Further, a human operator could view vRAN VM traffic data on a terminal, and mentally determine key performance indicators. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claims recite additional elements: “receiving a first real-time workload for the vRAN VM and a second real-time workload for the vRAN VM;”, receiving data is a limitation which amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); “generating scheduling instructions for the vRAN virtual machine to perform tasks of the first real-time workload and tasks of the second real-time workload on the first R-core and the second R-core based on the derived plurality of KPIs;”, generating scheduling instructions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); “causing an operating system (OS) scheduler of an OS of the server device to schedule the tasks of the first real-time workload and the tasks of the second real-time workload according to the scheduling instructions.”, causing a scheduler to schedule tasks amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements “a system” (claim 11), “at least one processor” (claim 11), “memory in electronic communication with the at least one processor” (claim 11), and “instructions stored in memory” (claim 11) are limitations which amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The limitations “a system” (claim 11), “at least one processor” (claim 11), “memory in electronic communication with the at least one processor” (claim 11), and “instructions stored in memory” (claim 11) are merely generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitation “receiving a first real-time workload for the vRAN VM and a second real-time workload for the vRAN VM;”, receiving data is a limitation which amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g));
The limitation “generating scheduling instructions for the vRAN virtual machine to perform tasks of the first real-time workload and tasks of the second real-time workload on the first R-core and the second R-core based on the derived plurality of KPIs;”, generating scheduling instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The limitation “causing an operating system (OS) scheduler of an OS of the server device to schedule the tasks of the first real-time workload and the tasks of the second real-time workload according to the scheduling instructions.”, causing an OS scheduler to schedule tasks amounts to no more than mere instructions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 2 recites the limitations wherein designating the first R-core and the second R-core of the vRAN VM comprises: “mapping the first R-core to a first physical processor of the server device;”, mapping a core to a processor amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); “mapping the second R-core to a second physical processor of the server device;”, mapping a core to a processor amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); “implementing a mapping policy that the first real-time workload cannot be collocated with the second real-time workload on the first physical processor or the second physical processor.”, implementing a mapping policy amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites the limitation further comprising “designating a first shared core (S-core) of the vRAN VM operating on the server device.”, designating a shared core is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites the limitations wherein designating the first S-core of the vRAN VM comprises: “mapping the first S-core to a third physical processor of the server device;”, mapping a core to a processor amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); “updating the mapping policy to reflect that two or more best-effort workloads can be collocated on the third physical processor, and that best-effort workloads can be collocated on the first physical processor and the second physical processor with the first real-time workload or the second real-time workload.”, updating a mapping policy amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “deriving the plurality of KPIs from downlink traffic from the vRAN VM to the one or more virtual network functions”, deriving KPIs from traffic is a mental process that can be performed by a human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); “deriving the plurality of KPIs from uplink traffic to the vRAN VM from the one or more virtual network functions.”, deriving KPIs from traffic is a mental process that can be performed by a human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “mirroring the downlink traffic from the vRAN VM;”, mirroring traffic amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)); “deriving user throughput KPIs from packets of the mirrored downlink traffic.”, deriving KPIs from packets is a mental process that can be performed by a human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “identifying IQ samples of fronthaul packets of the uplink traffic;”, identifying IQ samples of packets is a mental process that can be performed by a human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); “inferring uplink traffic load from energy levels indicated by the IQ samples.”, inferring uplink traffic load from energy levels is a mental process that can be performed by a human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites the limitation wherein the multiple processing layers associated with vRAN VM comprise “a physical layer (PHY) and at least one additional processing layer.”, limiting the multiple processing layers to a physical layer and at least one additional processing layer merely links the exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9 recites the limitation wherein the at least one additional processing layer comprises “one or more of a radio resource allocation/reliability layer (MAC/RLC), a convergence/security layer (PDCP), a quality of service layer (SDAP), and a mobile core communication (NAS) layer.”, limiting the one additional processing layer to the recited layers merely links the exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 10 recites the limitation wherein the telecommunication network “is a 5G mobile network.”, limiting the telecommunication network to a 5G mobile network merely links the exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation does not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites the limitation wherein the server device “exists within a telecommunication network.”, this limitation merely links the exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation does not amount to significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foukas et al. US 2022/0035665 (hereinafter Foukas) in view of Connor et al. US 2019/0042297 (hereinafter Connor).
Regarding claim 1, Foukas teaches: In a telecommunication network including virtualized radio access network (vRAN) components running on servers of the telecommunication network, a method comprising (¶ 1. “5G mobile networks and beyond rely on fully virtualized RAN (vRAN) functions (e.g., in the form of containers), running on commodity x86 servers at the edge.”): designating a first real-time core (R-core) and a second R-core of a vRAN virtual machine (VM) operating on a server device (¶ 38. “To ensure that the vRAN can meet those strict deadlines, the standard practice of the industry is to use isolated compute resources (dedicated CPU cores, dedicated cache and DRAM, etc.” ¶ 45. “The scheduler may make scheduling decisions at a very fine time granularity (20 us), which allows the scheduler to intervene and proactively acquire more CPU cores for the vRAN if on track to miss a deadline”) and to provision the vRAN for peak capacity.”); receiving a first real-time workload for the vRAN VM and a second real-time workload for the vRAN VM (¶ 50. “vRAN 10 may include a plurality of vRAN workloads 12 for communicating with base station 110. vRAN workloads 12 may include, but are not limited to, real-time workloads”); generating scheduling instructions for the vRAN virtual machine to perform tasks of the first real-time workload and tasks of the second real-time workload on the first R-core and the second R-core based on the derived plurality of KPIs (¶ 48. “Predicting WCET of vRAN signal processing allows the deadline scheduler to make sophisticated decisions about the vRAN CPU requirements and allocation.” ¶ 63. “For example, the components of scheduler 20 may include one or more instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executable by processors of one or more computing devices. When executed by the one or more processors, the computer-executable instructions of one or more computing devices (e.g., scheduler 20) can perform one or more methods described herein.”); and causing an operating system (OS) scheduler of an OS of the server device to schedule the tasks of the first real-time workload and the tasks of the second real-time workload according to the scheduling instructions (¶ 60. “In addition, scheduler 20 may schedule the other workloads 12 on any remaining compute resources 104 that may be available after scheduling the vRAN workloads 12 on the number of compute resources 42 required (e.g., any remaining CPU cores 102 not in use for vRAN workloads 12).”).
Foukas does not teach as clearly, however, Connor teaches deriving a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs) for the vRAN VM based on network traffic between the vRAN VM and one or more virtual network functions (¶ 15. “To perform the processing operations on the network traffic data, the destination compute device 106 is configured to create and deploy multiple virtual machines (VMs), on which one or more virtual network functions (VNFs) can be deployed.” ¶ 44. “The key performance indicators may include any type of metric that is usable to quantity a performance level to be evaluated. For example, to monitor device health, the key performance indicators can include delay, jitter, throughput, packet loss, transmission/receive errors, resource (e.g., processor and memory utilization).” ¶ 63. “(ii) determine the set of key performance indicators based on the identified workload type, and (iii) collect the plurality of performance metrics based on the determined set of key performance indicators.” ¶ 70. “Example 9 includes the subject matter of any of Examples 1-8, and wherein to collect the performance metrics comprises to collect virtual network function metrics associated with the VM instance, and wherein to collect the virtual network function metrics comprises to collect at least one of a number of a VM stall count, a VM premature release ratio, a VM scheduling latency, and a VM clock error.”), and utilization data from multiple processing layers associated with the vRAN VM (¶ 41. “The processor metrics may include any data that can be collected that is associated with performance of a respective processor of the destination compute device 106, including utilization data (e.g., processor utilization metrics).”);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the known technique of determining a set of KPIs for the vRAN VM taught by Connor to the vRAN VM as taught by Foukas. Both inventions are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and combining them would have predictably resulted in scheduling instructions based on KPIs as taught by Connor (¶ 75).
Regarding claim 2, Foukas teaches mapping the first R-core to a first physical processor of the server device; mapping the second R-core to a second physical processor of the server device (¶ 43. “The devices and methods provide a userspace CPU scheduling framework that enables the statistical multiplexing between the high priority vRAN workloads and other best-effort workloads running on the same CPU cores.” ¶ 132. “Scheduler 20 may identify that two CPU cores 102 may be needed for completing the signal process tasks 14 by the transmission deadline 16 based on the worst case execution time for the base station. Thus, scheduler 20 may allocate two CPU cores 102 of the available four CPU cores 102 to vRAN 10 to use for the signal processing tasks 14.”); and implementing a mapping policy that the first real-time workload cannot be collocated with the second real-time workload on the first physical processor or the second physical processor (¶ 42. “The problem with this approach is that if the collocated workloads are included in a naïve way, the collocated workloads can introduce significant levels of interference that can negatively affect the performance of the vRAN”).
Regarding claim 3, Foukas teaches further comprising designating a first shared core (S-core) of the vRAN VM operating on the server device (¶ 40. “If the compute resources were to be shared with other workloads, the scheduling frameworks would not be able to adjust the allocation of CPU cores across workloads.” ¶ 77. “For example, if server 106 had four CPU cores available for use and scheduler 20 used three CPU cores, CPU1 302, CPU2 304, CPU3 306, for the vRAN workloads 310, 312, 314, scheduler 20 may schedule the other workload 316 across the remaining CPU core, CPU4 308 available.”).
Regarding claim 4, Foukas teaches mapping the first S-core to a third physical processor of the server device (¶ 146. “Scheduler 20 may schedule the other workloads 12 on any remaining CPU cores 102 that may be available after scheduling the vRAN workloads 12 on the number of compute resources 42 required.”); and updating the mapping policy to reflect that two or more best-effort workloads can be collocated on the third physical processor (¶ 47. “The deadline aware userspace CPU scheduler allows the collocation of vRAN physical layer signal processing tasks on the same x86 server as other best-effort workloads running on containers or VMs.”), and that best-effort workloads can be collocated on the first physical processor and the second physical processor with the first real-time workload or the second real-time workload (¶ 147. “Thus, method 800 may enable statistical multiplexing by scheduler 20 between vRAN workloads 12 (high priority) and other workloads 12 (best effort) at a 20 us granularity.”).
Regarding claim 5, Foukas and Connor teaches deriving the plurality of KPIs from downlink traffic from the vRAN VM to the one or more virtual network functions and deriving the plurality of KPIs from uplink traffic to the vRAN VM from the one or more virtual network functions (Foukas ¶ 116. “For example, the plurality of factors may include, but are not limited to, a number or users using base station 110, packet sizes, signal quality, type of traffic (e.g., uplink or downlink)” Connor ¶ 44. “The key performance indicators may include any type of metric that is usable to quantity a performance level to be evaluated.”).
Regarding claim 8, Foukas teaches wherein the multiple processing layers associated with the vRAN VM comprise a physical layer (PHY) (¶ 37. “The most demanding part of the vRAN stack in terms of the required compute resources is the physical layer (L1) that is responsible for performing the signal processing tasks of base stations”) and at least one additional processing layer (¶ 50. “vRAN workloads 12 may include, but are not limited to, real-time workloads, low-latency workloads and/or data link layer (L2)”).
Regarding claim 9, Foukas teaches one or more of a radio resource allocation/reliability layer (MAC/RLC), a convergence/security layer (PDCP), a quality of service layer (SDAP), and a mobile core communication (NAS) layer (¶ 136. “For example, L2 tasks may include, but are not limited to, medium access control (MAC) tasks, radio link control (RLC) tasks, and/or packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) tasks.”).
Regarding claim 10, Foukas teaches wherein the telecommunication network is a 5G mobile network (¶ 37. “The edge may include a boundary of a network. Virtualized Radio Access Networks (vRAN) are part of the mobile network architecture that provides the wireless connectivity to mobile users in the form of base stations. 5G mobile networks and beyond rely on fully virtualized RAN (vRAN) functions”).
Regarding claim 11, it contains similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, it contains similar limitations as claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, it contains similar limitations as claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, it contains similar limitations as claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, it contains similar limitations as claim 8 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, it contains similar limitations as claim 9 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, Foukas teaches wherein the server device exists within a telecommunication network (¶ 37. “The edge may include a boundary of a network. Virtualized Radio Access Networks (vRAN) are part of the mobile network architecture that provides the wireless connectivity to mobile users in the form of base stations.”).
Regarding claim 20, it contains similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foukas in view of Connor in further view of Srinivasan et al. US 2020/0092299 (hereinafter Srinivasan)
Regarding claim 6, Foukas and Connor does not teach, however, Srinivasan teaches mirroring the downlink traffic from the vRAN VM (¶ 35. “FIG. 1 is a block diagram that illustrates an example environment 100 for implementing a virtual tap that mirrors workload traffic of a virtual machine executing within a tenant's virtual network.”); and deriving user throughput KPIs from packets of the mirrored downlink traffic (¶ 39. “Consequently, the workload traffic is mirrored and the copied data packets are streamed to another virtual machine 204 on another virtual network 206 so that network analytics can be performed (e.g., security analytics, performance analytics, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the known technique of mirror[ing] workload traffic of a virtual machine and deriv[ing] performance analytics from packets of mirrored workload traffic taught by Srinivasan to the derived key performance indicators taught by Connor. Both inventions are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and combining them would have predictably resulted in derived KPIs from packets of mirrored downlink traffic.
Regarding claim 15, it contains similar limitations as claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foukas in view of Connor in further view of Berg et al. US 2019/0281501 (hereinafter Berg).
Regarding claim 7, Foukas and Connor does not teach, however, Berg teaches identifying IQ samples of fronthaul packets of the uplink traffic (¶ 3. “In fronthaul like the common public radio interface, CPRI, the radio signal is currently transported in the form of baseband IQ samples. In uplink at the RH, the received RF signal is down-converted and digitized in order to get baseband IQ samples.”); and inferring uplink traffic load from energy levels indicated by the IQ samples (¶ 46. “The method addresses the problems of the current load-independent fronthaul bit rate, or bandwidth, by adapting the IQ-sample bit rate according to the traffic load of the carrier represented by the IQ samples, while the air performance may be maintained at the levels achieved by conventional CPRI fronthaul.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the known technique of identifying IQ samples of fronthaul packets and inferring uplink traffic load taught by Meylan to the uplink traffic taught by Foukas. Both inventions are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and combining them would have predictably resulted in identified IQ samples to infer uplink traffic load.
Regarding claim 16, it contains similar limitations as claim 7 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/657,449. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches or at least suggests each and every limitation of the instant application. See claim correspondence below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent Application No. 18/657,449
Claim 1: In a telecommunication network including virtualized radio access network (vRAN) components running on servers of the telecommunication network, a method comprising:
Claim 1: In a telecommunications network including virtualized radio access network (vRAN) components running on servers of the telecommunications network, a method comprising:
designating a first real-time core (R-core) and a second R-core of a vRAN virtual machine (VM) operating on a server device;
Claim 1: determining, based at least in part on the telemetry data received from the vRAN virtual machine, one or more runtime durations associated with performing tasks of a workload of the vCPU on the vRAN virtual machine
receiving a first real-time workload for the vRAN VM and a second real-time workload for the vRAN VM;
Claim 1: receiving, from a vRAN virtual machine hosted by a server device, telemetry data associated with a vCPU on the vRAN virtual machine;
deriving a plurality of key performance indicators (KPIs) for the vRAN VM based on network traffic between the vRAN VM and one or more virtual network functions, and utilization data from multiple processing layers associated with the vRAN VM;
Claim 4: wherein the telemetry data includes 3GPP telemetry data and one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with utilization of the vRAN virtual machine.
generating scheduling instructions for the vRAN virtual machine to perform tasks of the first real-time workload and tasks of the second real-time workload on the first R-core and the second R-core based on the derived plurality of KPIs;
Claim 1: generating scheduling instructions for the vRAN virtual machine to perform the tasks of the workload within the determined one or more runtime durations
and causing an operating system (OS) scheduler of an OS of the server device to schedule the tasks of the first real-time workload and the tasks of the second real-time workload according to the scheduling instructions.
Claim 1: and causing an operating system (OS) scheduler of an OS of the server device to schedule the tasks of the workload of the vCPU in accordance with the scheduling instructions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Radunovic (US 2022/0377615) teaches “workload monitoring component 130 can monitor a resource utilization of the vRAN workload on a node, where the node can include a device, a processor of the device, a processor core of a processor of the device, etc.” (¶ 25), which relates to the disclosed monitoring utilization of VRAN workloads.
Eker (US 2021/0382745) teaches “Example methods and apparatus disclosed herein use the “processing margin” at a radio unit (RU) as a control variable for modifying the allocation of virtualized processing resources used by a digital unit (DU) that supports the RU” (¶ 10), which relates to the disclosed deriving a virtualized DU compute allocation from observed data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights