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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “re-calculate message integrity values associated with the DHCP offer message” in line 12 of the claim. Instant specification fails to teach this limitation, and the claim is considered to contain new subject matter.
Claims 8 and 15 contain same or similar limitations and are considered to contain new subject matter.
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), Qian et al. (U.S. Patent 12,021,902 B1), Steves (U.S. Patent 8,458,308 B1) 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 by parsing DHCP options and to replace an subnet mask to 255.255.255.255 with 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 by parsing DHCP options and to replace an subnet mask to 255.255.255.255 with 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 BNG (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 advertising a route with a 32-bit subnet mask for the user computing device to other routers internal to the network of the broadband service provider;
(c) Cheh et al. does not teach re-calculating message integrity values associated with the DHCP offer/ack message; and
(d) Cheh et al. does not teach immediately after transmitting the modified offer message, applying 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. Qian et al. teaches in FIG. 8 communication networks comprising a plurality of gateways each of which serves a number of isolated networks. An isolated network is equivalent to the network comprising the endpoints in FIG. 8 of Cheh et al. Qian et al. in col. 25, line 66 – col. 26, line 13 that gateways advertise routes from their route table to other gateways. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Qian et al. with the modified system of Cheh et al. and Arora et al. because this enables other gateways 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 Qian et al., in the modified system of Cheh et al. and Arora et al.
The combination of Cheh et al., Arora et al. and Qian et al. still fails to teach re-calculating message integrity values associated with the DHCP offer/ack message. Steves teaches in FIG. 3 an example DHCP message which includes a UDP header. The UDP header in turn contains a checksum (see col. 3, line 60) which need to be recalculated because the contents of the message have been changed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Steves with the modified system of Cheh et al., Arora et al. and Qian et al. because modifying the contents of a message changes the checksum. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recalculate the checksum in the modified system of Cheh et al., Arora et al. and Qian et al.
The combination of Cheh et al., Arora et al., Qian et al. and Steves still fails to teach “immediately after transmitting 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., Qian et al. and Steves 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., Qian et al. and Steves.
Regarding claim 5, Qian et al. teach that the other routers are peer gateways.
Claim 8 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Qian et al. teach that the other routers are peer gateways.
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, Qian et al. teach that the other routers are peer gateways.
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., Qian et al., Steves 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., Qian et al., Steves 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., Qian et al., Steves and Anschutz and the claimed invention is that Cheh et al., Arora et al., Qian et al., Steves and Anschutz do not teach 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 combined the teaching of Zhang et al. with the modified system of Cheh et al., Arora et al., Qian et al., Steves 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 apply the DHCP modification method, as taught by Cheh et al., Arora et al., Qian et al., Steves 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., Qian et al., Steves, 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., Qian et al., Steves, 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., Qian et al., Steves, Anschutz and Zhang et al. and the claimed invention is that Cheh et al., Arora et al., Qian et al., Steves, 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 combined the teaching of Koren et al. with the modified system of Cheh et al., Arora et al., Qian et al., Steves, 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., Qian et al., Steves, Anschutz and Zhang et al., to an active ethernet network, as taught by Koren et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
The Examiner relies on Arora's Table 4 (1[0043]) merely to identify that DHCP Option 1 is subnet mask and Option 3 is router, and cites FIG. 3 to show an ACK exists in a session. Arora does not teach parsing and rewriting these options in any DHCP message, does not teach recalculating checksums/lengths (message integrity), and does not suggest repeating the same option-code edits in the ACK. At most, Arora supplies nomenclature for options, which is insufficient to meet or render obvious the now-claimed specific manipulations in both the OFFER and ACK.
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 Cheh et al. teaches in FIG. 15 and FIG. 16 modifying the subnet mask and the router address.
The argument continues,
The Examiner cites Qian for route advertisement among gateways (Office Action, p. 4, citing col. 25, 1. 66 - col. 26, 1. 13). Qian does not address DHCP processing at all and certainly does not disclose option-level edits to DHCP OFFER or ACK. Qian's teachings therefore cannot cure the missing claim elements directed to OFFER/ACK option rewriting and message integrity recalculation.
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 Cheh et al. teaches in FIG. 15 and FIG. 16 modifying the subnet mask and the router address. Steves teach in FIG. 3 and col. 3, line 60 that the UDP header includes a checksum field that needs to be recalculated if the contents of the message have been modified.
The argument continues,
The Examiner invokes Anschutz to argue bandwidth differentiation rules (Office Action, p. 4; see also Anschutz [0035]). Anschutz concerns identifying CDN flows using IPv6 address structure and applying differentiated services based on rules; it does not disclose a DHCP relay/BNG that, immediately after transmitting a modified DHCP OFFER, applies per-subscriber traffic shaping at that same node, nor does it disclose any DHCP option editing. Accordingly, Anschutz cannot supply the critical coupling now required by the claim: the same distributed BNG that performs the DHCP option-level manipulation must immediately enforce the subscriber's provisioned bandwidth cap.
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, Cheh et al. teaches the DHCP relay and modifying the DHCOP OFFER message.
Applicant’s argument continues,
The Final Office Action states it is "obvious" that "the gateway modifies the DHCP ACK in the same way as for the DHCP OFFER message" (Office Action, p. 4-5, addressing claims 2/9/16). This is a conclusory assertion lacking evidentiary support. No cited passage in Cheh or Arora teaches or suggests editing Option 1 and Option 3 specifically in both OFFER and ACK, nor recalculating message integrity thereafter. The mere presence of an ACK in a generic flow (Arora FIG. 3) does not provide the articulated reasoning with rational underpinning required to extend Cheh's generic statements about mask/default-gateway to concrete, option-code-specific edits in both message types with integrity regeneration. See MPEP § 2143.
The argument is not persuasive. Cheh et al. teaches in FIG. 15 and FIG. 16 modifying the subnet mask and the router address for the OFFER and ACK, respective.
The argument continues,
The Examiner also combines Anschutz to meet bandwidth control, but Anschutz's differentiated services occur in a CDN context and are not tied to DHCP processing or to immediate enforcement "after transmitting the modified offer message" at the same distributed BNG. The combination thus relies on impermissible hindsight to fill gaps that the references do not address.
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). The Applicant errs to limit the prior art references to only those that addresses the precise problem that the patentee was trying to solve. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
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.
skl20 February 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635