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 Arguments
Applicant argued that the cited prior art failed to disclose send[ing] an identifier unique to the network device over the at least a 5G network… and receiv[ing] the identifier unique to the network device … wherein the identifier unique to the network device further comprises a Mobile Station International Subscriber Director Number (MSISDN). Yeh et al. (US 12,323,319) is introduced to teach the use of a MSISDN unique identifier.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagaturu et al. (US 2023/0006889) in view of Gundavelli et al. (US 2023/0232216) in view of Yeh et al. (US 12,323,319).
In regard to claim 1, Thyagaturu disclosed a system for link bonding in a 5G network, the system comprising:
a network device, including a device processor, configured to communicate over at least a 5G network wherein the network device comprises a set of instructions to cause the device processor to implement an enterprise policy for link bonding 5G network slices; Thyagaturu [0035], link bonding is “virtual lanes”
a data center, including a data center processor, in communication with at least the 5G network wherein the data center includes a set of instructions to cause the data center processor to respond to the network device implementing the enterprise policy for link bonding 5G network slices by mapping the enterprise policy to 5G network infrastructure; and Thyagaturu [0035]
Thyagaturu failed to disclose:
a service account processor that includes a set of instructions to provide a service account control plane configured to enable a user to configure the enterprise policy.
However, Gundavelli disclosed:
a service account processor that includes a set of instructions to provide a service account control plane configured to enable a user to configure the enterprise policy. Gundavelli [0072]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the policies in Thyagaturu in order to make them best suited to the network environment of Thyagaturu.
Thyagaturu and Gundavelli failed to disclose send[ing] an identifier unique to the network device over the at least a 5G network… and receiv[ing] the identifier unique to the network device.
However, Yeh disclosed send[ing] an identifier unique to the network device over the at least a 5G network… and receiv[ing] the identifier unique to the network device. Yeh column 10 lines 35-48, column 86 line 64 – column 87 line 45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send any unique device identifier, including a network address or a MSISDN, in Thyagaturu and Gundavelli, in order to identify the source and destination of traffic on the network.
Claim 5 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
In regard to claims 9 and 10, Yeh disclosed wherein the identifier unique to the network device further comprises a Mobile Station International Subscriber Directory Number (MSISDN). Yeh column 87 lines 16-17
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thyagaturu in view of Gundavelli in view of Yeh as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Dao et al. (US 2019/0191467).
In regard to claim 2, Thyagaturu in view of Gundavelli in view of Yeh failed to disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the mapping of the enterprise policy to 5G network infrastructure network comprises informing the Non-3GPP Interworking Function (N3IWF) of the link bonding.
However, Dao disclosed wherein the mapping of the enterprise policy to 5G network infrastructure network comprises informing the Non-3GPP Interworking Function (N3IWF) of the link bonding. Dao [0189], [0211]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support the N3IWF in Thyagaturu / Gundavelli / Yeh to allow for non-3GPP equipment to be aware of the link aggregation in Thyagaturu / Gundavelli / Yeh.
Claim 6 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights