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 .
Priority
The instant application is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/659,186, filed Apr. 14, 2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-11, 13-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Junos (M:N Subscriber Redundancy, 3/26/2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210423182425/https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/subscriber-mgmt-sessions/topics/topic-map/m-to-n-subscriber-redundancy.html, retrieved 7/29/2026).
As to claim 1, Junos teaches a first access gateway function (AGF) device (fig. 8, Master BNG teaches a first access gateway), comprising: one or more memories; and
one or more processors to: establish, with a control plane core network device, a protocol data unit (PDU) session associated with a client device via a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP), wherein the PDU session is associated with at least one of a subscriber identity associated with the client device, session information, subscriber context, or session transport information (fig. 8, i.e. session, via Master BNG, between core network and client device and pg. 13, “DHCP Active Leasequery Topology Discovery and M:N Subscriber Redundancy”);
forward one or more data communications, associated with the PDU session, between the client device and a user plane core network device (pg. 13, “…data traffic to continue without interruption both when the primary BNG fails over to the backup and when it resumes the primary role.” and fig. 8); and
transmit, to a second AGF device, a communication indicating at least one of the subscriber identity, the session information, the subscriber context, or the session transport information associated with the PDU session to enable the second AGF device to maintain the PDU session with the client device (pg. 7, “…Subscriber bindings and subscriber state are mirrored synchronously to the backup BNG, as are the primary BNG's ARP and neighbor discovery information. Each subscriber is brought up on the backup BNG and its state is Active. Because the subscribers are active simultaneously on the primary and backup BNG, the backup BNG does not perform any subscriber processing during a failover event”).
As to claim 2, Junos teaches wherein the communication includes at least one of:
an active lease query (ALQ) communication, an individual lease query communication, or a bulk lease query (BLQ) communication (fig. 11, “Active-Leasequery”).
As to claim 6, Junos teaches wherein the communication includes an indication of DHCP binding information associated with the PDU session (pg. 31, “How to Configure M:N Subscriber Redundancy with VRRP and DHCP Binding Synchronization”).
As to claim 7, Junos teaches wherein the one or more processors are further to:
transmit, to the second AGF device, one or more virtual router redundancy protocol (VRRP) communications or one or more bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD) communications to facilitate a detection of a failure associated with the first AGF device (pg. 9, “VRRP Topology and Configuration for Primary and Backup Routers”).
As to claim 8, Junos further 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 first access gateway function (AGF) device (fig. 8, Master BNG teaches a first access gateway). Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 are substantially similar to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claim 9, Junos further teaches wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: establish, with a control plane core network device, a network connection with a core network (fig. 8).
As to claim 10, Junos further teaches wherein the communication enables the second AGF device to maintain a data structure indicating information associated with the PDU session (pg. 8, “routing table”).
As to claim 11, Junos further teaches wherein the PDU session is associated with the client device via a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) (pg. 11, “DHCP”).
As to claim 13, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 2. Please refer to claim 2 above.
As to claim 14, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 6. Please refer to claim 6 above.
As to claim 15, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar or broader in scope to claim 1. Please refer to claim 1 above.
As to claim 16, Junos further teaches wherein the communication enables the second AGF device to maintain a database or list indicating information associated with the PDU session (pg. 8, “routing table”).
As to claim 17, Junos teaches wherein the communication is a lease query communication (fig. 11, “Active-Leasequery”).
As to claim 19, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 7. Please refer to claim 7 above.
As to claim 20, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 6. Please refer to claim 6 above.
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) 3-5, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junos in view of Talebi Fard et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200314701 A1) (“Fard” hereinafter).
As to claim 3, Junos does not explicitly teach NGAP information.
However, in the same field of endeavor (network communications) Fard teaches communication includes an indication of at least one of: non-access stratum (NAS) information associated with the PDU session, or next generation application protocol (NGAP) information associated with the PDU session (paragraph [0089], “In an example, if old AMF 155 holds information about established PDU sessions, the old AMF 155 may include SMF 160 information including S-NSSAI(s), SMF 160 identities and PDU session ID. In an example, if old AMF 155 holds information about active NGAP UE-TNLA bindings to N3IWF, the old AMF 155 may include information about the NGAP UE-TNLA bindings”).
Based on Junos in view of Fard, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate NGAP information (taught by Fard) with session information mirroring (taught by Junos) in order to utilize the information to continue previous session in case of a failover.
As to claim 4, Junos does not explicitly teach SUPI information.
However, in the same field of endeavor (network communications) Fard teaches subscriber identity, the session information, the subscriber context, or the session transport information includes an indication of at least one of: a subscriber unique permanent identifier (SUPI) associated with the client device and the PDU session, a subscriber unique concealed identifier (SUCI) associated with the client device and the PDU session, a global unique temporary identifier (GUTI) associated with the client device and the PDU session, or a PDU session identifier associated with the PDU session (paragraph [0089], “In an example, the old AMF 155 may send to new AMF 155 a response 815 to Namf_Communication_UEContextTransfer (SUPI, MM context, SMF 160 information, PCF ID)”).
Based on Junos in view of Fard, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate SUPI information (taught by Fard) with session information mirroring (taught by Junos) in order to utilize the information to continue previous session in case of a failover.
As to claim 5, Junos does not explicitly teach NGAP information.
However, in the same field of endeavor (network communications) Fard teaches wherein the subscriber identity, the session information, the subscriber context, or the session transport information includes an indication of at least one of: a global unique access and mobility function (AMF) identifier (GUAMI) associated with the PDU session, an AMF user equipment (UE) next generation application protocol (NGAP) identifier associated with the PDU session, a radio access network (RAN) UE NGAP identifier associated with the PDU session, PDU session information associated with the PDU session, general packet radio service (GPRS) tunneling protocol (GTP) information associated with the PDU session, or UE context information associated with the PDU session (paragraph [0089], “In an example, if old AMF 155 holds information about established PDU sessions, the old AMF 155 may include SMF 160 information including S-NSSAI(s), SMF 160 identities and PDU session ID. In an example, if old AMF 155 holds information about active NGAP UE-TNLA bindings to N3IWF, the old AMF 155 may include information about the NGAP UE-TNLA bindings”).
Based on Junos in view of Fard, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate NGAP information (taught by Fard) with session information mirroring (taught by Junos) in order to utilize the information to continue previous session in case of a failover.
As to claim 12, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 5. Please refer to claim 5 above.
As to claim 18, the limitations of the claim are substantially similar to claim 3. Please refer to claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, EST.
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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights