Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheh et al. (U.S. Patent 11,916,957 B1) in view of Arora et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2015/0358889 A1), Saad et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0403902 A1) and Anschutz (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2017/0289049 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheh et al. teaches in FIG. 8 a gateway (DHCP relay 150) comprising: at least one processor (Cheh et al. teaches in col. 13, lines 38-45 at least one processor coupled to computer-readable medium which provides program code); and memory including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to: receive a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) offer message forwarded from a DHCP server via a network (Cheh et al. teaches in col. 9, lines 4-8 the basic step of DHCP packets include: offer message); modify the DHCP offer message to replace an subnet mask with 255.255.255.255 as a 32-bit subnet mask and replace an router address with an internet protocol address of the distributed BNG to create a modified offer message (Cheh et al. teaches in col. 8, lines 38-40 “modifies the subnet mask to 255.255.255.255”, and in col. 4, lines 40-42 “sets itself as the default gateway”); transmit the modified offer message to a user computing device (endpoint 120 of FIG. 8); receive a DHCP acknowledgement message forwarded from the DHCP server via the network (Cheh et al. teaches in FIG. 17 that the DHCP client receives a DHCP ACK from the DHCP server via the DHCP relay); modify the DHCP acknowledgement message to replace an subnet mask with 255.255.255.255 as a 32-bit subnet mask (Cheh et al. teaches in FIG. 16 step 1625 sets default gateway to itself, i.e., set a subnet mask of 255.255.255.255—see col. 2, lines 46-47) and replace an router address with the internet protocol address of the distributed gateway (Cheh et al. teaches in FIG. 16 step 1625 sets server identifier to itself) to create a modified acknowledgement message; and transmit the modified acknowledgement message to the user computing device.
The difference between Cheh et al. and the claimed invention are:
(a) Cheh et al. does not teach option 1 and option 3;
(b) Cheh et al. does not teach advertise, using an interior gateway protocol, a route with a 32-bit subnet mask for an internet protocol address assigned to the user computing device to other routers peer distributed BNGs internal to the network of the broadband service provider, the route indicating that the internet protocol address assigned to the user computing device is reachable via the internet protocol address of the distributed BNG;
(c) Cheh et al. does not teach subsequent to transmission of the modified offer message, apply a traffic-shaping rule at the distributed BNG to limit aggregate throughput for the user computing device according to a provisioned bandwidth rate for a subscriber.
Arora et al. teaches in Table 4 (paragraph [0043]) the various fields of a DHCP offer message comprising subnet mask as option 1 and default gateway as option 3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Arora et al. with the system of Cheh et al. because Arora et al. provides detailed information that is missing from Cheh et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that subnet mask is option 1 and default gateway is option 3, as taught by Arora et al., in the system of Cheh et al.
The combination of Cheh et al. and Arora et al. still fails to teach advertising the route. Saad et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a network comprising a plurality of routers. Saad et al. teaches in paragraph [0032] that a router may advertise reachability information using IGP (interior gateway protocol). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Saad et al. with the modified system of Cheh et al. and Arora et al. because this enables other routers to route messages destinating for the endpoints to the appropriate gateway. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to advertise routes to other routers within the network, as taught by Saad et al., in the modified system of Cheh et al. and Arora et al.
The combination of Cheh et al., Arora et al. and Saad et al. still fails to teach the limitation “subsequent to transmission of the modified offer message, apply a traffic-shaping rule at the distributed BNG to limit aggregate throughput for the user computing device according to a provisioned bandwidth rate for a subscriber”. Anschutz teaches in FIG. 1 a client device 102 which obtain services from a content distribution network through a network provider 110. Anschutz teaches in paragraph [0035] that rules for applying differentiated services for a particular end-user can be applied such that the user is entitled to a particular bandwidth level according to the service agreement. The bandwidth level also limits the throughput for the user device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Anschutz with the modified system of Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al. because differentiated service provides users with fair amount of bandwidth according to their subscriptions. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the user a particular bandwidth they are entitled to, as taught by Anschutz, in the modified system of Cheh et al., Arora et al. and Saad et al.
Regarding claim 5, Saad et al. teach in FIG. 1 routers 12A, 12B, 12C, 12E and 2F.
Claim 8 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Saad et al. teach in FIG. 1 routers 12A, 12B, 12C, 12E and 2F.
Regarding claim 15, Cheh et al. teaches in col. 13, lines 38-45 at least one processor coupled to computer-readable medium which provides program code; Arora et al. teaches in claim 1 computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, performs a method.
Regarding claim 19, Saad et al. teach in FIG. 1 routers 12A, 12B, 12C, 12E and 2F.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 10-11, 13, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al. and Anschutz as applied to claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2019/0387295 A1).
Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al. and Anschutz have been discussed above in regard to claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15 and 19. The difference between Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al. and Anschutz and the claimed invention is that Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al. and Anschutz do not teach that the network is passive optical network. Zhang et al. teaches in FIG. 3 communication networks where a terminal device such as a personal computer (PC) accesses the DHCP server by going through an ONU, an OLT and a router device; the ONUs, OLT and the connections constitute a passive optical network (see paragraph [0004]). The router device is equivalent to the DHCP relay 150 of FIG. 8 of Cheh et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Zhang et al. with the modified system of Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al. and Anschutz because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent configuration for another to obtain predictable results. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use apply the DHCP modification method, as taught by Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al. and Anschutz, to the communication networks of FIG. 3 of Zhang et al.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al., Anschutz and Zhang et al. as applied to claims 3-4, 6, 10-11, 13, 17-18 and 20 above, and further in view of Koren et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2012/0263462 A1).
Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al., Anschutz and Zhang et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 3-4, 6, 10-11, 13, 17-18 and 20. The difference between Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al., Anschutz and Zhang et al. and the claimed invention is that Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al., Anschutz and Zhang et al. do not teach an active ethernet network. Koren et al. teaches in paragraph [0003] various kinds of PONs including active ethernet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Koren et al. with the modified system of Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al., Anschutz and Zhang et al. to apply the DHCP modification method to an active ethernet network because it is simply a special kind of PON. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the DHCP modification method, as taught by Cheh et al., Arora et al., Saad et al., Anschutz and Zhang et al., to an active ethernet network, as taught by Koren et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks:
The Office Action relies on Qian for allegedly teaching that gateways advertise routes from their route tables to other gateways. However, the amended claim does not merely recite generic route advertisement between gateways. Claim 1 now requires the distributed BNG, in the context of the claimed DHCP-based subscriber address-assignment process, to advertise, using an interior gateway protocol, a route with a 32-bit subnet mask for the subscriber IP address to peer distributed BNGs internal to the broadband service provider network, where the route indicates that the subscriber IP address is reachable via the IP address of the distributed BNG.
The proposed combination as a whole fails to teach or suggest this integrated operation. Cheh's DHCP relay/security appliance is relied upon for rewriting DHCP-related network configuration in a ransomware-protected VLAN environment. Qian is relied upon only for generic gateway route-table advertisement. The Office Action does not identify a teaching or reasoned rationale that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheh's DHCP relay/security appliance to advertise, using an interior gateway protocol, a subscriber-specific /32 route to peer distributed BNGs indicating that the subscriber IP address assigned through the modified DHCP exchange is reachable via the distributed BNG's own IP address.
This is not an argument that the references must be considered in isolation. Rather, even when considered together, the cited references do not provide the claimed DHCP-coupled subscriber-host-route advertisement by a distributed BNG to peer distributed BNGs. The proposed modification would require using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap.
The distinction is significant. In the claimed distributed BNG architecture, the DHCP modification and route advertisement cooperate to solve a broadband-provider IPv4 utilization and network-complexity problem. The distributed BNG causes the subscriber device to use a /32 subnet mask and the distributed BNG as the router, while also informing peer distributed BNGs inside the broadband service provider network that the subscriber's assigned IP address is reachable via that distributed BNG. This allows the provider to manage subscriber address space as a pool and route subscriber traffic through the core of the network, rather than wasting subnet space or relying on large bridged layer-2 networks. See, e.g., ¶¶ [0018]-[0031]. Qian's gateway route-table advertisement does not teach this DHCP-coupled subscriber-host-route advertisement.
The argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Saad et al. teaches in paragraph [0032] that a router may advertise reachability information using IGP (interior gateway protocol).
The argument continues on page 11:
The proposed modification would require more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions. The Examiner's reasoning would require selecting Cheh's DHCP relay/security-appliance operation, adding Arora's DHCP option labels, adding Qian's gateway route-table advertisement, adding Steves' unrelated DHCP fingerprinting/checksum discussion, and adding Anschutz's unrelated CDN differentiated-services rules, and then reconstructing Applicant's distributed BNG workflow in which the same BNG modifies DHCP OFFER/ACK messages and advertises an IGP /32 route to peer distributed BNGs indicating that the subscriber-assigned IP address is reachable via that BNG's IP address. The cited art does not provide a reasoned basis, absent Applicant's disclosure, for making that specific combination in the claimed manner.
Applicant does not rely merely on the absence of the amended limitation from any single reference; rather, the proposed combination as a whole fails to provide a reasoned basis for modifying Cheh's DHCP relay/security appliance to perform the claimed IGP advertisement of a subscriber-specific /32 host route to peer distributed BNGs indicating reachability via the distributed BNG IP address.
Accordingly, the cited references, alone or in any proposed combination, fail to teach or suggest at least the amended limitation requiring the distributed BNG to advertise, using an interior gateway protocol, a 32-bit route for the subscriber IP address to peer distributed BNGs, where the route indicates that the subscriber IP address is reachable via the IP address of the distributed BNG. Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is patentable over the cited art.
The argument is not persuasive. 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m..
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl5 June 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights