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 Amendment
This communication is in response to a response filed on November 10th, 2025.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 14 have been canceled.
The previously raised 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for claims 1, 4-13, and 16-20 is withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 10th, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as presented in this office action.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Killick et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0201946), hereinafter Killick; in view of Shumate (Pub. No. US 2010/0118697); and further in view of Roethig et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0302257), hereinafter Roethig.
Claim 1. Killick discloses [a] method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system comprising one or more processor devices (See Fig. 1-2), data indicative of a request to allocate an additional bandwidth amount to a subscriber line of a plurality of subscriber lines assigned to a network device (See Parag. [0022-0023]; the present invention can be understood in the context of a DSL (digital subscriber line) subscriber network system, where the subscriber can temporarily reallocate bandwidth from an under used service to a service that needs more bandwidth than is normally allocated to it subscriber, through the GUI, may request the bandwidth of a specific service be reduced and the newly available bandwidth be allocated to a specific service identified by the subscriber. See Parag. [0024]; a service provider 200 provides multiple services to a plurality of subscribers 300, 400, 500. Each subscriber 300, 400, 500 access the wide area network (WAN) 100 through a RG (router/gateway) (network device). Each RG then distributes the services subscribed to the various devices attached to its LAN. See Parag. [0029]; the subscriber selects from the UI, the service requiring additional bandwidth and selects one or more service(s) from a plurality of services whose bandwidth may be reduced. See also Parag. [0026]);
evaluating at least one criterion to determine a value metric for each of the plurality of subscriber lines (See Parag. [0025]; FIG. 2 illustrates a simplified non-limiting example of one DSL subscriber system; the RG 510 may assign bandwidth to devices 520, 530, 540, 550 attached to its LAN 500 according to default and critical bandwidth rules. In one embodiment, the default and critical bandwidth rules comprise information sent by the service provider 200 to the RG 510 with information concerning the subscription services being provided and the available resources for each service. In another embodiment, the default and critical rules can be created from information received from the service provider in combination with information from the individual subscriber devices 520, 530, 540, 550. In either case, the default rules generally provide for the minimum required bandwidth for normal service operations for the subscriber devices 520, 530, 540, 550. In one embodiment, the critical bandwidth rules comprise the bandwidth allocations that are critical to the functions of the network or the subscriber and may not be reduced. For example, critical bandwidth may be related to services for VoIP, emergency services, or network administrative functions required to maintain the integrity of the communication pathway between the subscriber device 520, 530, 540, 550 and the RG 510).
Killick doesn’t explicitly disclose determining, by the computing system, that a sum of the additional bandwidth amount and an aggregate bandwidth amount that is currently allocated to the plurality of subscriber lines exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device; identifying a candidate subscriber line of the plurality of subscriber lines to de-assign from the network device based at least in part on the value metric for the candidate subscriber line and a current bandwidth allocated to the candidate subscriber line; and de-assigning the candidate subscriber line from the network device.
However, Shumate discloses determining, by the computing system, that a sum of the additional bandwidth amount and an aggregate bandwidth amount that is currently allocated to the plurality of subscriber lines exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device (See Parag. [0034-0035]; a first viewer at Subscriber 1 watches content from the video source 102A (one HD channel) via HDTV 122. Using an HD video recorder (DVR 120), the first viewer also records another HD channel, for instance content from the video source 102B. Therefore, the first viewer is using a bandwidth of 16 Mbps in total (8 Mbps+8 Mbps=16 Mbps). At the same time, a second viewer at Subscriber 1 attempts view content from source 102C of an SD channel (4 Mbps) on a standard definition television (SDTV 126). Using a standard definition digital video recorder or the SD DVR 124, the second viewer also attempts to record another SD channel (4 Mbps) of content from the video source 102N. In this example, the bandwidth needed of 24 Mbps in total (8 Mbps+8 Mbps+4 Mbps+4 Mbps=24 Mbps) and exceeds the available bandwidth of 22.8 Mbps (maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device) … the requested bandwidth exceeds the available bandwidth. See also Parag. [0038]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the DSL subscriber network system, taught by Killick, to determine that a sum of the additional bandwidth amount and an aggregate bandwidth amount that is currently allocated to the plurality of subscriber lines exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device, as taught by Shumate. This would be convenient to have a system that cost effectively maximizes the available bandwidth and minimizes degradation and disruption to viewing experience in situations involving requests for more video data than can actually fit through the pipe (Shumate; Parag. [0009]).
Roethig discloses identifying a candidate subscriber line of the plurality of subscriber lines to de-assign from the network device based at least in part on the value metric for the candidate subscriber line and a current bandwidth allocated to the candidate subscriber line; and de-assigning the candidate subscriber line from the network device (See Parag. [0009]; providing a plurality of data channels on a communications link, determining unused bandwidth as a difference between total bandwidth provided by the communications link and bandwidth used by the plurality of data channels, allocating the unused bandwidth to a virtual channel. See Parag. [0106]; a first channel from the plurality of data channels may be removed, and bandwidth allocated to the virtual channel may be increased by an amount corresponding to an amount of bandwidth released by removing the first channel).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the DSL subscriber network system, taught by Killick, to identifying a candidate subscriber line of the plurality of subscriber lines to de-assign from the network device based at least in part on the value metric for the candidate subscriber line and a current bandwidth allocated to the candidate subscriber line, and de-assigning the candidate subscriber line from the network device, as taught by Shumate. This would be convenient for improvements in methods for managing the interfaces between devices (Roethig; Parag. [0009]).
Claim 3. Killick in view of Shumate and Roethig discloses [t]he method of claim 1,
Shumate further discloses wherein the method further comprises modifying a bandwidth amount currently allocated to the subscriber line of the plurality of subscriber lines based on the additional bandwidth amount (See Parag. [0035]; Given that the requested bandwidth exceeds the available bandwidth of the subscriber-line, the switch control 132 selects, on a channel-by-channel basis, one or more video streams having lower bit-rates in order to forward all the desired channels to Subscriber 1. For instance, depending on bandwidth availability, complexity of each video channel, and weight of each channel, the switch control 132 determines which encoded bit-rate stream, from the service-sets corresponding to the video sources 102A through 102N, to forward to the Subscriber 1).
Claim 13. Killick discloses [a] computing system, comprising:
a memory; and a processor device coupled to the memory (See Fig. 1-2) to:
receive data indicative of a request to allocate an additional bandwidth amount to a subscriber line of a plurality of subscriber lines assigned to a network device (See Parag. [0022-0023]; the present invention can be understood in the context of a DSL (digital subscriber line) subscriber network system, where the subscriber can temporarily reallocate bandwidth from an under used service to a service that needs more bandwidth than is normally allocated to it subscriber, through the GUI, may request the bandwidth of a specific service be reduced and the newly available bandwidth be allocated to a specific service identified by the subscriber. See Parag. [0024]; a service provider 200 provides multiple services to a plurality of subscribers 300, 400, 500. Each subscriber 300, 400, 500 access the wide area network (WAN) 100 through a RG (router/gateway) (network device). Each RG then distributes the services subscribed to the various devices attached to its LAN. See Parag. [0029]; the subscriber selects from the UI, the service requiring additional bandwidth and selects one or more service(s) from a plurality of services whose bandwidth may be reduced. See also Parag. [0026]);
evaluate at least one criterion to determine a value metric for each of the plurality of subscriber lines (See Parag. [0025]; FIG. 2 illustrates a simplified non-limiting example of one DSL subscriber system; the RG 510 may assign bandwidth to devices 520, 530, 540, 550 attached to its LAN 500 according to default and critical bandwidth rules. In one embodiment, the default and critical bandwidth rules comprise information sent by the service provider 200 to the RG 510 with information concerning the subscription services being provided and the available resources for each service. In another embodiment, the default and critical rules can be created from information received from the service provider in combination with information from the individual subscriber devices 520, 530, 540, 550. In either case, the default rules generally provide for the minimum required bandwidth for normal service operations for the subscriber devices 520, 530, 540, 550. In one embodiment, the critical bandwidth rules comprise the bandwidth allocations that are critical to the functions of the network or the subscriber and may not be reduced. For example, critical bandwidth may be related to services for VoIP, emergency services, or network administrative functions required to maintain the integrity of the communication pathway between the subscriber device 520, 530, 540, 550 and the RG 510).
Killick doesn’t explicitly disclose determine that a sum of the additional bandwidth amount and an aggregate bandwidth amount that is currently allocated to the plurality of subscriber lines exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device; identify a candidate subscriber line of the plurality of subscriber lines to de-assign from the network device based at least in part on the value metric for the candidate subscriber line and a current bandwidth allocated to the candidate subscriber line; and de-assign the candidate subscriber line from the network device.
However, Shumate discloses determine that a sum of the additional bandwidth amount and an aggregate bandwidth amount that is currently allocated to the plurality of subscriber lines exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device (See Parag. [0034-0035]; a first viewer at Subscriber 1 watches content from the video source 102A (one HD channel) via HDTV 122. Using an HD video recorder (DVR 120), the first viewer also records another HD channel, for instance content from the video source 102B. Therefore, the first viewer is using a bandwidth of 16 Mbps in total (8 Mbps+8 Mbps=16 Mbps). At the same time, a second viewer at Subscriber 1 attempts view content from source 102C of an SD channel (4 Mbps) on a standard definition television (SDTV 126). Using a standard definition digital video recorder or the SD DVR 124, the second viewer also attempts to record another SD channel (4 Mbps) of content from the video source 102N. In this example, the bandwidth needed of 24 Mbps in total (8 Mbps+8 Mbps+4 Mbps+4 Mbps=24 Mbps) and exceeds the available bandwidth of 22.8 Mbps (maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device) … the requested bandwidth exceeds the available bandwidth. See also Parag. [0038]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the DSL subscriber network system, taught by Killick, to determine that a sum of the additional bandwidth amount and an aggregate bandwidth amount that is currently allocated to the plurality of subscriber lines exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device, as taught by Shumate. This would be convenient to have a system that cost effectively maximizes the available bandwidth and minimizes degradation and disruption to viewing experience in situations involving requests for more video data than can actually fit through the pipe (Shumate; Parag. [0009]).
Roethig discloses identify a candidate subscriber line of the plurality of subscriber lines to de-assign from the network device based at least in part on the value metric for the candidate subscriber line and a current bandwidth allocated to the candidate subscriber line; and de-assign the candidate subscriber line from the network device (See Parag. [0009]; providing a plurality of data channels on a communications link, determining unused bandwidth as a difference between total bandwidth provided by the communications link and bandwidth used by the plurality of data channels, allocating the unused bandwidth to a virtual channel. See Parag. [0106]; a first channel from the plurality of data channels may be removed, and bandwidth allocated to the virtual channel may be increased by an amount corresponding to an amount of bandwidth released by removing the first channel).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the DSL subscriber network system, taught by Killick, to identifying a candidate subscriber line of the plurality of subscriber lines to de-assign from the network device based at least in part on the value metric for the candidate subscriber line and a current bandwidth allocated to the candidate subscriber line, and de-assigning the candidate subscriber line from the network device, as taught by Shumate. This would be convenient for improvements in methods for managing the interfaces between devices (Roethig; Parag. [0009]).
Claim 15 is taught by Killick in view of Shumate and Roethig as described for claims 3.
Claim 20. Killick discloses [a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes executable instructions to cause one or more processor devices to:
receive data indicative of a request to allocate an additional bandwidth amount to a subscriber line of a plurality of subscriber lines assigned to a network device (See Parag. [0022-0023]; the present invention can be understood in the context of a DSL (digital subscriber line) subscriber network system, where the subscriber can temporarily reallocate bandwidth from an under used service to a service that needs more bandwidth than is normally allocated to it subscriber, through the GUI, may request the bandwidth of a specific service be reduced and the newly available bandwidth be allocated to a specific service identified by the subscriber. See Parag. [0024]; a service provider 200 provides multiple services to a plurality of subscribers 300, 400, 500. Each subscriber 300, 400, 500 access the wide area network (WAN) 100 through a RG (router/gateway) (network device). Each RG then distributes the services subscribed to the various devices attached to its LAN. See Parag. [0029]; the subscriber selects from the UI, the service requiring additional bandwidth and selects one or more service(s) from a plurality of services whose bandwidth may be reduced. See also Parag. [0026]);
evaluate at least one criterion to determine a value metric for each of the plurality of subscriber lines (See Parag. [0025]; FIG. 2 illustrates a simplified non-limiting example of one DSL subscriber system; the RG 510 may assign bandwidth to devices 520, 530, 540, 550 attached to its LAN 500 according to default and critical bandwidth rules. In one embodiment, the default and critical bandwidth rules comprise information sent by the service provider 200 to the RG 510 with information concerning the subscription services being provided and the available resources for each service. In another embodiment, the default and critical rules can be created from information received from the service provider in combination with information from the individual subscriber devices 520, 530, 540, 550. In either case, the default rules generally provide for the minimum required bandwidth for normal service operations for the subscriber devices 520, 530, 540, 550. In one embodiment, the critical bandwidth rules comprise the bandwidth allocations that are critical to the functions of the network or the subscriber and may not be reduced. For example, critical bandwidth may be related to services for VoIP, emergency services, or network administrative functions required to maintain the integrity of the communication pathway between the subscriber device 520, 530, 540, 550 and the RG 510).
Killick doesn’t explicitly disclose determine that a sum of the additional bandwidth amount and an aggregate bandwidth amount that is currently allocated to the plurality of subscriber lines exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device; identify a candidate subscriber line of the plurality of subscriber lines to de-assign from the network device based at least in part on the value metric for the candidate subscriber line and a current bandwidth allocated to the candidate subscriber line; and de-assign the candidate subscriber line from the network device.
However, Shumate discloses determine that a sum of the additional bandwidth amount and an aggregate bandwidth amount that is currently allocated to the plurality of subscriber lines exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device (See Parag. [0034-0035]; a first viewer at Subscriber 1 watches content from the video source 102A (one HD channel) via HDTV 122. Using an HD video recorder (DVR 120), the first viewer also records another HD channel, for instance content from the video source 102B. Therefore, the first viewer is using a bandwidth of 16 Mbps in total (8 Mbps+8 Mbps=16 Mbps). At the same time, a second viewer at Subscriber 1 attempts view content from source 102C of an SD channel (4 Mbps) on a standard definition television (SDTV 126). Using a standard definition digital video recorder or the SD DVR 124, the second viewer also attempts to record another SD channel (4 Mbps) of content from the video source 102N. In this example, the bandwidth needed of 24 Mbps in total (8 Mbps+8 Mbps+4 Mbps+4 Mbps=24 Mbps) and exceeds the available bandwidth of 22.8 Mbps (maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device) … the requested bandwidth exceeds the available bandwidth. See also Parag. [0038]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the DSL subscriber network system, taught by Killick, to determine that a sum of the additional bandwidth amount and an aggregate bandwidth amount that is currently allocated to the plurality of subscriber lines exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of the network device, as taught by Shumate. This would be convenient to have a system that cost effectively maximizes the available bandwidth and minimizes degradation and disruption to viewing experience in situations involving requests for more video data than can actually fit through the pipe (Shumate; Parag. [0009]).
Roethig discloses identify a candidate subscriber line of the plurality of subscriber lines to de-assign from the network device based at least in part on the value metric for the candidate subscriber line and a current bandwidth allocated to the candidate subscriber line; and de-assign the candidate subscriber line from the network device (See Parag. [0009]; providing a plurality of data channels on a communications link, determining unused bandwidth as a difference between total bandwidth provided by the communications link and bandwidth used by the plurality of data channels, allocating the unused bandwidth to a virtual channel. See Parag. [0106]; a first channel from the plurality of data channels may be removed, and bandwidth allocated to the virtual channel may be increased by an amount corresponding to an amount of bandwidth released by removing the first channel).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the DSL subscriber network system, taught by Killick, to identifying a candidate subscriber line of the plurality of subscriber lines to de-assign from the network device based at least in part on the value metric for the candidate subscriber line and a current bandwidth allocated to the candidate subscriber line, and de-assigning the candidate subscriber line from the network device, as taught by Shumate. This would be convenient for improvements in methods for managing the interfaces between devices (Roethig; Parag. [0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12 and 16-19 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 the reason for objecting to claim 4 and 16:
Killick et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0201946), hereinafter Killick, in view of Shumate (Pub. No. US 2010/0118697), and further in view of Roethig et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0118697), hereinafter Roethig fails to fairly teach or suggest “wherein the at least one criterion comprises a distance criterion, and wherein evaluating the distance criterion to determine the value metric for each of the plurality of subscriber lines comprises:
determining a distance between each of the plurality of subscriber lines; and
determining the value metric for each of the plurality of subscriber lines based at least in part on the distance between each of the plurality of subscriber lines.”
Claims 5-12 are objected to for the same reason as for claim 4.
Claims 17-19 are objected to for the same reason as for claim 16.
In addition, no other prior art of records teaches or suggests the instant claim as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chebrolu (US 6,754,714) – Related art in the area of allocating ports among various users, (See Col. 4 lines 40-60; An unused channel resource, or port, is readily understood by those of skill in the art as representing a channel resource that is either unallocated or presently unused by the client to which the channel is allocated. An under-utilized channel resource, or port, will be understood to represent a channel resource that is a candidate for de-allocation from the client to which it is allocated so as to free up the channel resource for more productive use. If a primary and a secondary channel are allocated to a client, but the client is using only a fraction of the total bandwidth of the primary and secondary channels, then it may be desirable to increase the use of the primary channel and de-allocate the secondary channel with respect to such an under-utilizing client. The client previously under-utilizing the primary and secondary channel pair will then more fully utilize the still-allocated primary channel, without limitation or discernible impact, while the freed up secondary channel may be reallocated to a new user. Such determination of under-utilization in accordance with the invention is based upon prescribed criteria that form a part of decision logic 14 and usage data from usage table 12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELBASST TALIOUA whose telephone number is (571)272-4061. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am - 5:30 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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Abdelbasst Talioua/Examiner, Art Unit 2445