Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/100,786

HOME NETWORK RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 24, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, BAO G
Art Unit
2461
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Hughes Network Systems LLC
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
256 granted / 350 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
406
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
71.9%
+31.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§112
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 350 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeitak (EP 1704491 B1) in view of Xu (Pub No 20170317943), and further in view of Jayawardena (Pub No 20210067489) Regarding claim 1 and 11 and 20, Zeitak teaches a method, comprising: modem comprising: (see modem communication network; pg 2 line 5-8) receiving a plurality of traffic flows transmitted by a plurality of user devices comprising the plurality of user devices and a modem, wherein the number of the plurality of traffic flows exceeds the number of the plurality of the user devices, and at least one of the plurality of user devices transmitted at least two of the plurality of traffic flows; (interpreted as receiving, at a network policer, a plurality of data flows having different class of service (CoS) priority levels, the data flows associated with a single user having an allocated bandwidth, see pg. 3 line 38-48) determining, at the modem, a user device of the plurality of user devices that transmitted each traffic flow of the plurality of traffic flows; (interpreted as the data flows associated with a single user having an allocated bandwidth, see pg. 3 line 38-48) classifying, at the modem, each traffic flow of the plurality of traffic flows as being associated with a class of service the plurality of traffic flows being classified as belonging to a plurality of classes of service and a plurality of traffic classes; and distributing, at the modem, available bandwidth between the plurality of traffic flows based on the plurality of classes of service, and the plurality of user devices by: (interpreted as receiving, at a network policer, a plurality of data flows having different class of service (CoS) priority levels, the data flows associated with a single user having an allocated bandwidth, see pg. 3 line 38-48) distributing, to each traffic flow of the plurality of traffic flows, a portion of the available bandwidth based on the class of service associated with the traffic flow, (interpreted as processing the data flows while sharing the allocated bandwidth between the different CoS priority levels in a prioritized manner; see pg. 3 line 38-48) and the user device that transmitted the traffic flow. (interpreted as That is, the bandwidth is not shared among other users when the high priority CoS data flow of a user is idle. In other words, paid-for bandwidth is first used for lower priority packets of the paying user rather than being utilized by high priority packets of another user who does not pay for the additional bandwidth that may be needed, see pg 3 line 35-42) However does not teach satellite modem; one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to perform operations; over a local area network; classifying and distributing based on the traffic class associated with the flow. Xu teaches satellite modem; (see modem para [0133]. Also see satellite network, see para [0028]) one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to perform operations; (see processor, memory para [0130]) over a local area network comprising a modem that provides Internet access to the plurality of user devices at a user's premises; (see Lan para [0133]. Also see satellite 110 are provided to facilitate communication between various CPEs (142-148), via the satellite terminals 130a-130n (collectively 130), and external networks. The external networks can include, for example, a public network 150 (e.g., the Internet) or a private network 160, see para [0028]) classifying and distributing based on the traffic class associated with the flow. (interpreted as According to at least one embodiment, the output queues can include an expedited queue 632, an interactive queue 634, a streaming queue 636, a bulk queue 638, and a conversational queue 640, see para [0051]. Also see Determining a is based on the frequency at which Layer 3 packets (from first input queue 612 and second input queue 620) are pushed into Layer 2 queues (output queues 632-640), see para [0056]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modem communication network that distributes bandwidth taught by Zeitak with the traffic class distribution as taught by Xu with the motivation being to improve the distribution of bandwidth process by adding additional parameters. However Zeitak in view of Xu do not teach determining a user device based on a source IP address or destination IP address of each traffic flow. Jayawardena teaches determining a user device based on a source IP address or destination IP address of each traffic flow. (interpreted as For example, the source device 105 may be assigned a source IP address 104 from which to send and/or receive communications, and as such, the source IP address 104 may be a valid, authentic IP address to identify the source device 105 as the source of traffic flows being sent and the destination address for the source device 105 to receive communications, see para [0034]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modem communication network that distributes bandwidth taught by Zeitak in view of Xu with the traffic class distribution as taught by Jayawardena with the motivation being to differentiate the flows for bandwidth allocation based on the address. Regarding claim 2 and 12, Zeitak teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein: distributing the available bandwidth between the plurality of traffic flows comprises: determining, at a point in time, an amount of data to be moved from a plurality of layer 3 queues to a respective plurality layer 2 queues; each of the plurality of layer 3 queues is associated with a respective one of the plurality of traffic classes; and each of the plurality of layer 2 queues is associated with a respective one of the plurality of traffic classes. Xu teaches wherein: distributing the available bandwidth between the plurality of traffic flows comprises: determining, at a point in time, an amount of data to be moved from a plurality of layer 3 queues to a respective plurality layer 2 queues; each of the plurality of layer 3 queues is associated with a respective one of the plurality of traffic classes; and each of the plurality of layer 2 queues is associated with a respective one of the plurality of traffic classes. (interpreted as According to at least one embodiment, the output queues can include an expedited queue 632, an interactive queue 634, a streaming queue 636, a bulk queue 638, and a conversational queue 640, see para [0051]. Also see Determining a is based on the frequency at which Layer 3 packets (from first input queue 612 and second input queue 620) are pushed into Layer 2 queues (output queues 632-640), see para [0056]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modem communication network that distributes bandwidth taught by Zeitak with the traffic class distribution as taught by Xu with the motivation being to improve the distribution of bandwidth process by adding additional parameters. Regarding claim 3 and 13, Zeitak teaches the method of claim 2, however does not teach wherein distributing the available bandwidth between the plurality of traffic flows comprises: determining, at the point in time, a length of each of the plurality of layer 2 queues. Xu teaches wherein distributing the available bandwidth between the plurality of traffic flows comprises: determining, at the point in time, a length of each of the plurality of layer 2 queues. (interpreted as According to various embodiments, the decision point 630 en-queues (or places) packets on the expedited (or first) queue 632 based various criteria, including: channel condition, SCMA unacknowledged (NACK) rate, expedited queue size, see para [0052]. Also see According to an embodiment, the criteria of the expedited queue size is based, at least in part, on an active queue size management using the measured or expected delay. For example, let DTar,Expd be the delay target of the expedited queue 632, and DExpd be the measured average delay of packets in the expedited queue 632, see para [0054]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modem communication network that distributes bandwidth taught by Zeitak with the queue size as taught by Xu with the motivation being to improve the distribution of bandwidth process by adding additional parameters. Regarding claim 4 and 14, Zeitak teaches the method of claim 2, however does not teach wherein: distributing the available bandwidth between the plurality of traffic flows comprises: determining an amount of data to be placed in each of the plurality of layer 3 queues based on a queuing delay determined for each of the plurality of traffic classes. Xu teaches wherein: distributing the available bandwidth between the plurality of traffic flows comprises: determining an amount of data to be placed in each of the plurality of layer 3 queues based on a queuing delay determined for each of the plurality of traffic classes. (interpreted as According to various embodiments, the decision point 630 en-queues (or places) packets on the expedited (or first) queue 632 based various criteria, including: channel condition, SCMA unacknowledged (NACK) rate, expedited queue size, see para [0052]. Also see According to an embodiment, the criteria of the expedited queue size is based, at least in part, on an active queue size management using the measured or expected delay. For example, let DTar,Expd be the delay target of the expedited queue 632, and DExpd be the measured average delay of packets in the expedited queue 632, see para [0054]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modem communication network that distributes bandwidth taught by Zeitak with the queue size as taught by Xu with the motivation being to improve the distribution of bandwidth process by adding additional parameters. Regarding claim 6 and 16, Zeitak teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: each user device of the plurality of user devices is assigned a priority relative to the other user devices of the plurality of user devices; and distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to each traffic flow of the plurality of traffic flows comprises: distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to the traffic flow based on the class of service associated with the traffic flow, the traffic class associated with the traffic flow, and the priority of the user device that transmitted the traffic flow. (interpreted as That is, the bandwidth is not shared among other users when the high priority CoS data flow of a user is idle. In other words, paid-for bandwidth is first used for lower priority packets of the paying user rather than being utilized by high priority packets of another user who does not pay for the additional bandwidth that may be needed, see pg 3 line 35-42) Regarding claim 7, Zeitak teaches the method of claim 6, however does not teach wherein: each traffic class of the plurality of traffic classes is assigned a priority relative to the other traffic classes of the plurality of traffic classes; and distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to each traffic flow of the plurality of traffic flows comprises: distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to the traffic flow based on the class of service associated with the traffic flow, the priority of the traffic class associated with the traffic flow, and the priority of the user device that transmitted the traffic flow. Xu teaches wherein: each traffic class of the plurality of traffic classes is assigned a priority relative to the other traffic classes of the plurality of traffic classes; and distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to each traffic flow of the plurality of traffic flows comprises: distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to the traffic flow based on the class of service associated with the traffic flow, the priority of the traffic class associated with the traffic flow, and the priority of the user device that transmitted the traffic flow. (interpreted as For the allocated TDMA burst 818, the gateway does not indicate what amount is for which priority. Each terminal makes its own decision based on priority and pre-assigned weights for priority queues including CBR (Constant Bit Rate service), interactive, streaming, bulk, etc. For example, a first portion 820 of the TDMA burst 818 can carry expedited and interactive data. If this data does not occupy the entire TDMA burst 818, a second portion 822 can carry streaming data. A third portion 824 would carry bulk data, see para [0083]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modem communication network that distributes bandwidth taught by Zeitak with the queue size as taught by Xu with the motivation being to improve the distribution of bandwidth process by adding additional parameters. Regarding claim 9 and 18, Zeitak teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the plurality of traffic classes include at least one traffic class selected from the group consisting of: an interactive traffic class, a streaming traffic class, and a bulk traffic class. Xu teaches wherein the plurality of traffic classes include at least one traffic class selected from the group consisting of: an interactive traffic class, a streaming traffic class, and a bulk traffic class. (interpreted as For the allocated TDMA burst 818, the gateway does not indicate what amount is for which priority. Each terminal makes its own decision based on priority and pre-assigned weights for priority queues including CBR (Constant Bit Rate service), interactive, streaming, bulk, etc. For example, a first portion 820 of the TDMA burst 818 can carry expedited and interactive data. If this data does not occupy the entire TDMA burst 818, a second portion 822 can carry streaming data. A third portion 824 would carry bulk data, see para [0083]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modem communication network that distributes bandwidth taught by Zeitak with the queue size as taught by Xu with the motivation being to improve the distribution of bandwidth process by adding additional parameters. Regarding claim 10, The method of claim 1, wherein: the modem is a satellite modem; and the plurality of traffic flows are destined for transmission over a satellite uplink. (see satellite network para [0028]. Also see For example, the communication interface 1417 may be a digital subscriber line (DSL) card or modem, an integrated services digital network (ISDN) card, a cable modem, fiber optic service (FiOS) line, or any other communication interface to provide a data communication connection to a corresponding type of communication line, see para [0133]). Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeitak (EP 1704491 B1) further in view of Xu (Pub No 20170317943), Jayawardena (Pub No 20210067489), and Schellmann (Pub No 20150351098) Regarding claim 5 and 15, Zeitak in view of Xu and Jayawardena teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein: each traffic class of the plurality of traffic classes has a configured minimum bandwidth; and distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to each traffic flow of the plurality of traffic flows comprises: distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to the traffic flow based on the class of service associated with the traffic flow, the configured minimum bandwidth of the traffic class associated with the traffic flow, and the user device that transmitted the traffic flow. Schellmann teaches wherein: each traffic class of the plurality of traffic classes has a configured minimum bandwidth; and distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to each traffic flow of the plurality of traffic flows comprises: distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to the traffic flow based on the class of service associated with the traffic flow, the configured minimum bandwidth of the traffic class associated with the traffic flow, and the user device that transmitted the traffic flow. (interpreted as interactive for usage of interactive services with data transfer of low errors but higher requirements with respect to delay; streaming for streaming services where a minimum bandwidth is required and jitter is tolerable due to jitter buffer in the receiver; and conversational for telephony and video conferencing with similar requirements as streaming but less tolerable delay and jitter, see para [0053]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modem communication network that distributes bandwidth taught by Zeitak in view of Xu and Jayawardena with the minimum bandwidth as taught by Schellmann with the motivation being to ensure the quality meets a standard. Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeitak (EP 1704491 B1) in view of Xu (Pub No 20170317943) and Jayawardena (Pub No 20210067489), and further in view of Bauer (Pub No 20060221933) Regarding claim 8 and 17, Zeitak in view of Xu and Jayawardena teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein distributing the available bandwidth between the plurality of traffic flows further comprises: after distributing to each traffic flow the portion of the available bandwidth, distributing any leftover bandwidth of the available bandwidth in a round robin scheme in strict priority order. Bauer teaches wherein distributing the available bandwidth between the plurality of traffic flows further comprises: after distributing to each traffic flow the portion of the available bandwidth, distributing any leftover bandwidth of the available bandwidth in a round robin scheme in strict priority order. (interpreted as custom queuing strategy may allocate a specific amount of a queue to each class while leaving the rest of the queue to be filled in a round-robin fashion, a weighted fair queuing strategy may schedule interactive traffic to the front of the queue and share the remaining bandwidth among high-bandwidth flows, see para [0051]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the modem communication network that distributes bandwidth taught by Zeitak in view of Xu and Jayawardena with the round-robin as taught by Bauer with the motivation being to fairly share the remaining bandwidth. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeitak (EP 1704491 B1) in view of Xu (Pub No 20170317943) and Jayawardena (Pub No 20210067489), and further in view of Lee (Pub No 20210099913) Regarding claim 21, Zeitak teaches The method of claim 1, wherein distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to each traffic flow of the plurality of traffic flows comprises: distributing the portion of the available bandwidth to the traffic flow based on the class of service associated with the traffic flow, the traffic class associated with the traffic flow. (interpreted as processing the data flows while sharing the allocated bandwidth between the different CoS priority levels in a prioritized manner; see pg. 3 line 38-48) However Zeitak in view of Xu and Jayawarden does not teach and a number of active traffic flows associated with the user device that transmitted the traffic flow relative to a number of active traffic flows associated with one or more other user devices of the plurality of user devices. Lee teaches and a number of active traffic flows associated with the user device that transmitted the traffic flow relative to a number of active traffic flows associated with one or more other user devices of the plurality of user devices. (interpreted as the first network device may restrict allocation of the available bandwidth in consideration of the number of flows of a terminal connected to the second network device, see para [0076]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the distributes bandwidth taught by Zeitak in view of Xu and Jayawardena with the bandwidth distribution based on flow count as taught by Lee with the motivation being to fairly allocate the bandwidth. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 6:30pm. 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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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. /BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461 /KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 06, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 28, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Mar 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 22, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593346
UPLINK INDICATION FOR FULL-DUPLEX OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587485
Adaptive Buffering in a Distributed System with Latency/Adaptive Tail Drop
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12532213
Communication Coordination and Reduced Processing Techniques for Enhanced Quality of Service Procedures
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12520165
METHOD BY WHICH UE PERFORMS INITIAL ACCESS TO BASE STATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, AND DEVICE THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12513742
CHANNEL DETECTION METHOD, COMMUNICATION DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+3.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 350 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month