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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/15/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the specific amendments of the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The remaining issues argued are addressed as follows. In a bon a fide attempt to advance prosecution the Examiner has included further suggestions/guidance to consider when responding.
In response to applicant's argument that the stated purpose of improving interconnectivity does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have made this coordinated set of modifications or why the modified system would perform equal multi-endpoint request distribution. At most, the proposed combination would place Eglin's path-selection mechanism in a PLMN environment containing UEs. That result still would not provide the claimed controller operation. The rejection therefore lacks an articulated technical reason, supported by the cited teachings, for arriving at either the original status-dependent equal-routing framework or the further-narrowed amended framework, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that the two references address different technical problems in different networking environments i.e., is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, e.g., Eglin is direct towards networks (i.e., Communication) and network topologies – see at least 0002. Yao is directed towards communications technologies (i.e., A Network)-0002.
In response to applicant's argument that None of the reference recognizes the problem addressed by the present application, namely, performing ingress/egress active-active routing among endpoints associated with one or more PLMN clusters based on the operational status of every endpoint in the cluster, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In the spirit of further assisting the Applicant when responding to the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner respectfully request that the Applicant be mindful of the following:
The Applicant’s arguments appear to repeatedly argue Hindsight, Solving different problems, non-analogous art, specific features which are not claimed and/or interpretations from the written disclosure. The arguments are rejected based on similar rationale. The Examiner respectfully request that the Applicant carefully review the MPEP regarding valid USC 103 arguments. The Applicant is further reminded to rely specifically on features recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Citing Hyatt v. Dudas, the court explained that the "prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of production" and the Examiner satisfies that burden by “adequately explaining the shortcomings it perceives so that the Applicant is properly notified and able to respond.” Furthermore, it has been held that “there has never been an requirement for an examiner to make an on the record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie case." - In re Jung
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In reKeller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In reSneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In reNievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
Discussing the question of obviousness of a patent that claims a combination of known elements, the Court in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) explains: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person ofordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinaryskill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AGPro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[,Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative--a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. If the claimed subject matter cannot be fairly characterized as involving the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding of obviousness can be based on a showing that "there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed." Id., 127 S. Ct., at 1740-41. Such a showing requires "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness ....[H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
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.
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) 1-3, 7-11, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Eglin et al. 2007/0159983 A1, hereinafter, ‘Eglin’ in view of Yao et al., US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0176801, hereinafter, ‘Yao’ and further in view of Nakamichi et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2004/0008707, hereinafter, ‘Nakamichi’.
Consider Claims 1, 10, and 19-20, Eglin teaches a system (100) for performing ingress/egress active-active routing in a network (110), the system (100) comprising: a controller (102) in communication with an at least one cluster associated with a plurality of clusters (i.e., the cluster network noted in – 0012-0023 – see also figure 3), wherein the at least one cluster has a plurality of end points associated with the network (110) (e.g., see endpoints illustrated in at least figure 3 and described in context with 0012-0023 and figure 5), the controller (102) comprising one or more processors (172) coupled to a memory (174) storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (172), the controller (102) configured to: receive, from one or more source node devices (106) in communication with the controller (102) via the network (110) )(i.e., node communication as described with respect to 0012-0023 and figures 3 and 5), a plurality of requests to be transmitted to at least one cluster (i.e., packet communicated between the nodes 0012-0023 and figure 5); determine status of each end point associated with the at least one cluster(i.e., packet communicated between the nodes determine node status for routing purposes 0012-0023 and figure 5); and route, when the status of each said end point associated with the at least one cluster is determined to be active, the plurality of requests through the at least one cluster for transmitting it to each said endpoint, wherein the plurality of requests are routed equally to a plurality of endpoints associated with the at least one cluster based on a routing technique(i.e., packet communicated between the nodes determine node status for routing purposes 0012-0023 and figure 5).
Yao does not specifically teach a PLMN or a user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least one public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100),
In analogous art, Yao teaches a network architecture on a public land mobile network (PLMN) (e.g., see at least 0075 and figure 1A). Yao further teaches routing between PLMN endpoints for interconnecting devices within the PLMN (e.g., see at least 0172). The user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least one public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100) is met based on the connectivity described in at least figure2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try PLMN and a user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least one public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100), using simple substitution with the Cluster/routing algorithms of Eglin for the purpose of improving interconnectivity.
However, Eglin as modified by Yao does not teach responsive to determining that all of the end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster are active, route, the plurality of requests through the at least one PLMN cluster for transmitting the plurality of requests to the plurality of active end points, wherein such that the plurality of requests are routed equally among all active end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster based on a routing technique.
In analogous art, Nakamichi teaches “a load state of the traffic in the network is monitored at all times” – 0006 - a first wide area load sharing control system includes a module determining a ratio at which an input traffic to ingress edge nodes is distributed to a plurality of paths set up between the ingress edge nodes and egress edge nodes that correspond to within a traffic engineering section within a network, and a module indicating which unit, a sharing control unit corresponding to the ingress edge nodes or other concentration control unit, executes a process of determining the ratio at which the input traffic to the ingress edge nodes is distributed to the plurality of paths.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try responsive to determining that all of the end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster are active, route, the plurality of requests through the at least one PLMN cluster for transmitting the plurality of requests to the plurality of active end points, wherein such that the plurality of requests are routed equally among all active end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster based on a routing technique for the purpose of congestion control.
Consider Claims 2 and 11, Eglin teaches wherein the controller (102) is configured to route the plurality of requests until the status of the plurality of endpoints become inactive(i.e., active link determination 0012-0023).
Consider Claims 3, Eglin teaches wherein the controller (102) is configured to determine a number of active endpoints at a predefined time(e.g., hop count 0012-0023).
Consider Claims 7 and 16, Eglin teaches wherein in case the status of all the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is further configured to stop routing of the plurality of requests to the said inactive endpoints i.e., inactive link determination 0012-0023).
Consider Claims 8 and 17, Eglin teaches wherein the controller (102) is further configured to receive a plurality of responses from the plurality of endpoints, the plurality of responses are responses to the plurality of requests received by the plurality of endpoints (e.g., see protocols used to determine active versus inactive links figure 3 and 0037).
Consider Claims 9 and 18, Eglin teaches wherein the controller (102) is further configured to route the plurality of responses to the one or more source node devices (106) in communication with the controller (102) (e.g., see protocols used to determine active versus inactive links figure 3 and 0037).
Claim(s) 4-5, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eglin et al. 2007/0159983 A1 in view of Yao et al., US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0176801, hereinafter, ‘Yao’ and further in view of Nakamichi et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2004/0008/707, hereinafter, ‘Nakamichi’and further in view of Jetcheva et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 20170250856 A1, hereinafter, ‘Jetcheva’.
Consider Claims 4 and 13, Eglin teaches the claimed invention except wherein in case the status of the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to distribute data traffic, pertaining to the plurality of requests in the network (110) proportionally among the remaining number of active end points of said at least one PLMN cluster.
In analogous art, Jetcheva teaches wherein in case the status of the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to distribute data traffic, pertaining to the plurality of requests in the network (110) proportionally among the remaining number of active end points of said at least one PLMN cluster (e.g., see at least 0072, 0096-0099 and figures 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eglin and try wherein in case the status of the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to distribute data traffic, pertaining to the plurality of requests in the network (110) proportionally among the remaining number of active end points of said at least one PLMN cluster for the purpose of route optimization.
Consider Claims 5 and 15, Eglin teaches the claimed invention except wherein in case the status of all the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to send a negative response to the at least one PLMN cluster.
In analogous art, Jetcheva teaches wherein in case the status of all the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to send a negative response to the at least one PLMN cluster(e.g., see at least 0075, 0078-0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eglin and try wherein in case the status of all the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to send a negative response to the at least one PLMN cluster for the purpose of route optimization.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eglin et al. 2007/0159983 A1 in view of Yao et al., US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0176801, hereinafter, ‘Yao’ and further in view of Nakamichi et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2004/0008/707, hereinafter, ‘Nakamichi’ and further in view of Chen et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 20080137664 A1, hereinafter, ‘Chen’.
Consider Claims 6 and 12, Eglin teaches the claimed except wherein the routing technique comprises at least one of: a round robin technique, or a weighted scheduling technique.
In analogous art, Chen teaches wherein the routing technique comprises at least one of: a round robin technique, or a weighted scheduling technique (e.g., see at least 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the routing technique comprises at least one of: a round robin technique, or a weighted scheduling technique.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Eglin et al. 2007/0159983 A1, hereinafter, ‘Eglin’ in view of Yao et al., US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0176801, hereinafter, ‘Yao’ and further in view of Imanaka US Patent Pub. No.: 2011/0116397.
Consider Claims 1, 10, and 19-20, Eglin teaches a system (100) for performing ingress/egress active-active routing in a network (110), the system (100) comprising: a controller (102) in communication with an at least one cluster associated with a plurality of clusters (i.e., the cluster network noted in – 0012-0023 – see also figure 3), wherein the at least one cluster has a plurality of end points associated with the network (110) (e.g., see endpoints illustrated in at least figure 3 and described in context with 0012-0023 and figure 5), the controller (102) comprising one or more processors (172) coupled to a memory (174) storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (172), the controller (102) configured to: receive, from one or more source node devices (106) in communication with the controller (102) via the network (110) )(i.e., node communication as described with respect to 0012-0023 and figures 3 and 5), a plurality of requests to be transmitted to at least one cluster (i.e., packet communicated between the nodes 0012-0023 and figure 5); determine status of each end point associated with the at least one cluster(i.e., packet communicated between the nodes determine node status for routing purposes 0012-0023 and figure 5); and route, when the status of each said end point associated with the at least one cluster is determined to be active, the plurality of requests through the at least one cluster for transmitting it to each said endpoint, wherein the plurality of requests are routed equally to a plurality of endpoints associated with the at least one cluster based on a routing technique(i.e., packet communicated between the nodes determine node status for routing purposes 0012-0023 and figure 5).
Yao does not specifically teach a PLMN or a user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least one public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100),
In analogous art, Yao teaches a network architecture on a public land mobile network (PLMN) (e.g., see at least 0075 and figure 1A). Yao further teaches routing between PLMN endpoints for interconnecting devices within the PLMN (e.g., see at least 0172). The user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least one public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100) is met based on the connectivity described in at least figure2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try PLMN and a user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least one public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100), using simple substitution with the Cluster/routing algorithms of Eglin for the purpose of improving interconnectivity.
However, Eglin as modified by Yao does not teach responsive to determining that all of the end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster are active, route, the plurality of requests through the at least one PLMN cluster for transmitting the plurality of requests to the plurality of active end points, wherein such that the plurality of requests are routed equally among all active end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster based on a routing technique.
In analogous art, Imanaka teaches in [0004] In packet communication in which data are transmitted in the form of packets, a multiple-path transmission system is generally adopted. The multiple-path transmission environment involves a problem in that, if a lot of packets to deal with are bunched to a specific node on a packet transmission network, they may arrive at destinations with more delay than the packets routed through other nodes.
[0005] Therefore, routers, or nodes, constituting a packet transfer network are adapted, when connected to plural adjacent routers, to transmit received packets to the adjacent routers in such a way that the traffic load of packets to be transmitted is equally shared between the adjacent routers. For example, in the simplest method, a router assigns packets equally in number between all its adjacent routers. As an alternative solution, Srikanth Kandula et al., "Dynamic Load. Balancing Without Packet Reordering" ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, April 2007 discloses a method in which the first branch for packets to be transmitted on a packet transfer network controls the order of transmitting packets so that individual routes equally share the load there between.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try responsive to determining that all of the end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster are active, route, the plurality of requests through the at least one PLMN cluster for transmitting the plurality of requests to the plurality of active end points, wherein such that the plurality of requests are routed equally among all active end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster based on a routing technique for the purpose of traffic optimization.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-11, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Eglin et al. 2007/0159983 A1, hereinafter, ‘Eglin’ in view of Yao et al., US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0176801, hereinafter, ‘Yao’ and further in view of Hao et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 20170171084, hereinafter, ‘Hao’.
Consider Claims 1, 10, and 19-20, Eglin teaches a system (100) for performing ingress/egress active-active routing in a network (110), the system (100) comprising: a controller (102) in communication with an at least one cluster associated with a plurality of clusters (i.e., the cluster network noted in – 0012-0023 – see also figure 3), wherein the at least one cluster has a plurality of end points associated with the network (110) (e.g., see endpoints illustrated in at least figure 3 and described in context with 0012-0023 and figure 5), the controller (102) comprising one or more processors (172) coupled to a memory (174) storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (172), the controller (102) configured to: receive, from one or more source node devices (106) in communication with the controller (102) via the network (110) )(i.e., node communication as described with respect to 0012-0023 and figures 3 and 5), a plurality of requests to be transmitted to at least one cluster (i.e., packet communicated between the nodes 0012-0023 and figure 5); determine status of each end point associated with the at least one cluster(i.e., packet communicated between the nodes determine node status for routing purposes 0012-0023 and figure 5); and route, when the status of each said end point associated with the at least one cluster is determined to be active, the plurality of requests through the at least one cluster for transmitting it to each said endpoint, wherein the plurality of requests are routed equally to a plurality of endpoints associated with the at least one cluster based on a routing technique(i.e., packet communicated between the nodes determine node status for routing purposes 0012-0023 and figure 5).
Yao does not specifically teach a PLMN or a user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least one public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100),
In analogous art, Yao teaches a network architecture on a public land mobile network (PLMN) (e.g., see at least 0075 and figure 1A). Yao further teaches routing between PLMN endpoints for interconnecting devices within the PLMN (e.g., see at least 0172). The user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least one public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100) is met based on the connectivity described in at least figure2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try PLMN and a user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least one public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100), using simple substitution with the Cluster/routing algorithms of Eglin for the purpose of improving interconnectivity.
However, Eglin as modified by Yao does not teach responsive to determining that all of the end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster are active, route, the plurality of requests through the at least one PLMN cluster for transmitting the plurality of requests to the plurality of active end points, wherein such that the plurality of requests are routed equally among all active end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster based on a routing technique.
In analogous art, Hao teaches as applicable in a “ Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) – 0024, with ingress and egress traffic information- 0020 – where Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) is used to route flows – 0048. Equal-cost multi-path (ECMP) routing is a network routing strategy that forwards packets to a single destination over multiple best paths with the exact same cost or metric to increase bandwidth via load balancing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try responsive to determining that all of the end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster are active, route, the plurality of requests through the at least one PLMN cluster for transmitting the plurality of requests to the plurality of active end points, wherein such that the plurality of requests are routed equally among all active end points associated with the at least one PLMN cluster based on a routing technique for the purpose of bandwidth improvement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
