DETAILED ACTION
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US20240224158A1) in view of Keesara et al. (US20180069727A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a system comprising (para [0002] shows mobile networks that connect to data networks):
a first mobile user plane (MUP) gateway (MUP-GW) and a second MUP-GW (Fig. 10 and para [0129] shows MUP Gateways 1310A-1310B);
a gNodeB having a wireless connection to user equipment (UE) (para [0035] shows access network nodes (e.g., gNodeBs or other base stations) that serve many UEs);
a MUP provider edge (MUP-PE) connected to a data network (para [0141] shows MUP PEs 1410A-1410B that provides reachability to the desired one of data networks (DNs) 1406B, 1406C); and
an access network, the first MUP-GW, the second MUP-GW, and the MUP-PE being connected to the access network (para [0003] shows an end-user network device establishes a network connection with an access network, and the access network communicates with a core network that is connected to one or more data networks (DNs); para [0009] shows an integrated Access Network-User Plane (ANUP) function in mobile networks; para [0068] shows in this flattened architecture, IETF and 3GPP technologies are applied where they are best applicable—3GPP for the radio access network and IETF for transport network and data network; para [0129] shows MUP PEs 1410 and MUP Gateways 1310 connect over transport network 141).
Zhang fails to teach the gNodeBs is dual-homed with respect to the first MUP-GW and the second MUP-GW;
wherein the first MUP-GW is configured to route traffic received from the MUP-PE to the second MUP-GW in response to link failure with respect to the gNodeB.
However, Keesara discloses:
a gNodeB [access network 120-1] that is dual-homed with respect to the first MUP-GW [edge device 130-1] and the second MUP-GW [edge devices 130-1] (para [0008] shows edge devices may be referred to as Backbone Edge Bridge (BEB); Fig. 1 and para [0027] show edge devices 130-1 and 130-2 provide dual homing to access network 120-1 via links 122-1 and 122-2);
wherein the first MUP-GW [switching device 130-1] is configured to route traffic received from the MUP-PE [switching device 130-3] to the second MUP-GW [switching device 130-2] in response to link failure with respect to the gNodeB (para [0027] shows a static route 112-1 connects switching device 130-3 to switching device 130-1, and a static route 112-2 connects switching device 130-3 to switching device 130-2; para [0046] shows link 137 failure detection includes determining that the switching device 130-1 or the partner device 130-2 is down; Fig. 6 and para [0049] show this will allow traffic arriving at the switching device 130-1 to be redirected to the switching device 130-2 in event of the failure of link(s) 137-1 between the switching device 130-1 and a dual homed access network.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Zhang with the teaching of Keesara in order to redirect traffic in event of the failure of link(s) (Keesara; para [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 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.
Zhang discloses N3 interface (para [0009]) and a type 1 session transformed route (ST1) (para [0166]) but fails to show “resolving a type 1 session transformed route (ST1) with a N3 internetwork segment discovery (ISD) route” as in claim 2.
Zhang discloses N3 interface (para [0009]) but fails to show “detecting that a N3 internetwork segment discovery (ISD) route of the second MUP-GW references the address of the gNodeB” as in claim 3.
Zhang discloses N6 interface (para [0010]) but fails to show “N6 internetwork segment discovery (ISD)” as in claims 4-5.
Zhang discloses N3 interface (para [0009]) but fails to show “N3 internetwork segment discovery (ISD) route” as in claims 6-13.
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Mohanty et al. (US20220231936A1) discloses in para [0011] when the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) prefix independent convergence (PIC) feature is enabled, BGP calculates a backup/alternate path per prefix and installs it into BGP routing information base (RIB), IP RIB, and forwarding information base (FIB). This improves convergence after a network failure. Mohanty fails to teach “in response to detecting failure of the link to the gNodeB, routing, by the first MUP-GW, the traffic to the second MUP-GW according to border gateway protocol (BGP) prefix independent convergence (PIC)” as in claims 14-20.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel et al. (US20260046733A1) discloses in [Abstract] Border gateway protocol (BGP) prefix-independent convergence is implemented over a mobile user plane (MUP). Routing may be performed using MPLS; para [0020] shows the MUP-GW 110a may function as a gateway router and may be connected by the access network 106 to the data network 104 by a provider edge router 112 that is enabled to perform MUP (MUP-PE 112),
Patel et al. (US20260046244A1) discloses in [Abstract] Mobile User Plane (MUP) over Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) is implemented over an access an access network connecting a provider edge router to a gateway router.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN DOAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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.
/TAN DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights