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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 recites the limitation "wherein a route condition policy is activated when the private network is down " in Line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to overcome the 112 rejection, "wherein a route condition policy is activated when the private network is down " should be replaced by -- wherein a route condition policy is activated when the primary backhaul link of the private network is down ---.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein a route condition policy is activated when the private network is down " in Line 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to overcome the 112 rejection, "wherein a route condition policy is activated when the private network is down " should be replaced by -- wherein a route condition policy is activated when the primary backhaul link of the private network is down ---.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein a route condition policy is activated when the private network is down " in Line 7 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to overcome the 112 rejection, "wherein a route condition policy is activated when the private network is down " should be replaced by -- wherein a route condition policy is activated when the primary backhaul link of the private network is down ---.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashrafi ( US 20190069187, hereinafter, Ashrafi’s 187) in view of Le Roux et al. ( US 20110069609, hereinafter, Le Roux’s 609).
Regarding to the claim 1, Ashrafi’s 187 teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining, by a device (backhaul node 1404) [see Figure 14] and from a router (router, SDN controller 1402) [see Figure 14] , information indicating that a primary backhaul link of a private network is down [see Paragraph 0173] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31],
wherein a route condition policy when the private network is down (forwarding rules 3304 is active is activated when the private network is down see Paragraph 0173] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31];
However, Ashrafi’s 187 does not explicitly teach wherein the message, when received by the controller, is to cause the controller to deactivate the route condition policy.
Le Roux’s 609, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches obtaining information that a primary link is up after being down ( deactivating the back-up routing rule following a request to restore the primary link) [see Paragraph 0150];
wherein the message, when received by the controller, is to cause the controller to deactivate the route condition policy (deactivates the back-up routing rule ) [see Paragraph 0150 ] (wherein the message which the primary link is restored, the controller deactivates the back-up routing rule) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ashrafi’s 187 in view of Le Roux’s 609 because Le Roux’s 609 suggests that it is enable fast rerouting of packets in the event of a fault in a primary link.
Regarding to the claim 2, Ashrafi’s 187 further teaches obtaining, from the router, other information indicating that the primary backhaul link of a private network is down; and sending, based on the other information, another message to the controller, wherein the other message, when received by the controller, is to cause the controller to activate the route condition policy [ see Paragraph 0173] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31].
Regarding to the claim 4, Ashrafi’s 187 further teaches causing the route condition policy for a plurality of user devices associated with the private network to be increased [see Paragraph 0173] [also see the paragraphs 0176-0178] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31].
Regarding to the claim 7, Ashrafi’s 187 and Le Roux’s 609 teach the limitations of the claim 1 above.
However, Ashrafi’s 187 does not explicitly wherein the route condition policy is deactivated based on the controller.
Le Roux’s 609, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein the route condition policy is deactivated based on the controller [see paragraph 0150].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ashrafi’s 187 in view of Le Roux’s 609 because Le Roux’s 609 suggests that it is enable fast rerouting of packets in the event of a fault in a primary link.
Regarding to the claim 8, Ashrafi’s 187 teaches a device, comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
obtain, from a router, information indicating that a primary backhaul link of a private network is down based on detecting that a backhaul failover [see Paragraph 0173] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31],
wherein a route condition policy is activated when the private network is down (forwarding rules 3304 is active is activated when the private network is down [ see Paragraph 0173] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31];
sending, based on the information, a message to a controller of the private network [ see Paragraph 0173] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31].
However, Ashrafi’s 187 does not explicitly teach wherein the message, when received by the controller, is to cause the controller to deactivate the route condition policy.
Le Roux’s 609, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches
obtain, from a router, information indicating that a primary backhaul link of a private network is up based on detecting that a backhaul failover has ceased ( deactivating the back-up routing rule following a request to restore the primary link) [see Paragraph 0150];
wherein the message indicates that the controller is to deactivate the route condition policy (deactivates the back-up routing rule ) [see Paragraph 0150 ] (wherein the message which the primary link is restored, the controller deactivates the back-up routing rule) , and
wherein the message, when received by the controller, is to cause the controller to deactivate the route condition policy (deactivates the back-up routing rule ) [see Paragraph 0150 ] (wherein the message which the primary link is restored, the controller deactivates the back-up routing rule).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ashrafi’s 187 in view of Le Roux’s 609 because Le Roux’s 609 suggests that it is enable fast rerouting of packets in the event of a fault in a primary link.
Regarding to the claim 9, Ashrafi’s 187 further teaches wherein the one or more processors are to: obtain the information via a port of the router [see Paragraph 0173] [also see the paragraphs 0176-0178] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31].
Regarding to the claim 10, Ashrafi’s 187 further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to send the message, are to: send the message to the controller via a Rx interface of the controller [see Paragraph 0173] [also see the paragraphs 0176-0178] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31].
Regarding to the claim 11, Ashrafi’s 187 further teaches wherein the message is a Diameter message [see Paragraph 0173] [also see the paragraphs 0176-0178] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31].
Regarding to the claim 12, Ashrafi’s 187 and Le Roux’s 609 teach the limitations of the claim 8 above.
However, Ashrafi’s 187 does not explicitly teach wherein the route condition policy is deactivated based on the controller.
Le Roux’s 609, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein the route condition policy is deactivated based on the controller (deactivates the back-up routing rule ) [see Paragraph 0150 ] (wherein the message which the primary link is restored, the controller deactivates the back-up routing rule).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ashrafi’s 187 in view of Le Roux’s 609 because Le Roux’s 609 suggests that it is enable fast rerouting of packets in the event of a fault in a primary link.
Regarding to the 13, Ashrafi’s 187 and Le Roux’s 609 teach the limitations of the claim 8 above.
However, Ashrafi’s 187 does not explicitly teach wherein the controller communicates with a baseband unit (BBU) to deactivate the route condition policy.
Le Roux’s 609, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller communicates with a baseband unit (BBU) to deactivate the route condition policy (deactivates the back-up routing rule ) [see Paragraph 0150 ] (wherein the message which the primary link is restored, the controller deactivates the back-up routing rule).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ashrafi’s 187 in view of Le Roux’s 609 because Le Roux’s 609 suggests that it is enable fast rerouting of packets in the event of a fault in a primary link.
Regarding to the claim 14, Ashrafi’s 187 further teaches obtain, from the router, other information indicating that the primary backhaul link of a private network is down; and send, based on the other information, another message to the controller of the private network, wherein the other message indicates that the controller is to activate the route condition policy, and wherein the other message, when received by the controller, is to cause the controller to activate the route condition policy [see Paragraph 0173] [also see the paragraphs 0176-0178] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31].
Regarding to the claim 15, Ashrafi’s 187 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
obtaining, by a device (backhaul node 1404) [see Figure 14] and from a router (router, SDN controller 1402) [see Figure 14] , information indicating that a primary backhaul link of a private network is down [see Paragraph 0173] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31],
wherein a route condition policy when the private network is down (forwarding rules 3304 is active is activated when the private network is down see Paragraph 0173] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31];
However, Ashrafi’s 187 does not explicitly teach wherein the message, when received by the controller, is to cause the controller to deactivate the route condition policy.
Le Roux’s 609, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches obtaining information that a primary link is up after being down ( deactivating the back-up routing rule following a request to restore the primary link) [see Paragraph 0150];
wherein the message, when received by the controller, is to cause the controller to deactivate the route condition policy (deactivates the back-up routing rule ) [see Paragraph 0150 ] (wherein the message which the primary link is restored, the controller deactivates the back-up routing rule) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ashrafi’s 187 in view of Le Roux’s 609 because Le Roux’s 609 suggests that it is enable fast rerouting of packets in the event of a fault in a primary link.
Regarding the claim 16, Ashrafi’s 187 further teaches obtain, from the router, other information indicating that the primary backhaul link of a private network is down; and send, based on the other information, another message to the controller of the private network, wherein the other message indicates that the controller is to activate the route condition policy [see Paragraph 0173] [also see the paragraphs 0176-0178] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31].
Regarding to the claim 17, Ashrafi’s 187 further teaches wherein the message is to cause a spectrum allocation for a plurality of user devices associated with the private network to be increased [see Paragraph 0173] [also see the paragraphs 0176-0178] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31].
Regarding to the claim 18, Ashrafi’s 187 and Le Roux’s 609 teach the limitations of the claim 15 above.
However, Ashrafi’s 187 does not explicitly teach wherein the route condition policy is deactivated based on the controller.
Le Roux’s 609, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein the route condition policy is deactivated based on the controller [see paragraph 0150] (deactivates the back-up routing rule ) [see Paragraph 0150 ] (wherein the message which the primary link is restored, the controller deactivates the back-up routing rule) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ashrafi’s 187 in view of Le Roux’s 609 because Le Roux’s 609 suggests that it is enable fast rerouting of packets in the event of a fault in a primary link.
Regarding to the claim 19, Ashrafi’s 187 further teaches wherein the at least one message is at least one Diameter message [see Paragraph 0173] [also see the paragraphs 0176-0178] [see Figure 33 and Figure 31].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashrafi ( US 20190069187, hereinafter, Ashrafi’s 187) in view of Le Roux et al. ( US 20110069609, hereinafter, Le Roux’s 609), and further in view of YANG et al. ( US 20120307631, hereinafter, YANG’s 631).
Regarding to the claim 3, Ashrafi’s 187 and Le Roux’s 609 teach the limitations of the claim 1 above.
However, Ashrafi’s 187 does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is a policy and charging rules (PCRF) function.
YANG’s 631, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is a policy and charging rules (PCRF) function [see Paragraphs 0020 & 0029].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the combined system ( Ashrafi’s 187 and Le Roux’s 609), and further in view of YANG’s 631 because YANG’s 631 suggests that The present disclosure relates generally to communication network and, more particularly, to a method and apparatus for providing congestion management for a wireless network, e.g., a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12132645 in view of claim 4 and claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12132645.
Regarding to the claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12132645 teaches obtaining, by a device and from a router, information indicating that a primary backhaul link of a private network is down, wherein a route condition policy is activated when the private network is down; and sending, by the device and based on the information, a message to a controller of a private network [see the claim 1].
However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12132645 does not explicitly teach wherein the message, when received by the controller, is to cause the controller to deactivate the route condition policy.
Claim 4 and claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12132645 teach wherein the message, when received by the controller, is to cause the controller to deactivate the route condition policy.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of claim 1 in view of the claim 4 because the U.S. Patent No. US 12132645 suggests that a typical backhaul provides a plurality of backhaul links to connect an access network to a core network. The plurality of backhaul links may comprise wired backhaul links and/or wireless backhaul links.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose wherein the other message indicates that the BBU is to remove one or more spectrum sharing parameters for the private network, and wherein the other message, when received by the BBU, is to cause the BBU to remove the one or more spectrum sharing parameters.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose wherein the other message indicates that the BBU is to remove one or more spectrum sharing parameters for the private network, and wherein the other message, when received by the BBU, is to cause the BBU to remove the one or more spectrum sharing parameters
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG T HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3133. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/CHUONG T HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights