DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 04/01/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are as the following:
1) Regarding 101 rejections, on pages 8-9, Applicant seems to argue that the technology claimed in claim 9 involves 3 pieces of hardware in the network, as such, the Applicant believes that claim 9 should not be rejected under 35 USC § 101 for lack of hardware.
2) Applicant argues that Lin does not disclose the limitations:
a) receiving a primary user forwarding table entry sent by the BRAS-CP, wherein the primary user forwarding table entry is a rule of subsequent message processing for the BRAS-UP determined at an access control process node based on the user access control message and the associated identification information, so that an invalid access request and a malicious and aggressive access request are filtered due to mismatching of basic information in the primary user forwarding table entry; and
b) forwarding a subsequent user access control message which has content corresponding to content in the primary user forwarding table entry to the BRAS-CP, based on the primary user forwarding table entry.
In response Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
1) As indicated in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/02/2025 as well as the 101 rejection below, claim 9 is server or system claim. As such, in order to satisfy the 101 lack of hardware embodiments, the claim must positively recite an element of hardware in the body of the claim, such as “..a hardware processor…” There mere recitation of a server user plane with an absence of a machine in the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101. As such, the 101 rejection is maintained.
2)
a) Lin discloses at least in figures 11 & 12, and paragraphs [0278]-[0280], that a flow table is received from control plane device. Information such as protocol address, destination IP address, source port, and destination port in the packet are matched to that of an entry in the flow table (a primary user forwarding table entry) to determine where the packet should be forwarded to (the primary user forwarding table entry is a rule of subsequent message processing for the BRAS-UP determined at an access control process node based on the user access control message and the associated identification information). Lin also discloses at least in figure 12 and paragraphs [0281]-[0284], that if information in the packet don’t match with an entry in the flow table, then the packet is considered invalid, and thus the packet is discarded/filtered (invalid access request and a malicious and aggressive access request are filtered due to mismatching of basic information in the primary user forwarding table entry).
b) Lin further discloses at least figures 11-12, and paragraphs [0115]-[0117] [0278]-[0279], that a second packet is forwarded based on the flow table, wherein information such as MAC address, IP protocol in the subsequent packet is matched to an entry in the flow table (forwarding a subsequent user access control message which has content corresponding to content in the primary user forwarding table entry to the BRAS-CP, based on the primary user forwarding table entry).
As such, contrasting to the Applicant’s arguments, Lin discloses the limitations argue above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 9, although the preamble of the claim recites “’A’ broadband remote access user plane” claim 9 does not positively recite any elements of hardware. Therefore, the nature of the subject matter claimed may reasonably be construed as software embodiments. The mere recitation of a server user plane in the preamble with an absence of a machine in the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101.
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 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2015/0244590-A1-Hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a forwarding method applicable to a broadband remote access server user plane (BRAS-UP), comprising:
obtaining a user access control message (at least figures 1 & 2, steps 101 & 201, [0098][0101][0137], i.e.: a first internet protocol (IP) packet transmitted by a user is obtained);
forwarding the user access control message and associated identification information of the BRAS-UP to a broadband remote access server control plane (at least [0099][0104]-[0106][0127], the first packet including user identity is forwarded to a part of network that controls how the packet is forwarded i.e.: component that stores flow table);
receiving a primary user forwarding table entry sent by the BRAS-CP, wherein the primary user forwarding table entry is a rule of subsequent message processing for the BRAS-UP determined at an access control process node based on the user access control message and the associated identification information (at least figures 11 & 12, [0278]-[0280], flow table is received from control plane device. Information such as protocol address, destination IP address, source port, and destination port in the packet are matched to that of an entry in the flow table to determine where packet should be forwarded to), so that an invalid access request and a malicious and aggressive access request are filtered due to mismatching of basic information in the primary user forwarding table entry (at least figure 12, [0281]-[0284], if information in the packet don’t match with an entry in the flow table, then the packet is considered invalid, and thus the packet is discarded/filtered), the access control process node is a node existing before user data traffic reaches the BRAS-UP (at least [0099], the forwarding plane device existing before user data is transmitted to destination);
forwarding a subsequent user access control message which has content corresponding to content in the primary user forwarding table entry to the BRAS-CP, based on the primary user forwarding table entry (at least figures 11-12, [0115]-[0117] [0278]-[0279], second packet is forwarded based on the flow table, wherein information such as MAC address, IP protocol in the subsequent packet is matched to an entry in the flow table); and
receiving a target user forwarding table entry sent by the BRAS-CP, wherein the target user forwarding table entry is obtained by updating the primary user forwarding table entry based on the obtained user access control message and the associated identification information of the BRAS-UP after an end of an access control process (at least [0013][0023][0036][0068][0129], an update forwarding table entry according to identity of a service in a second packet is received to update the forwarding table).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the method of claim 1. Lin also discloses wherein the access control process node comprises:
a node existing after the BRAS-CP obtaining the user access control message comprising basic information of user access (at least column [0115]-[0129], forwarding plane device); or
a node existing after the end of an Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) process for user access control (at least [0281]-[0284], forwarding plane device).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses a forwarding method applicable to a broadband remote access server control plane (BRAS-CP), comprising:
receiving a user access control message and associated identification information of a broadband remote access server user plane (BRAS-UP) sent by the BRAS-UP (at least [0099][0104]-[0106][0127], first packet including user identity is received at a part of network from a user);
determining a primary user forwarding table entry which is a rule of subsequent message processing for the BRAS-UP at an access control process node based on the user access control message and the associated identification information, so that an invalid access request and a malicious and aggressive access request are filtered due to mismatching of basic information in the primary user forwarding table entry (at least figures 11 & 12,[0278]-[00280], flow table is determined. Information such as protocol address, destination IP address, source port, and destination port in the packet are matched to that of an entry in the flow table to determine where packet should be forwarded to), and a user access control message which has content corresponding to content in the primary user forwarding table entry is received (at least figures 11-12, [0115]-[0117] [0278]-[0279], second packet is forwarded based on containing information/content that matches that of the flow table, wherein information such as MAC address, IP protocol in the subsequent packet is matched to an entry in the flow table), wherein the access control process node is a node existing before user data traffic reaches the BRAS-UP (at least [0099], the forwarding plane device existing before user data is transmitted to destination);
sending the primary user forwarding table entry to the BRAS-UP (at least [0278], flow table is transmitted to forwarding plane device);
obtaining a target user forwarding table entry by updating the primary user forwarding table entry based on the obtained user access control message and the associated identification information of the BRAS-UP after the end of an access control process (at least figures 11-12, [0115]-[0117][0129], a flow table entry for a second packet is obtained, the flow table entry is obtained by updating the flow table); and
sending the target user forwarding table entry to the BRAS-UP (at least [0129], the updated flow table/entry is transmitted to the forwarding plane device).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses the method of claim 4. Lin also discloses the access control process node comprises:
a node existing after obtaining the user access control message comprising basic information of user access (at least column [0115]-[0129], forwarding plane device); or
a node existing after the end of an Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) process for user access control (at least [0281]-[0284], forwarding plane device).
Claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale as claims 1 and 4 above. In addition, Lin also discloses at least one processor (figure 6, component 52, processor) and a storage device (at least [0361], i.e.: ROM & RAM).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as claims 2 & 5 above.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale as claims 2 & 5 above.
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 PHY ANH TRAN VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am-1 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, Taghi T Arani can be reached at (571) 272-3787. 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.
/PHY ANH T VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights