DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-10 are presented for examination.
Claim(s) 1-10 are amended.
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 .
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P.201.14(c), acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority based on application(s) EP22191343.7 submitted on August 19th, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on January 7th, 2025 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s amendment to the specification and abstract of the disclosure filed October 14th, 2024 is considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for providing …” and “means for receiving …” in claim(s) 9-10. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification fig. 6, pgs. 9-10 as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “The method according to claim 0 …” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites a similar limitation.
Claim 4 is also being rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over SHETE et al. (US 2024/0236766 A1) hereinafter “SHETE” in view of FORENZA (US 2024/0214833 A1) hereinafter “FORENZA”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9,
SHETE discloses an access network controller [see fig(s). 3 & 4, pg. 3, ¶30 lines 1-8, a radio access network control apparatus “1”] comprising:
means for providing [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, a Near-RT RIC (node control unit “3”) and/or the NFO and/or the OAM Function in the SMO provide], to a distributed unit of an access network [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, to the rApp and/or the Non-RT RIC through the O1/O2 interface and the like and/or an O-RAN compliant distributed unit (DU)], at least one scheduling policy for scheduling transmission of at least one transport block by a user equipment [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, feedback on the operational policy such as the traffic control policy issued in “S9” and/or feedback from the O-Cloud (virtual infrastructure “2”) on the operational policy such as the resource allocation policy issued in “S9”], wherein the at least one scheduling policy is based on statistical information about a respective waiting time [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, the operational policy issuance unit “13” includes a resource allocation policy issuance unit “131” that issues a resource allocation policy and/or a workload management policy], associated with each queue of a plurality of queues [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, concerning the resource allocation and/or the workload management of the plurality of RAN nodes “21” to “2N”].
Although SHETE discloses a plurality of queues, SHETE does not explicitly teach “each queue of the plurality of queues being associated with a respective logical processing unit representing a hardware accelerator for processing TBs”.
However FORENZA discloses providing [see fig. 11: Step “1130”, pg. 7, ¶102 lines 1-5, the RT RIC performs], to a distributed unit (DU) of an access network [see fig. 11: Step “1130”, pg. 7, ¶102 lines 1-5, with respect to a node (at least one of an O-DU, O-CU, O-RU, or O-eNB), over the real-time control loop], at least one scheduling policy for scheduling transmission of at least one transport block (TB) by a user equipment (UE) [see fig. 11: Step “1130”, pg. 7, ¶102 lines 1-5, a policy operation (i.e., the RT RIC sets a policy parameter on one of the activated functions)], wherein the at least one scheduling policy is based on statistical information about a respective waiting time [see fig. 11: Step “1110”, pg. 7, ¶100 lines 1-5, the RT RIC performs an insert operation with respect to a node (at least one of an O-DU, O-CU, O-RU, or O-eNB) by instructing the node to activate a user plane function], associated with each queue of a plurality of queues [see fig. 11: Step “1110”, pg. 7, ¶100 lines 1-5, over the real-time control loop], and wherein each queue of the plurality of queues being associated with a respective logical processing unit (LPU) representing a hardware accelerator (HA) for processing TBs [see pg. 3, ¶53 lines 1-16, the RT RIC is implemented within the same processor (e.g., CPU, GPU, or any hardware accelerator) as the O-DU, or different processor within the same motherboard, or different motherboard within the same enclosure, or separate enclosure within the same rack, or separate rack within the same data center].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “each queue of the plurality of queues being associated with a respective logical processing unit representing a hardware accelerator for processing TBs” as taught by FORENZA in the system of SHETE for providing a novel real-time RIC (RT RIC) for performing O-RAN intelligent management in real-time [see FORENZA, pg. 1, ¶8 lines 1-3].
Regarding Claim 5,
The combined system of SHETE and FORENZA discloses the method according to claim 1.
SHETE further discloses the access network controller is a non-real-time (non-RT) access network controller [see pg. 1, ¶17 lines 1-14, the SMO is equipped with a Non-RT RIC (Non-Real Time RAN Intelligent Controller) that functions as the overall control processor responsible for overall control], and the at least one scheduling policy is provided to the DU via a near-real-time (near-RT) access network controller [see pg. 1, ¶17 lines 1-14, the Non-RT RIC, which has a relatively long control cycle (e.g. 1 second or longer), issues guidelines, policies, guidance and the like concerning the operation of each RAN node (O-CU and/or O-DU)].
Regarding Claim 6,
The combined system of SHETE and FORENZA discloses the method according to claim 1.
SHETE further discloses the statistical information [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, the operational policy issuance unit “13” includes a resource allocation policy issuance unit “131” that issues a resource allocation policy and/or a workload management policy] comprises:
a mean waiting time [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, the operational policy issuance unit “13” includes a resource allocation policy issuance unit “131”].
Regarding Claim 7,
The combined system of SHETE and FORENZA discloses the method according to claim 1.
SHETE further discloses the at least one scheduling policy is based on a respective maximum bandwidth allowed for each grant in a subsequent time interval [see pgs. 2-3, ¶25 lines 1-17, examples of the operational data include: … the quality of the channel between UE and O-RU; the coverage and/or the available bandwidth of the communication cell provided by O-RU].
Regarding Claims 8 and 10,
SHETE discloses a distributed unit of an access network [see fig(s). 1, 3 & 4, pg. 2, ¶18 lines 1-22; pg. 3, ¶30 lines 1-8, a radio access network control apparatus “1” or RAN node including an O-CU, which is an O-RAN compliant central unit (CU), and/or O-DU, which is an O-RAN compliant distributed unit (DU)], the DU [see fig(s). 1, 3 & 4, pg. 2, ¶18 lines 1-22; pg. 3, ¶30 lines 1-8, the O-RAN compliant distributed unit (DU)] comprising:
means for receiving [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, obtaining], from an access network controller [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, from the Near-RT RIC (node control unit “3”)], at least one scheduling policy for scheduling transmission of at least one transport block by a user equipment [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, feedback on the operational policy such as the traffic control policy issued in “S9” to the rApp and/or the Non-RT RIC through the O1 interface and the like and/or the NFO and/or the OAM Function in the SMO provide feedback from the O-Cloud (virtual infrastructure “2”) on the operational policy such as the resource allocation policy issued in “S9” to the rApp and/or the Non-RT RIC through the O2 interface], wherein the at least one scheduling policy is based on statistical information about a respective waiting time [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, the operational policy issuance unit “13” includes a resource allocation policy issuance unit “131” that issues a resource allocation policy and/or a workload management policy], associated with each queue of a plurality of queues [see fig(s). 3 & 4: Step(s) “9”/ “10”, pg. 4, ¶36 lines 1-8, concerning the resource allocation and/or the workload management of the plurality of RAN nodes “21” to “2N”].
Although SHETE discloses a plurality of queues, SHETE does not explicitly teach “each queue of the plurality of queues being associated with a respective logical processing unit representing a hardware accelerator for processing TBs”.
However FORENZA discloses receiving [see fig. 11: Step “1130”, pg. 7, ¶102 lines 1-5, the RT RIC performs], from an access network controller [see fig. 11: Step “1130”, pg. 7, ¶102 lines 1-5, with respect to a node (at least one of an O-DU, O-CU, O-RU, or O-eNB), over the real-time control loop], at least one scheduling policy for scheduling transmission of at least one transport block (TB) by a user equipment (UE) [see fig. 11: Step “1130”, pg. 7, ¶102 lines 1-5, a policy operation (i.e., the RT RIC sets a policy parameter on one of the activated functions)], wherein the at least one scheduling policy is based on statistical information about a respective waiting time [see fig. 11: Step “1110”, pg. 7, ¶100 lines 1-5, the RT RIC performs an insert operation with respect to a node (at least one of an O-DU, O-CU, O-RU, or O-eNB) by instructing the node to activate a user plane function], associated with each queue of a plurality of queues [see fig. 11: Step “1110”, pg. 7, ¶100 lines 1-5, over the real-time control loop], and wherein each queue of the plurality of queues being associated with a respective logical processing unit (LPU) representing a hardware accelerator (HA) for processing TBs [see pg. 3, ¶53 lines 1-16, the RT RIC is implemented within the same processor (e.g., CPU, GPU, or any hardware accelerator) as the O-DU, or different processor within the same motherboard, or different motherboard within the same enclosure, or separate enclosure within the same rack, or separate rack within the same data center].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “each queue of the plurality of queues being associated with a respective logical processing unit representing a hardware accelerator for processing TBs” as taught by FORENZA in the system of SHETE for providing a novel real-time RIC (RT RIC) for performing O-RAN intelligent management in real-time [see FORENZA, pg. 1, ¶8 lines 1-3].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication: Pandit et al. (US 2022/0286754 A1); see fig. 5, pg. 7, ¶68-¶69.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSHIL P SAMPAT whose telephone number is (469) 295-9141. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8 AM - 5 PM).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/RUSHIL P. SAMPAT/Primary Examiner- TC 2400, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights