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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment and RCE filed, 06 May 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 23 October 2023 in which claim 1, 3 have been amended and claims 13-14 have been canceled and claim 17 added. Claims 1-6, 8-12, 15-17 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick et al (hereinafter “Patrick”, 2017/0244577) in view of Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications, DCA - MHAv2, Remote DOCSIS Timing Interface, CM-SP-R-DTI-I05-170524 (hereinafter “DTI”, NPL).
As per Claim 1, Patrick discloses a cable distribution system comprising:
(a) a head end connected to a plurality of customer devices through a transmission network that includes a plurality of remote physical devices, where each of said remote physical devices includes remote physical layer processing, that processes received data for said plurality of customer devices, where said head end includes at least one server each of which includes a respective processor (at least paragraph 13-15, 18; architecture 100 between a CCAP Core 110 and one or more Remote Physical Devices (RPD) 120 according to the prior art. Architecture 100 of FIG. 1 conforms to the Module Headend Architecture Version 2 (MHAv2) family of protocols. While FIG. 1 depicts a single RPD 120 for simplicity, multiple RPDs 120 may be used. Each RPD 120 may communicate over a coaxial cable 140 to a DOCSIS cable modem; emulated CCAP device may appear to comprise a commercial layer 2/3 switch and one or more programmable commercial computing servers; Virtual CCAP Core 200 comprises Core Routing Engine (CRE) 210, which may correspond to a COTS packet switch/router);
(b) a first vCore instantiated on one of said servers of said head end configured to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said plurality of remote physical devices (at least Fig. 2; par. 18, 28-29; one of Core Servers 220; active VCCM);
(c) a second vCore instantiated on one of said servers of said head end not configured to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said plurality of remote physical devices (at least Fig. 2; par. 18, 28-29; one of Core Servers 220; standby VCCM);
(d) a monitoring system that reconfigures with configuration information a combination of said second vCore and said plurality of remote physical devices to provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said plurality of remote physical devices, and said monitoring system reconfigures said first vCore to not provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said plurality of remote physical devices, where said reconfigures with said configuration information said combination of said second vCore and said plurality of remote physical devices to said provide services to said plurality of customer devices through said plurality of remote physical devices in a manner where said plurality of remote physical devices do not lose precision timing protocol synchronization during said reconfigures, where said first vCore includes a plurality of virtual IP addresses, and each respective virtual IP address is used for communication with only one of said plurality of remote physical devices (at least paragraph 78. 81-83; LCCE IP Addresses are all examples of a “Virtual” IP address; a tunnel is created between the Core and the remote physical device RPD, with each endpoint called an LCCE, the core server implementing a plenitude of virtual LCCE IP addresses) and said second vCore uses said plurality of virtual IP addresses for communication with said plurality of said remote physical devices, where said first vCore includes a first physical IP address, where said second vCore includes a second physical IP address (at least paragraph 74-83, 68; When cluster management software detects that the Active VCCM is no longer operational on a Core Server 216 for whatever reason, it instructs the Standby VCCM to become the Active VCCM. With Pacemaker, this is called “promoting” the Active VCCM service to the Standby VCCM Core Server; Core Server 216 promoted to Active VCCM acquires the pre-designated link-local “Active Functional VCCM IP Address”, e.g. 169.254.0.2 on the Cluster VLAN and surrenders the Standby Function IP address if it had been using it; Functional VCCM IP addresses, Management IP Address, and LCCE IP Addresses are all examples of a “Virtual” IP address that migrate from a “surrendering” to an “acquiring” Core Server 216; internal physical IP addresses for each core server).
Patrick fails to disclose wherein said cable distribution system further comprises a root timing reference and said first vCore, said second vCore, and said remote physical device are all synchronized to said root timing reference. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of DTI. DTI discloses, in an analogous art and related industry standard document, two CMTS Cores A/B in the same clock domain as well as R-PHY devices in the same clock domain from a single timing master (at least Fig. 11, section 5.4.2.4, p. 27-28; see also section 5.2.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of DTI’s timing domain with Patrick, as DTI teaches similarly that if Core A goes down and Core B takes over, synchronization is established already for the new core and it would take less time to resume services, and in section 1.1 that such clock synchronization is critical when the devices are not physically located close to each other as with Patrick’s remote physical devices.
As per Claim 2. The cable distribution system of claim 1 wherein said reconfiguration of said second vCore includes at least one of Remote Physical Layer (PHY) Medium Access Control (MAC) (R-PHY MAC) Core configuration and data plane configuration (at least paragraph 28, 81-83, 50; VCCM is configured in the single configuration file (e.g., via Core Server IP or Ethernet MAC address); removing or adding an L2 MAC forwarding table entry; virtual ip address migration).
As per Claim 3. The cable distribution system of claim 1 wherein said second vCore is configured to provide services to an additional plurality of customer devices through a second remote physical device, while also providing services to said plurality of customer devices through said plurality of remote physical devices (at least paragraph 14, 15, 50, 88; multiple RPDs communicating with cable modems and one or more core servers).
As per Claim 4. The cable distribution system of claim 3 wherein said first vCore is configured to provide services to a further plurality of customer devices through a third remote physical device (at least paragraph 14, 15, 88; multiple RPDs communicating with cable modems).
As per Claim 5. The cable distribution system of claim 1 wherein said first vCore operates on a first one of said servers and said second vCore operates on said first one of said servers (at least Fig. 2, 200).
As per Claim 6. The cable distribution system of claim 1 wherein said first vCore operates on a first one of said servers and said second vCore operates on a second one of said servers (at least Fig. 2, 220).
As per Claim 8. The cable distribution system of claim 1 wherein said configuration information includes at least one of (1) Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS), (2) radio frequency (RF), (3) remote physical device (RPD), (4) cable Medium Access Control (cable-MAC), (5) Internet Protocol (IP) addressing, (6) and routing (at least paragraph 72, 76-78).
As per Claim 9. The cable distribution system of claim 1 wherein said configuration information includes at least one of (1) Remote Physical Layer (RPHY) Medium Access Control (MAC (R-PHY MAC) Core, (2) Central Processing Unit Core Identifiers (CPU Core Ids), (3) data plane network virtual functions (VF) addresses, (4) MAC addresses for interfaces, (5) encryption VFs, and (6) memory allocation (at least paragraph 50, 62, 67).
As per Claim 11. The cable distribution system of claim 1 wherein said configuration information includes at least one of (1) identification of said remote physical device associated with said first vCore and (2) parameters of said remote physical device associated with said first vCore (at least paragraph 59, 93-96).
As per Claim 12. The cable distribution system of claim 1 wherein said configuration information includes layer 2 tunneling protocol sequence numbers (at least paragraph 44; L2TPv3 All packets to the same L2TPV3 tunnel are forwarded by the same DSMAC thread in order to have consecutive sequence numbers per tunnel).
As per Claim 15. The cable distribution system of claim 1 wherein said first vCore is a virtual cable modem termination system (at least Fig. 2, par. 15-16, abstract; virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS)).
As per Claim 16. The cable distribution system of claim 15 wherein said second vCore is a virtual cable modem termination system (at least Fig. 2, par. 15-16, abstract; virtualized Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS)).
Claims 17 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra. Claim 17 recites each limitation of claim 1 with exception of the very last limitation of (d) and is rejected as with claim 1 for the other identical limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of DTI, further in view of Joukov et al (hereinafter “Joukov”, 2011/0252403).
Patrick and DTI fail to disclose wherein said configuration information includes at least one of (1) log information of said first vCore, (2) log information of one of said servers, and (3) log information of said remote physical device. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Joukov (at least paragraph 58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Joukov’s log migration with Patrick/DTI as Joukov teaches the need to relink log and configuration files after migration from a source server to a target server, log files being well known in the art to track and trace server issues, and it being beneficial for Patrick’s high availability and core server failover in order to have any data on why a server failed be available on the new server should the old server become unavailable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 06 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Patrick does not disclose a virtual IP address for each separate remote physical device with the claim amendment of claim 1 that the first vcore includes a plurality of virtual IP addresses.
However, Patrick discloses in par. 78 that
“an L2TPv3 Tunnel to be established between the CCAP Core and the RPD. Each endpoint of this tunnel is called an L2TPv3 Control Connection Endpoint (LCCE). In an embodiment of the invention, Core Servers 216 implement a plenitude of virtual LCCE IP addresses. Each Core Server 216 implements at least one LCCE IP address, and may implement multiple LCCE IP addresses. The DEPT tunnels for DOCSIS MHAv2 operation extend from an RPD to an LCCE IP address implemented on a Core Server 216.”
Thus, Patrick clearly discloses that a tunnel is created between the Core and the remote physical device RPD, with each endpoint called an LCCE, the core server implementing a plenitude of virtual LCCE IP addresses. Patrick’s system thus teaches each Core having a virtual IP address as an endpoint LCCE to each RPD endpoint LCCE also having a unique virtual IP address.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY TODD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights