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 .
This office action is in response to application filed 10/09/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 19 are amended. No claims are cancelled or added.
Response to Amendment
Claim objection of claim 1, 9, and 16 for informalities is withdrawn.
112(b) claim rejections of claims 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 for ‘and/or’ usage are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1, 9, and 19 describe obtaining user information, determining a UP device, and indicating a target terminal to access a target UP device.
The limitation of obtaining information, determining information, and indicating information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable determination, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. That is, other than reciting elements of a USF device, nothing precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of use of a network policy compared to an application, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nor more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, a processor. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer, processor, cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 define determining and selecting UP devices based on information of SLA levels, load levels, averages of load levels, bandwidth usage, load conditions, or status change of the UE. Claims 10-15 and 17-20 recite similar limitations. These steps do not allow integrating judicial exception to practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
RE Claim 16, “obtain user information of a target terminal;” has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function because the combination of a non-structural element “a USF device” and functional language “obtain user information of a target terminal” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
RE Claim 16, “determine a target user plane (UP} device in the plurality of UP devices based on the user information and load of the plurality of UP devices,” has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function because the combination of a non-structural element “a USF device” and functional language “determine a target user plane (UP) device” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
RE Claim 16, “and indicate the target terminal to access the target UP device.” has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function because the combination of a non-structural element “a USF device” and functional language “indicate the target terminal to access the target UP device” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification 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 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 limitation “user plane steering function” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure describes a user plane steering function as performed by a user plane steering device, ¶00205, Fig. 8. In each embodiment, the device 800 only refers to a ‘obtaining module’, ‘determining module’, and ‘control module’. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koodli (US 20210329496 A1, hereinafter “Koodli”).
RE Claim 9, 1 Koodli discloses a USF device or method:
A network device, applied to a user plane steering function (USF) device (User Plane Selector selects a user plane instance, UP device, from a plurality of user plane instances, steering of UE communication session. ¶0044, Fig. 2A:200), the network device comprises:
at least one processor (¶0046, Fig. 1:204);
one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions (¶0046, Fig. 1:206), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the network device to:
obtain user information of a target terminal (UE exchanges information with network for access and data. ¶0038; Initiates a session request. ¶0045);
determine a target user plane (UP) device in a plurality of UP devices based on the user information and load of the plurality of UP devices (Control plane performs protocol processing to setup the UE session, user information. Control plane consults the User Plane Selector, UPS, to obtain a selected user plane instance from a plurality of user plane instances. ¶0045; The analyzer of the UPS selects a user plane instance from a plurality of user plane instances based on selection criteria. In order to load balance resources of the network, the election criteria includes rules that specify thresholds and values that load measurements should satisfy for selection. ¶0053), wherein the plurality of UP devices is comprised in a virtual broadband network gateway (vBNG) in which a control plane (CP) device and the UP device are separated (Session manager is a gateway. ¶0010. Control plane portion and a user plane portion. ¶0033, Fig. 1; Each user plane instance, virtual network, of the user plane portion refers to one or more infrastructure sites where computing resources reside. Control plane portion may consist of multiple control plane instances, virtual network, at one or more sites. ¶0036; Network may include separation of the user plane and the control plane. Serving gateway and packet data gateway of the network have a control plane and user plane portion of a virtual network. Network is connected to an external network, e.g. Packet Data Network, to route data. ¶0033; Implementations of systems and techniques may be implemented in software, a virtual gateway. ¶0073); and
indicate the target terminal to access the target UP device (Control plane performs protocol processing to setup the UE session, user information. Control plane consults the User Plane Selector, UPS, to obtain a selected user plane instance from a plurality of user plane instances. ¶0045; With service instances established, the control plane portion provides the UE with the UE IP addresses to maintain connection between external network and selected user plane instance. ¶0045).
RE Claim 10, 2, 17 Koodli discloses a USF device, vBNG, or method:
The network device, wherein the user information comprises a service level agreement (SLA) level of the target terminal (UE exchanges information with network for access and data. ¶0038; Initiates a session request. ¶0045; Control plane portion is responsible for Quality of Service enforcement rules, e.g. SLA, and controls assignment of network resources based on demands by a UE. ¶0037), and the programming instructions (¶0046, Fig. 1:206), when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the network device to:
determine at least two candidate UP devices corresponding to the SLA level based on a correspondence between the SLA level and the plurality of UP devices (Analyzer selects candidate user plane instances, at least two UP devices, based on selection criteria. Selection criteria includes multiple rules, e.g. compounding rules, that may include particular latency, time of day, average latency, priority of latency requirements, e.g. SLA; Analyzer selects a candidate that represents the intersection of each rule or the next best alternative. ¶0053, Fig. 2D;) ; and
select the target UP device whose load meets a specified first load condition from the at least two candidate UP devices based on load of the at least two candidate UP devices (Analyzer selects a candidate that include results that specify thresholds or latency and load measurements in order to select the user plane instance to satisfy load balance and latency criteria. ¶0053, Fig. 2D).
RE Claim 12, 4, 19 Koodli discloses a USF device, vBNG, or method:
The network device, wherein load of any UP device in the plurality of UP devices comprises user session load or traffic load (The analyzer of the UPS selects a user plane instance from a plurality of user plane instances based on selection criteria. In order to load balance resources of the network, the election criteria includes rules that specify thresholds and values that load measurements should satisfy for selection. ¶0053;).
RE Claim 15, 7 Koodli discloses a USF device or method:
The network device, wherein if the target terminal is an online target terminal that has accessed a gateway through a first UP device, the first UP device is at least one UP device in the plurality of UP devices (UE initiates a session setup request to go online to use data packet services. ¶0045; Session manager is a gateway. ¶0010. Control plane portion and a user plane portion. ¶0033, Fig. 1; Each user plane instance, virtual network, of the user plane portion refers to one or more infrastructure sites where computing resources reside. Control plane portion may consist of multiple control plane instances, virtual network, at one or more sites. ¶0036; Network may include separation of the user plane and the control plane. Serving gateway and packet data gateway of the network have a control plane and user plane portion of a virtual network. Network is connected to an external network, e.g. Packet Data Network, to route data. ¶0033);
the programming instructions (¶0046, Fig. 1:206), when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the network device to:
when determining that the at least one first UP device meets a steering condition (User Plane Selector selects a user plane instance, UP device, from a plurality of user plane instances, steering of UE communication session. ¶0044, Fig. 2A:200), determine the target UP device in the plurality of UP devices based on the user information and the load of the plurality of UP devices, wherein the steering condition comprises: the load meets a specified second load condition, or a device status changes (Control plane performs protocol processing to setup the UE session, user information. Control plane consults the User Plane Selector, UPS, to obtain a selected user plane instance from a plurality of user plane instances. ¶0045; The analyzer of the UPS selects a user plane instance from a plurality of user plane instances based on selection criteria. In order to load balance resources of the network, the election criteria includes rules that specify thresholds and values that load measurements should satisfy for selection. ¶0053); and
indicate to steer at least one online target terminal on the first UP device that meets the steering condition to the target UP device (Control plane performs protocol processing to setup the UE session, user information. Control plane consults the User Plane Selector, UPS, to obtain a selected user plane instance from a plurality of user plane instances. ¶0045; With service instances established, the control plane portion provides the UE with the UE IP addresses to maintain connection between external network and selected user plane instance. ¶0045).
RE Claim 16, Koodli discloses a vBNG:
A virtual broadband network gateway (vBNG) in which a control plane (CP) device and a user plane (UP) device are separated (Session manager is a gateway. ¶0010. Control plane portion and a user plane portion. ¶0033, Fig. 1; Each user plane instance, virtual network, of the user plane portion refers to one or more infrastructure sites where computing resources reside. Control plane portion may consist of multiple control plane instances, virtual network, at one or more sites. ¶0036; Network may include separation of the user plane and the control plane. Serving gateway and packet data gateway of the network have a control plane and user plane portion of a virtual network. Network is connected to an external network, e.g. Packet Data Network, to route data. ¶0033; Implementations of systems and techniques may be implemented in software, a virtual gateway. ¶0073), the vBNG comprises a user plane steering function (USF) device and a plurality of UP devices (User Plane Selector selects a user plane instance, UP device, from a plurality of user plane instances, steering of UE communication session. ¶0044, Fig. 2A:200; Implementations of systems and techniques may be implemented in software, a virtual gateway. ¶0073), wherein the USF device is configured to:
obtain user information of a target terminal (UE exchanges information with network for access and data. ¶0038; Initiates a session request. ¶0045);
determine a target user plane (UP} device in the plurality of UP devices based on the user information and load of the plurality of UP devices (Control plane performs protocol processing to setup the UE session, user information. Control plane consults the User Plane Selector, UPS, to obtain a selected user plane instance from a plurality of user plane instances. ¶0045; The analyzer of the UPS selects a user plane instance from a plurality of user plane instances based on selection criteria. In order to load balance resources of the network, the election criteria includes rules that specify thresholds and values that load measurements should satisfy for selection. ¶0053), wherein the plurality of UP devices is comprised in the vBNG (Session manager is a gateway. ¶0010. Control plane portion and a user plane portion. ¶0033, Fig. 1; Each user plane instance, virtual network, of the user plane portion refers to one or more infrastructure sites where computing resources reside. Control plane portion may consist of multiple control plane instances, virtual network, at one or more sites. ¶0036; Network may include separation of the user plane and the control plane. Serving gateway and packet data gateway of the network have a control plane and user plane portion of a virtual network. Network is connected to an external network, e.g. Packet Data Network, to route data. ¶0033; Implementations of systems and techniques may be implemented in software, a virtual gateway. ¶0073); and
indicate the target terminal to access the target UP device (Control plane performs protocol processing to setup the UE session, user information. Control plane consults the User Plane Selector, UPS, to obtain a selected user plane instance from a plurality of user plane instances. ¶0045; With service instances established, the control plane portion provides the UE with the UE IP addresses to maintain connection between external network and selected user plane instance. ¶0045).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 3, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koodli in view of Huang et al. (WO 2020207148 A1, hereinafter “Huang”).
RE Claim 11, 3, 18 Koodli discloses a USF device, vBNG, or method:
The network device, wherein the first load condition comprises:
selecting a UP device whose load is smallest (Selection parameters of a user plane instance may include a lowest one of the loads associated with the plurality of user plane instances. ¶0006); or
Koodli does not explicitly disclose:
selecting a UP device whose load is not greater than a first value, wherein the first value comprises an average value of the load of the at least two candidate UP devices.
However, Huang discloses:
selecting a UP device whose load is not greater than a first value, wherein the first value comprises an average value of the load of the at least two candidate UP devices (Calculate the load values and load averages of all forwarders, a user plane device, to determine the queue to be adjusted and the forwarder queue to be diverted, selecting another user plane device for load balancing according to these average values. ¶0087; Embodiment performs load balancing adjustment based on the load balancing effect of the overall network, so that the overall network load balancing is optimal. ¶0107; The controller determines whether the first transponder, a user plane device forwarding packets, meets a preset condition, a first value. ¶0122).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Koodli, selecting a UP device with smallest load, with the teachings of Huang, select a UP device based on calculated average loads of the network.
The motivation in doing so would be to support additional selection criteria to determine a candidate UP device for load balancing methods and improve user experience. (Koodli: ¶¶0027, 0053; Huang: Abstract, ¶¶0004, 0017-0019;).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koodli in view of Goerke et al. (US 20130163424 A1, hereinafter “Goerke”).
RE Claim 13, 5 Koodli does not explicitly disclose a USF device or method:
The network device, wherein the user session load comprises at least one of the following: a quantity of user sessions or session usage; and
the traffic load comprises bandwidth usage.
However, Goerke discloses:
The network device, wherein the user session load comprises at least one of the following: a quantity of user sessions or session usage (Session manager. ¶0080, Fig. 8:808; Session manager manages a plurality of mobile subscriber sessions. ¶0083; Session manager can direct the corresponding sessions to modify the packet flows that are being handled by the session. ¶0082; Resource manager tracks and assigns the available resources for sessions and demands on the network device including load balancing. ¶0106); and
the traffic load comprises bandwidth usage (Data load information, traffic, indicates the amount of data being handled and/or the amount of additional data traffic that can be handled in the network, bandwidth usage. ¶0060;).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Koodli, selecting a UP device with smallest load, with the teachings of Goerke, select a UP device based quantity of users sessions, session usage, and bandwidth usage.
The motivation in doing so would be to support additional selection criteria not based on load alone to determine a candidate UP device for load balancing methods and improve user experience. (Koodli: ¶¶0027, 0053; Goerke: ¶¶0017-0018).
Claims 6, 8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koodli in view of Zheng (WO 2019114510 A1, hereinafter “Zheng”).
RE Claim 14, 6 Koodli does not explicitly disclose a USF device or method:
The network device, wherein the programming instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the network device to:
obtain the user information of the target terminal from a CP device in the vBNG when the target terminal requests the CP device to go online, wherein the user information is obtained by the CP device based on a dialup protocol packet sent by the target terminal.
However, Zheng discloses:
The network device, wherein the programming instructions (¶¶0053, 0055, 0224), when executed by the at least one processor (¶¶0053, 0055, 0224), further cause the network device to:
obtain the user information of the target terminal from a CP device in the vBNG when the target terminal requests the CP device to go online (Broadband user access via Broadband Remote Access Server which is an access gateway. ¶0002; Software Defined Broadband Remote Access Server, ¶0008; User characteristics, information; ¶0067; PPPoE user with a PPPoE client goes online and sends a PPPoE online message. ¶0157; The PPPoE online message is received and source MAC is used to determine a matching feature value according load sharing strategy. ¶0158; The control plane sends the PPPoE online message to the first control plane processing instance. ¶0162), wherein the user information is obtained by the CP device based on a dialup protocol packet sent by the target terminal (PPPoE user with a PPPoE client goes online and sends a PPPoE online message, a dialup protocol packet. ¶0157;).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Koodli, obtain user information during a session request for access and data, with the teachings of Zheng, obtaining user information by use of dialup protocol message to the CP device.
The motivation in doing so would be to support additional and additional access technology, PPPoE, for a device to share information to a network for load balancing methods and improve user experience. (Koodli: ¶¶0027, 0053; Zheng: Abstract, ¶¶0008-0009, 0020-0024).
RE Claim 8, Koodli does not explicitly disclose a method:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the USF device is integrated with a CP device in the vBNG
the USF device is integrated with a software-defined networking SDN controller; or
the USF device is a device independent of a CP device in the vBNG and a SDN controller.
However, Zheng discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the USF device is integrated with a CP device in the vBNG (Broadband user access via Broadband Remote Access Server which is an access gateway. ¶0002; Software Defined Broadband Remote Access Server, ¶0008; Load sharing device may be located on the control plane. ¶0097)
the USF device is integrated with a software-defined networking SDN controller (Broadband user access via Broadband Remote Access Server which is an access gateway. ¶0002; Software Defined Broadband Remote Access Server, ¶0008; Load sharing device may be located on the control plane. ¶0097); or
the USF device is a device independent of a CP device in the vBNG and a SDN controller (Load sharing device includes a memory, 1710, and processor, 1720, to perform load sharing methods, an independent device. ¶0224, Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Koodli, a network device that applies user plane steering by the control plane consulting a User Plane Selector, with the teachings of Zheng, placement of the user plane steering device in a control plane, an SDN, or independent of an SDN.
The motivation in doing so would be to support increase flexibility in selecting the network location of a steering device/function in a network for load balancing methods and improve user experience. (Koodli: ¶¶0027, 0053; Zheng: Abstract, ¶¶0008-0009, 0020-0024).
RE Claim 20, Koodli does not explicitly disclose a vBNG:
The vBNG, where-in the USF device is a CP device in the vBNG, or the vBNG further comprises a CP device.
However, Zheng discloses:
The vBNG, where-in the USF device is a CP device in the vBNG (Broadband user access via Broadband Remote Access Server which is an access gateway. ¶0002; Software Defined Broadband Remote Access Server, ¶0008; Load sharing device may be located on the control plane. ¶0097), or the vBNG further comprises a CP device (Broadband user access via Broadband Remote Access Server which is an access gateway. ¶0002; Software Defined Broadband Remote Access Server, ¶0008; Load sharing device may be located on the control plane. ¶0097; Load sharing device includes a memory, 1710, and processor, 1720, to perform load sharing methods, an independent device. ¶0224, Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Koodli, a network device that applies user plane steering by the control plane consulting a User Plane Selector, with the teachings of Zheng, placement of the user plane steering device in a CP device which is located in the vBNG.
The motivation in doing so would be to support increase flexibility in selecting the network location of a steering device/function in a network for load balancing methods and improve user experience. (Koodli: ¶¶0027, 0053; Zheng: Abstract, ¶¶0008-0009, 0020-0024).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is directed to 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections of claims 1-20. Applicant disagrees ‘that the claims are directed to an “abstract idea”’. Applicant argues that claim 1 and the access method applied to a USF device is not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant also argues that the access method and USF device is integrated into a judicial exception which ‘improves networking technology and is subject matter eligible’. Applicant submits an overview of Federal Circuit regarding “abstract idea” in recent decisions of Enfish, Bascom, and McRo ‘each of which reversed Alice invalidations.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Refer to the following analysis of claim 1 and claims 9 and 16 with similar limitations. After review of the analysis, the independent claims and thereby their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C §101.
Evidence:
Claim 1 recites:
An access method, applied to a user plane steering function (USF) device, and the method comprises:
obtaining, by the USF device, user information of a target terminal;
determining, by the USF device, a target user plane (UP) device in a plurality of UP devices based on the user information and load of the plurality of UP devices, wherein the plurality of UP devices is comprised in a virtual broadband network gateway (vBNG) in which a control plane (CP) device and the UP device are separated; and
indicating, by the USF device, the target terminal to access the target UP device.
Analysis:
STEP 1: The claim falls within the statutory categories of invention (i.e., process). (STEP 1=YES)
Step 2A Prong One which tests whether the claim recites a judicial exception, claim 1 falls within “Mental Processes” (which is identified as “Abstract Idea (Judicial Exception)” since it recites concepts which can be performed in the human mind (including, observation, evaluation, judgment): obtain user information of a target terminal, determine a UP device based on user information and load of UP devices, and indicating the target terminal to access the target UP device. These concepts can be performed in the human mind by a comparison of lists and matching entries of the list. Thus, claim 1 recites the “Judicial Exception” in regard to “Step 2A Prong One” test. [STEP 2A Prong One =YES]
STEP 2A Prong Two which tests whether the claim recites as a whole “integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. It is seen that claim 1 does NOT pass “Step 2A Prong Two” which tests does the claim integrate the judicial exception identified from “Step 2A Prong One” into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a ‘USF device’ to perform the steps. The USF device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a user plane steering function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claim 1 does not direct to “Judicial Exception” in regard to “Step 2A Prong Two” test. [STEP 2A Prong Two =NO]
STEP 2B: The additional element/limitations are:
wherein the plurality of UP devices is comprised in a virtual broadband network gateway (vBNG) in which a control plane (CP) device and the UP device are separated
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the USF device is a generic computer component recited at a high level of generality to implement the abstract idea.
The claim purports an abstract idea squarely analogous to the abstract idea concepts identified by the courts; inventive concept linked to a particular technological environment or field, i.e. mental processes are abstract ideas under Alice/Mayo step one. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]omputational methods which can be performed entirely in the human mind are the types of methods that embody the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”
For these reasons, claim 1 is ineligible. (STEP 2B= NO)
Applicant’s second argument is directed to claims 3-4, 7, 11-12, 15, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as being indefinite. Applicant submits that the amendments overcome the rejections. The amendment replaces “and/or” with “or” in the limitations.
Examiner agrees and this rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s third argument is directed to claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Per the remarks, “Applicant respectfully submits that the "user plane steering function (USF)" device, as described in paragraph 66 of the specification, "is a steering decision control functional entity." In addition, applicant submits “Here, a person skilled in the art would understand USF device to be as part of a network architecture, particularly in mobile and wireless networks, that makes a steering decision and generates a steering policy. “ Applicant requests the rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0066 of the specification states “The USF device 50 is a steering decision control functional entity.”, refer Fig. 1 The paragraph describes what functions the USF devices performs but does not provide structure. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A PHOSITA at the time of the invention would understand that user plane steering is an essential function of a User Plane Function, UPF, and does not have a separate ‘USF device’. The rejection stands.
Applicant’s third argument is directed to claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant submits “that the specification supports the claimed functions with sufficient structural detail for the user plane steering function (USF) device.” Applicant refers to ¶¶0074-0082 and Fig. 2 of the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure describes a user plane steering function as performed by a user plane steering device, ¶00205, Fig. 8: 800. In each embodiment, the device 800 only refers to a ‘obtaining module’ 810, ‘determining module’ 820, and ‘control module’ 830. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant’s fourth argument is directed to claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Applicant specification argues that the limitation “wherein the plurality of UP devices is comprised in a virtual broadband network gateway (vBNG)” is not disclosed in Koodli cited in the Office Action. Applicant refers to ¶¶0026, 0036 and Fig. 1 of Koodli arguing that an edge network is disclosed and not a ‘virtual broadband network gateway vBNG’.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A “vBNG” according to the instant application: “an embodiment of this application provides a method for accessing a gateway. The method may be applied to a network system including a virtual broadband network gateway vBNG. The vBNG includes a control plane CP device and a plurality of UP devices managed by the CP device. Any UP device in the plurality of UP devices may be a physical UP device or a virtual UP device.” ¶¶0005, 0038.
In the last Office Action, the rejection of this limitation also included “Session manager is a gateway. ¶0010. Control plane portion and a user plane portion. ¶0033, Fig. 1; Network may include separation of the user plane and the control plane. Serving gateway and packet data gateway of the network have a control plane and user plane portion of a virtual network. Network is connected to an external network, e.g. Packet Data Network, to route data. ¶0033”. These citations meet the elements of the limitation and interpretation of ‘vBNG’. The rejection stands.
Applicant’s fifth argument is directed to claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant’s argument is that the references Huang, Goerke, and Zheng “fail to disclose or suggest the limitations set forth above.” referring to the independent claims. Applicant submits that each reference relates to different aspects of load sharing but ‘do not disclose the above emphasized features of claim 1.” Applicant does not provide further details as to the reasons supporting the argument.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 PAUL A. LANGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, Eastern.
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, Nishant B. Divecha can be reached at 1 (571) 270-3125. 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.
/PAUL A. LANGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419