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
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Sivasiva Ganesan et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0351752 A1) in view of Shizume (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0181478 A1).
As to claim 1, Sivasiva Ganesan et al teach a network bridge port allocation method (pars. 0112-0113 & 0187-0188, network bridge port allocation), comprising:
establishing, by a user equipment (UE), a session association with a protocol data unit (PDU) (pars. 0138-0139, creating a session associated with a UE and a PDU); establishing a mapping table of a device-side time sensitive network translator (DS-TT) according to the session association(pars. 0145-0153, 0163, 0190-0192, 0237, creating a mapping associated with a DS-TT and a UE); and allocating an updated port number to the UE that re-accesses a session after release (pars. 0181, 0185, 0187, 0189-0194, allocating port information to the UE).
However, Sivasiva Ganesan et al do not teach that establishing a mapping table of an initial port number and a media access control (MAC) address.
Shizume teaches that establishing a mapping table of an initial port number and a media access control (MAC) address (figure 2, 0006-0009, figure 6, pars. 0068-0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shizume as stated above with the network bridge port allocation method of Sivasiva Ganesan et al for establishing a mapping table of an initial port number and a media access control (MAC) address because it would have reduced the number of entries of the filtering database in the bridge and improved the data transmission and system utilization.
As to claim 2, Sivasiva Ganesan et al teach that the receiving, by a user plane function (UPF), an MAC address of the DS-TT from a session management function (SMF); and allocating, by the UPF, the initial port number to the DS-TT, to complete the establishment of the session association between the DS-TT/UE and the PDU (pars. 0110-0116, 0119-0120, 0201-0205).
As to claim 3, Sivasiva Ganesan et al teach that establishing, by a user plane function (UPF), the mapping table of the initial port number and the MAC address, wherein the mapping table comprises the initial port number, the MAC address, session release start time, and a session release duration; and reporting, by the UPF, a port number allocated to the DS-TT to a session management function (SMF) (pars. 0187-0192, 0201-0215).
As to claim 4, Sivasiva Ganesan et al teach that in a case that the DS-TT of the UE that releases a session does not re-initiates a session according to the corresponding MAC address at a preset session release duration, deleting, from the mapping table, the initial port number corresponding to the DS-TT (pars. 0185, 0187-0192, 0201-0203).
As to claim 5, Sivasiva Ganesan et al teach that receiving, by a policy control function (PCF), a port number from a session management function (SMF); and transmitting, by the PCF, the port number to a time sensitive network application function (TSN AF) (pars. 0110-0120, 0187-0191, 0201-0203).
As to claim 6, Sivasiva Ganesan et al teach that receiving, by a user plane function (UPF) from a session management function (SMF), the MAC address of the DS-TT of the UE that re-accesses a session after release; querying, by the UPF, the mapping table; in a case that the initial port number corresponding to the MAC address is found, allocating the initial port number as an updated port number to the DS-TT of the UE that re-accesses a session after release; and in a case that no initial port number corresponding to the MAC address is found, re-allocating an updated port number to the DS-TT of the UE that re-accesses a session after release (pars. 0110-0120, , 0187-0191, 0201-0208, 0211, 0237).
As to claims 7-11, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-6 above, since claims 7-11 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the method claims 1-6, and claims 7-11 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-6.
As to claim 12, it is also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claim 1 above, since claim 12 is merely a program product for the method of operations defined in the method claim 1, and claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claim 1.
As to claims 13-18, they are also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1-6 above, since claims 13-18 are merely an apparatus for the method of operations defined in the method claims 1-6, and claims 13-18 do not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claims 1-6.
As to claim 19, Sivasiva Ganesan et al teach that the mapping table of MAC address information and the Ethernet port number allocated to the DS-TT port by the UPF is periodically stored on the UPF (pars. 0189-0194, 0208).
As to claim 20, Sivasiva Ganesan et al teach that transmitting, by the SMF, the MAC address of the DS-TT to the UPF through an N4 port packet forwarding control protocol (PFCP) session establishment or PFCP session modification request (pars. 0112, 0120, 0185-0192, 0201-0203).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program is configured to, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1,” which is a program product claim and dependent on a method claim 1; and the method of steps are not positively recited in the claim 12, which are intended processes/steps for claimed invention; therefore, the claim 12 is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Additional Reference
The examiner as of general interest cites the following reference.
a. Florit et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0047472 A1.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. 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.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights