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 Objections
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim recites outputting an indication to a second satellite determined have a footprint coverage region within the predetermined proximity to the first portion of Earth's surface, which omits a word following determined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 10 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 10 is directed to a computer/software program per se. Computer software does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C § 101 (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72, 175 USPQ at 676-77.
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 13 each recite that the second portion of Earth's surface is selected from the group consisting of: a city determined to have less than the predetermined threshold of population, a body of water, and a portion of land determined to be subject to connection signal interference.
The recitation of a portion of land determined to be subject to connection signal interference renders the claims indefinite. The claims do not recite a level, a type, or a source of connection signal interference, nor any measure by which a portion of land is determined to be subject to such interference. Every portion of land is subject to some degree of connection signal interference. Without a stated threshold, there is no clear boundary between a portion of land that satisfies this alternative and a portion of land that does not. The specification does not supply a standard. Paragraphs 0055 and 0068 recite the phrase as one item in a list of exemplary portions of Earth's surface, and the specification is otherwise silent as to what degree of connection signal interference is required or how that determination is made. Because one alternative of the Markush group is of uncertain scope, the scope of claims 4 and 13 as a whole cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear and hence the claims are indefinite. The language of the claim was given a broadest reasonable interpretation. The boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. Because claims delineate the patentee’s right to exclude, the patent statute requires that the scope of the claims be sufficiently definite to inform the public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. (See MPEP 2173.02).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,555,444 A herein Diekelman in view of US 2005/0097226 A1 herein Tripathi.
Claim 1, Diekelman discloses a computer-implemented method (Title, Method), comprising:
generating a map of a first satellite's orbital path with respect to Earth's surface (Col 10: 24-31, the entire surface of the earth is divided into regions, each a contiguous area identified by known latitude, and longitude boundaries; Col 17: 57- Col 18: 3, a path Traffic Prediction Request is decomposed into the regions over which a particular satellite's cell pattern will pass during a requested Time Set or portion of an orbit, determined from the ephemeris of the satellite, thus a map of the first satellite's orbital path with respect to Earth's surface);
identifying, on the map along the first satellite's orbital path, a first portion of Earth's surface from which more than a predetermined number of connection requests are expected to be received (Col 14: 14-27, a region may be a heavily populated area; Col 15: 4-15, thresholds of resource usage which System Nodes may not exceed, such as a maximum number of calls the System Node may handle at a certain time; Col 6: 4-18, areas anticipated to have high demand will desirably be allocated more resources than low-demand areas); and
in response to a determination that a footprint coverage region of the first satellite is within a predetermined proximity to the first portion of Earth's surface (Col 17: 43-52, decomposition is performed by first determining the ephemeris of the satellite, that is, at what point the satellite should be located at the relevant time, then determining which regions the satellite should be projecting its cell pattern onto during that time, thus a determination that a footprint coverage region of the first satellite is within a predetermined proximity to the first portion of Earth's surface).
Diekelman may not explicitly disclose causing a connection processor of the first satellite to perform a predetermined polling-based lookup connection process for fulfilling connection requests.
Tripathi discloses perform a predetermined polling-based lookup connection process for fulfilling connection requests (0029, the network interface card is instructed to operate in the polling mode when packets are being received frequently; when the number of packets per second being received by the network interface card is greater than or equal to a predefined number of packets, the network interface card may be instructed to operate in the polling mode). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Diekelman to include instructing a network interface card to operate in a polling mode when packets are being received frequently, as taught by Tripathi, so as to enable the performance of the server to be optimized (0006).
Claim 2, Diekelman in view of Tripathi discloses the method of claim 1.
Diekelman discloses identifying, along the first satellite's orbital path, a second portion of Earth's surface from which less than the predetermined number of connection requests are expected to be received (Col 12: 28-36, Subscriber traffic demands in sparsely populated regions are significantly less than Subscriber traffic demand in a heavily populated region; Col 6: 4-18, areas anticipated to have high demand will desirably be allocated more resources than low-demand areas).
Diekelman may not explicitly disclose, in response to a determination that the footprint coverage region of the first satellite is within the predetermined proximity to the second portion of Earth's surface, causing the connection processor to perform a predetermined interrupt-based connection process for fulfilling connection requests.
Tripathi discloses perform a predetermined interrupt-based connection process for fulfilling connection requests (0029, when the number of packets per second being received by the network interface card is less than a predefined number of packets, the network interface card may be instructed to operate in the interrupt mode). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Diekelman to include instructing a network interface card to operate in a polling mode when packets are being received frequently, as taught by Tripathi, so as to enable the performance of the server to be optimized (0006).
Claim 3, Diekelman in view of Tripathi discloses the method of claim 2.
Diekelman discloses wherein the first portion of Earth's surface is proximate to the second portion of Earth's surface (Col 12: 14-27, at a first time a cell pattern projection is located in a sparsely populated region, at a second time a projection is located in a heavily populated region, and at a third time a projection is located in another sparsely populated region).
Claim 4, Diekelman in view of Tripathi discloses the method of claim 3.
Diekelman discloses wherein the first portion of Earth's surface is a location of a city determined to have more than a predetermined threshold of population (Col 12: 14-27, a region may be a heavily populated area; Col 13: Table 1, Rockville, Md. as a region, thus a city determined to have more than a predetermined threshold of population), wherein the second portion of Earth's surface is selected from the group consisting of: a city determined to have less than the predetermined threshold of population (Col 12: 14-27, another region may be a sparsely populated area; Col 13: Table 1, Ocean City, Md. as a region, thus a city determined to have less than the predetermined threshold of population), a body of water, and a portion of land determined to be subject to connection signal interference.
Claim 5, Diekelman in view of Tripathi discloses the method of claim 1.
Diekelman discloses wherein the first satellite is a low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite (Col 6: 27-40, low-earth orbits occur generally at an altitude of approximately 600 km to 2000 km).
Claim 6, Diekelman in view of Tripathi discloses the method of claim 1.
Diekelman discloses determining a number of connection requests that are received by the first satellite for a duration of time that the footprint coverage region of the first satellite is within the predetermined proximity to the first portion of Earth's surface (Col 8: 53-60, the satellite resident controller counts how many call attempts were made by subscriber units within the satellite's cell pattern, and stores the Call Attempt Count in satellite resident memory; Col 10: 41-49, the Call Attempt Count is a number of call attempts made from a particular region during a Time Span); and
outputting the determined number to a target device (Col 8: 60-65, the satellite resident controller transmits telemetry information to the system control segment, and the telemetry information includes the Call Attempt Count).
Claim 7, Diekelman in view of Tripathi discloses the method of claim 1.
Diekelman may not explicitly disclose, in response to a determination that the predetermined number of connection requests are not received within a predetermined amount of time of the connection processor being caused to perform the predetermined polling-based lookup connection process, causing the connection processor to switch to perform a predetermined interrupt-based connection process.
Tripathi discloses switch to perform a predetermined interrupt-based connection process (0029, when the number of packets per second being received by the network interface card is less than a predefined number of packets, the network interface card may be instructed to operate in the interrupt mode; 0047, if no more packets have been received by the network interface card, the network interface card is instructed to switch from the polling mode to the interrupt mode). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Diekelman to include instructing a network interface card to operate in a polling mode when packets are being received frequently, as taught by Tripathi, so as to enable the performance of the server to be optimized (0006).
Claim 8, Diekelman in view of Tripathi discloses the method of claim 1.
Diekelman may not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined polling-based lookup connection process includes: checking, on each predetermined time interval, for receipt of connection requests at a kernel of the first satellite, and processing the received connection requests.
Tripathi discloses checking, on each predetermined time interval, for receipt of connection requests at a kernel, and processing the received connection requests (0026, polling is the periodic checking of other programs or devices by one program or device, and a controlling device sends a message to the device periodically; 0028, when the network interface card is in the polling mode, the operating system kernel periodically polls the network interface card to determine whether one or more packets have been received, thus checking on each predetermined time interval; 0044, the operating system kernel processes each of the packets in the queue). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Diekelman to include instructing a network interface card to operate in a polling mode when packets are being received frequently, as taught by Tripathi, so as to enable the performance of the server to be optimized (0006).
Claim 10, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Diekelman discloses a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable and/or executable by a computer to cause the computer to (Col 8: 32-43, a System Operational Plan is received by the satellite and is stored in satellite resident memory; Col 8: 42-52, the satellite resident controller controls real-time operation of the satellite in accordance with the System Operational Plan stored in satellite resident memory, thus a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith).
Claim 11, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 12, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
Claim 13, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 4.
Claim 14, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 5.
Claim 15, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 6.
Claim 16, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 7.
Claim 17, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 8.
Claim 19, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
Diekelman discloses a system (Title, System) comprising a processor (Col 8: 42-52, the satellite resident controller controls real-time operation of the satellite); and logic integrated with the processor, executable by the processor, or integrated with and executable by the processor, the logic being configured to (Col 8: 32-43, the satellite resident controller is coupled to satellite resident memory and a System Operational Plan is stored in satellite resident memory; Col 8: 42-52, the satellite resident controller controls real-time operation of the satellite in accordance with the System Operational Plan, thus logic integrated with and executable by the processor).
Claim 20, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diekelman in view of Tripathi and further in view of US 5,408,237 A herein Patterson.
Claim 9, Diekelman in view of Tripathi discloses the method of claim 8.
Diekelman may not explicitly disclose wherein a plurality of connection requests are received at the kernel of the first satellite, and comprising: selecting a first portion of the connection requests for the first satellite to fulfill; and outputting an indication of the selected first portion of the connection requests to a second satellite determined have a footprint coverage region within the predetermined proximity to the first portion of Earth's surface.
Tripathi discloses wherein a ph1rality of connection req11ests are received at the kernel (0045, the operating system kernel polls the network interface card to determine if the network interface card received one or more packets; 0046, if one or more packets have been received by the network interface card, the one or more packets are transferred to the queue associated with the CPU). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Diekelman to include instructing a network interface card to operate in a polling mode when packets are being received frequently, as taught by Tripathi, so as to enable the performance of the server to be optimized (0006).
Diekelman may not explicitly disclose selecting a first portion of the connection requests for the first satellite to fulfill; and outputting an indication of the selected first portion of the connection requests to a second satellite determined have a footprint coverage region within the predetermined proximity to the first portion of Earth's surface.
Patterson discloses selecting a first portion of the connection requests for the first satellite to fulfill (Col 16: 5-14, when a supercell is contained within the footprints of two or more satellites, the satellites negotiate among themselves as to which ones will service that supercell, and one satellite may be assigned complete responsibility or the allocation may be divided among several satellites, thus selecting a first portion of the connection requests for the first satellite to fulfill); and
outputting an indication of the selected first portion of the connection requests to a second satellite determined have a footprint coverage region within the predetermined proximity to the first portion of Earth's surface (Col 17: 18-34, an input packet processor examines the header to determine the packet's destination and the corresponding switch output port, and the output port may be an intersatellite link leading to a distant destination or may lead to a local transmitter to a cell currently served by this satellite; Col 19: 9-20, network elements use a packet-based protocol for signaling and control messages, and the network handles these packets as normal traffic, thus outputting an indication of the selected first portion of the connection requests to a second satellite; Col 24: 39-48, the Supercell-to-Serving-Node Relation is used to determine which active satellite is closest to each Supercell). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Diekelman to include satellites negotiating among themselves as to which ones will service a supercell contained within the footprints of two or more satellites, as taught by Patterson, so as to pass coverage responsibility to the next satellite without requiring channel reassignment (Col 23: 14-30).
Claim 18, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 9.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5414858 A – A system and method for managing service requests from peripherals connected to a personal computer or workstation by operating both in an interrupt mode and a polling mode, with selective transition therebetween. In one practice of the invention, peripheral device service requests are first managed on an interrupt basis, then transition to a polling mode when the interrupt rate exceeds a rate threshold, and subsequently revert back to the interrupt mode when the rate again decreases below a threshold. The transition is dynamic and situation adjustable by parameter selection both as to the number of service requests and as to the time interval used to initiate transition between the interrupt and polling modes..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571) 272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
MEHMOOD B. KHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights