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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 23 March have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Pai’s CPE/BNG is merely an access point and not a “steering function (SF) device,” and that Pai does not disclose broadcast domains, sub-interfaces, or the claimed mappings. Applicant further argues that Paz merely maps a client to a tunnel and does not disclose sending a location identifier to a UP steering function (USF) device. These arguments are not persuasive. (Rem. 9-11)
Pai discloses determining and maintaining user attachment information using “slot:port:vlan” identifiers (Pai ¶¶[0043]–[0044]). Specifically, Pai teaches querying an AAA server to obtain “slot:port:vlan” and storing this information in a demultiplexor table. The slot:port identifies a physical port, and the VLAN identifies a broadcast domain. VLANs are well-known to define Layer 2 broadcast domains, and multiple VLANs may be associated with a single physical port. Accordingly, Pai teaches:
• a plurality of physical ports,
• a plurality of broadcast domains,
• multiple VLAN-based logical interfaces (sub-interfaces) per port, and
• each sub-interface corresponding to a different broadcast domain.
Thus, Pai meets the claimed structural limitations regardless of whether the device is labeled an “SF device.”
Pai does not explicitly disclose that each broadcast domain is connected to a different virtual interface in different UP devices. However, Paz teaches mapping client identifiers to forwarding information including interfaces and tunnel identifiers (Paz ¶[0030]), and further teaches distributing such forwarding context across multiple user-plane entities in a CP/UP architecture (Paz ¶¶[0045]–[0047], ¶¶[0129]–[0134]). These teachings correspond to mapping distinct forwarding domains to different interfaces across different UP devices.
With respect to sending the location identifier to a UP steering function device, Paz discloses associating client identifiers with interface and tunnel identifiers used by user-plane entities to forward traffic (Paz ¶[0030]). Providing and using such identifiers in the user plane constitutes the functional equivalent of sending a location identifier to a UP steering function device.
Applicant’s arguments improperly attack Pai and Paz individually rather than addressing the combination. The combination of Pai’s slot:port:vlan-based identification and Paz’s distribution of forwarding identifiers across multiple user-plane entities renders the claimed invention obvious.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pai et al (US 2016/0241515 A1) in view of Pazhyannur et al (US 2014/0269535 A1), hereinafter “Paz”.
Pai discloses a method, applied to a control plane (CP) device comprised in a virtual broadband network gateway, the virtual broadband network gateway further comprising a first user plane (UP) device, because Pai teaches a virtual BNG architecture separating CP and UP functionalities (Fig. 1B; Fig. 6A; ¶52–53; ¶60–66).
Pai discloses receiving, by the CP device, a first packet sent by the first UP device, wherein the first packet carries source information of a first user terminal, and the first user terminal is a user terminal that obtains an internet protocol IP address statically, because Pai teaches the UP forwarding user packets containing subscriber source information (slot:port:vlan and identifiers) to the CP, and that the user terminal uses a static IP address (Pai ¶41; ¶43).
Pai discloses searching, by the CP device based on the source information of the first user terminal, a correspondence between source information of at least one user terminal and a location identifier of the user terminal accessing a network, to determine a first location identifier of the first user terminal accessing a network, because Pai teaches querying AAA using the subscriber’s source information to obtain the corresponding slot:port:vlan of the user’s access location (Pai ¶43; Fig. 1B).
Pai discloses wherein the first location identifier comprises an identifier of a first steering function SF device and an identifier of a first physical port on the first SF device, because Pai identifies the CPE device (CPE-1 or CPE-2) as the access-side device functioning as the steering device and the slot:port information identifies the corresponding physical port (Pai ¶43; Fig. 1B).
Pai further discloses “wherein the first SF device comprises a plurality of broadcast domains and a plurality of physical ports comprising the first physical port,” because slot:port identifies physical ports and VLAN identifiers correspond to broadcast domains, and Pai maintains such identifiers for user devices (Pai ¶¶[0043]–[0044]).
Pai further discloses “wherein each physical port of the plurality of physical ports has a plurality of sub-interfaces,” and “wherein each sub-interface of a respective physical port of the plurality of physical ports corresponds to a different broadcast domain of the plurality of broadcast domains,” because multiple VLANs may be associated with a given physical port and VLANs define distinct broadcast domains (Pai ¶¶[0043]–[0044]).
Pai does not specifically disclose wherein each broadcast domain of the plurality of broadcast domains is connected to a different virtual interface in different UP devices of a plurality of UP devices comprising the first UP device,” and “sending, by the CP device, the first location identifier to a UP steering function (USF) device. Furthermore, Pai discloses updating forwarding tables with the slot:port:vlan information but does not explicitly disclose sending, by the CP device, the first location identifier to a UP steering function (USF) device.
Paz discloses “wherein each broadcast domain… is connected to a different virtual interface in different UP devices,” because Paz teaches mapping a client identifier to forwarding information including downstream and upstream interfaces and tunnel identifiers and distributing such forwarding context across multiple user-plane entities (Paz ¶[0030], ¶¶[0045]–[0047], ¶¶[0129]–[0134]), thereby associating different forwarding contexts with different interfaces across different UP devices.
Paz in view of Pai further discloses “sending… the first location identifier to a UP steering function (USF) device,” because Paz teaches providing forwarding identifiers (interface and tunnel identifiers) to user-plane entities for packet forwarding (Paz ¶[0030]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pai to map VLAN-based broadcast domains to different interfaces across multiple UP devices and to provide the corresponding identifiers to user-plane entities as taught by Paz, in order to enable scalable and distributed forwarding in a CP/UP architecture.
Regarding claim 22, Pai further discloses further comprising:
“determining, by the CP device, a second location identifier based on the identifier of the second UP device, and storing a correspondence between the source information of the first user terminal and the second location identifier, wherein the second location identifier comprises an identifier of a second SF device and an identifier of a second physical port on the second SF device, and the second SF device is the same SF device as the first SF device or a different SF device than the first SF device.”
Pai discloses determining a second location identifier corresponding to a different access point when a user device connects through a different access network. Specifically, Pai teaches that when a user device connects via a remote CPE, the system determines that the user device is no longer connected to its home network and updates the demultiplexor table with a new slot:port:VLAN corresponding to the access point currently serving the user device (Pai ¶¶0041–0044). Pai further discloses that this updated entry associates the user’s identity (e.g., MAC address) with the new access location and that the access point may be the same or a different network device (Pai ¶¶0041–0043, ¶0049–0050). Thus, Pai teaches determining a second location identifier and storing a correspondence between the source information of the user terminal and the second location identifier, including a physical port identifier and a steering function device.
Pai does not explicitly disclose:
“receiving, by the CP device, an identifier of a second UP device that is returned by the USF device.”
However, Paz discloses this limitation. Paz teaches a control-plane / user-plane architecture in which user-plane entities report forwarding and access information back to a control-plane entity. Specifically, Paz teaches that user-plane elements provide identifiers and state information to the control plane to enable proper forwarding and service handling (Paz ¶¶0029–0034, ¶¶0045–0047). Paz further teaches that the control plane uses this information to coordinate forwarding behavior across network elements, including identifying which forwarding entity is responsible for handling traffic for a given user or flow (Paz ¶¶0052–0060).
Thus, Paz teaches receiving, by the CP device, an identifier of a UP device returned from a user-plane function.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pai and Paz, because both references address distributed control-plane and user-plane architectures and the need to synchronize subscriber location and forwarding information between them. Incorporating Paz’s CP–UP signaling into Pai’s system would merely involve using known techniques to communicate access-point identity information from the UP to the CP, yielding predictable results and improving coordination between control and forwarding functions.
Regarding claim 23, Pai further discloses:
“wherein the second physical port is the same port as the first physical port or a different physical port than the first physical port.”
Pai teaches that a user terminal may remain connected to the same access device or may be connected through a different access device depending on mobility or network topology. Specifically, Pai discloses that a user may be served either by the same CPE or by a different CPE, and that the demultiplexor table is updated accordingly to reflect the correct slot and port corresponding to the serving access device (Pai ¶¶0041–0044, ¶0049–0050). Thus, Pai teaches that the second physical port may be the same as or different from the first physical port.
Regarding claim 24, Pai further discloses:
“wherein the source information of the first user terminal comprises at least one of a media access control (MAC) identifier or a virtual local area network (VLAN) identifier.”
Pai discloses that the source information used to identify a user includes MAC addresses and VLAN identifiers, and that such information is used to identify and route traffic associated with a particular subscriber (Pai ¶¶0041–0044). Accordingly, Pai teaches the use of MAC and VLAN identifiers as source information.
Regarding claim 25, Pai further discloses:
“wherein the identifier of the first physical port comprises a slot identifier or a subboard identifier, and further comprises a port identifier.”
Pai teaches that access locations are identified using slot and port information (slot:port:VLAN), which inherently includes a slot identifier and a port identifier corresponding to physical interfaces on the access device (Pai ¶¶0041–0044). Thus, Pai discloses the claimed structure of the physical port identifier.
Regarding claim 26, Pai further discloses:
“wherein the first packet comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) packet or an Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) packet.”
Pai discloses processing IP-based packets associated with subscriber traffic and handling address resolution information as part of the access and forwarding process (Pai ¶¶0041–0044). Accordingly, Pai teaches that the first packet may comprise an IP packet or an ARP packet.
Regarding claim 27, Pai further discloses:
“further comprising delivering, by the CP device, a subscriber entry to a second UP device, wherein the subscriber entry comprises the source information of the first user terminal.”
Pai teaches that subscriber-related information, including MAC and access identifiers, is maintained and used by forwarding entities to properly route traffic. Pai further discloses updating forwarding structures that are used by the data plane to forward subscriber traffic (Pai ¶¶0044–0048). Paz additionally teaches transmitting subscriber state and forwarding information from the control plane to user-plane entities (Paz ¶¶0029–0034, ¶¶0045–0047). Thus, delivering a subscriber entry from the CP to a UP device is taught by the combination of Pai and Paz.
Regarding claim 28, Pai further discloses:
“wherein after determining the first location identifier of the first user terminal accessing the network, the method further comprises: sending, by the CP device, an authentication request to an authentication server, wherein the authentication request comprises the first location identifier; receiving, by the CP device, an authentication response returned by the authentication server, wherein the authentication response comprises a service quality requirement corresponding to the first location identifier; and sending, by the CP device, the service quality requirement to the USF.”
Pai discloses that the control plane interacts with an authentication server to obtain subscriber-related information and service parameters, and that such information is used to control forwarding and service handling for the subscriber (Pai ¶¶0038–0043). Paz further teaches distributing policy and service-related information obtained from control functions to user-plane entities to govern forwarding behavior (Paz ¶¶0045–0060). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit service quality or policy information obtained from authentication to a user-plane entity as part of coordinating forwarding behavior.
Claims 29 and 37 recite features similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1, and are thus similarly rejected.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 21. Claim 30 further limits the system to include a network device implementing the method of claim 21. Pai discloses a network device functioning as a border network gateway implementing the recited method, including receiving packets, querying authentication information, determining access location, and updating forwarding tables (Pai ¶¶52–66, 73–75). To the extent claim 30 requires implementation in a particular network device architecture, Paz teaches execution of control-plane logic and forwarding control in a distributed or centralized network device architecture (Paz ¶¶29–34, 45–60). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the method of Pai using the network device architecture taught by Paz to achieve predictable network control and scalability benefits.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz for the same reasons as claim 30. Claim 31 further specifies determining whether the end user device is in the home network by comparing slot, port, and VLAN information. Pai expressly discloses comparing slot:port:VLAN values obtained from authentication information with the current access connection to determine whether the device is roaming (Pai ¶¶43–45). Paz further teaches centralized control logic for making such determinations in a control plane context (Paz ¶¶29–34). Therefore, claim 31 is unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz. Claim 32 further recites receiving a data packet destined for the end user device and checking whether a demultiplexor table includes a media access control address for the end user device. Pai explicitly discloses receiving downstream packets and performing lookup operations in a demultiplexor table using VNI and MAC information (Pai ¶¶46–49). Paz teaches forwarding control and table-driven forwarding based on subscriber context (Paz ¶¶45–52). Accordingly, the combination renders claim 32 obvious.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz. Claim 33 further specifies retrieving a MAC address list associated with the demultiplexor table entry. Pai teaches maintaining MAC address lists for roaming subscribers within the demultiplexor table (Pai ¶¶44–49). Paz further teaches managing subscriber-related forwarding entries within control-plane-managed tables (Paz ¶¶52–60). Thus, claim 33 is obvious over the combination.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz. Claim 34 further requires checking the MAC address list and forwarding the data packet to a slot, port, and VLAN associated with the MAC address. Pai explicitly discloses forwarding downstream traffic based on MAC address resolution and slot:port:VLAN mappings (Pai ¶¶47–49). Paz reinforces forwarding control based on subscriber-specific forwarding state (Paz ¶¶45–60). Therefore, claim 34 is obvious.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz. Claim 35 recites that the operations are performed by a computing device executing virtual machines. Pai discloses implementation of the functionality within virtualized network elements and network functions (Pai ¶¶51–56, 60–66). Paz likewise discloses virtualized network control and forwarding entities (Paz ¶¶29–34). Combining these teachings renders claim 35 obvious.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz for the same reasons as claim 35, as it merely further specifies execution of the same functionality within a virtualized computing environment, which is explicitly taught by Pai and reinforced by Paz.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz. Claim 38 recites a control plane device executing the same functional steps recited in claim 21. Pai discloses a control plane entity performing authentication queries, determining access location, and updating forwarding tables (Pai ¶¶52–66). Paz teaches centralized control plane dissemination of forwarding information to data plane elements (Paz ¶¶29–34, 45–60). Thus, claim 38 is obvious.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz. Claim 39 further limits claim 38 by specifying comparison of slot, port, and VLAN values to determine home or visited network status. This functionality is explicitly disclosed in Pai (¶¶43–45) and supported by Paz’s centralized control logic (¶¶29–34).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pai in view of Paz. Claim 40 further recites forwarding of packets based on a MAC address associated with the demultiplexor table entry. Pai expressly discloses forwarding packets based on MAC and VNI mappings (Pai ¶¶47–49), and Paz teaches programmable forwarding behavior controlled by the control plane (Paz ¶¶45–60). Accordingly, claim 40 is obvious over Pai in view of Paz.
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights