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
This office action is in response to the amendment & remarks filed on 12/29/2025.
Claims 1-9, 11-36 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 11-13, 26-28 are currently amended.
Claim 10 is canceled.
Claims 1-9, 11-36 are rejected.
Claim Objections
The claim 26 is objected to because it includes reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Claim 26 recites “cache 20 data”.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 27-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27 recites “indi-5 cates” in line 15. Examiner believes it should be --indicates--.
Claim 28 recites “transmit-ting” in line 16. Examiner believes it should be --transmitting--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-12, 14-15, 17-19, 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas K. Swift (US 20090138420 A1) in view of LEE Begeja et al (US 20170280434 A1).
For Claim 1, Swift discloses a network entity (9) for managing data traffic routed via the network entity (9) in a communications system, the network entity (9) comprising a circuitry (10) (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0024, a system for modeling network traffic is provided which includes a memory device …This system … also includes a processor) configured to:
monitor at least the data traffic transmitted over a communication link (7a, 7b, 18) (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0054, lines 1-3, training data is collected, such as by monitoring the network traffic supported by the network); and
manage the monitored data traffic based on an output of a machine learning algorithm (13) (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0048, the artificial neural network is designed to model the capacity of the network, bandwidth profiles or other information indicative of the network usage are generally provided as outputs from the artificial neural network), the machine learning algorithm (13) being trained to predict at least one of a data capacity requirement and a quality of service (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0026, provide meaningful estimations of the anticipated capacity of the network such that the network may be designed to provide the desired capacity while maintaining the requisite quality of service) depending on at least one of a user behavior, a data traffic pattern, a cost and a time occurrence (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0043, lines 9-11, the network traffic [for the neural network] may be decomposed into categories based upon the individual users with each individual user being separately categorized).
Swift fails to expressly disclose wherein the circuitry (10) manages data caching of a computing device (5a, 5b) by transmitting a cache indicator to the computing device (5a, 5b) which indicates whether the computing device (5a, 5b) should cache data for a predetermined time period before transmitting the data, by the computing device, over the communication link.
However, Begeja, in the analogous art, discloses wherein the circuitry (10) manages data caching of a computing device (5a, 5b) by transmitting a cache indicator to the computing device (5a, 5b) which indicates whether the computing device (5a, 5b) should cache data for a predetermined time period before transmitting the data, by the computing device, over the communication link (Begeja teaches, in ¶ 0035, lines 9-11, that The pre-caching schedule 121 may indicate a retention duration threshold 164 associated with the particular media data. Begeja teaches, in ¶ 0043, lines 14-19, that the pre-caching engine 101 may, prior to transmission of the particular media data 133, initiate transmission of an instruction 131 to the first user device 107. The instruction 131 may direct the first user device 107 to pre-cache (e.g., store) the particular media data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift with the pre-caching engine taught in Begeja. The motivation is to reduce data stream interruption that may adversely impact the user experience [Begeja: ¶ 0002].
For Claim 2, Swift discloses a network entity (9), wherein the circuitry (10) manages a link capacity of the communication link (7a, 7b, 18) (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0005, system bandwidth needs are generally approximated by the network link capacity. The network link capacity is, in turn, defined as the maximum rate for data transfer via the respective link).
For Claim 3, Swift discloses a network entity (9), wherein the link capacity includes a bandwidth for the communication link (7a, 7b, 18) (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0005, system bandwidth needs are generally approximated by the network link capacity. The network link capacity is, in turn, defined as the maximum rate for data transfer via the respective link).
For Claim 4, Swift discloses a network entity (9), wherein the link capacity includes a bandwidth for the communication link (7a, 7b, 18) (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0004, lines 11-14, the network sniffers may collect real-time packet and bit rate information for both the forward and return links established between the ground station and the constellation of satellites 16).
For Claim 11, Swift discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the cache indicator is specific for an application managed by the computing device (Sa, Sb) and/or specific for a customer.
However, Begeja, in the analogous art, discloses that the cache indicator is specific for an application managed by the computing device (Sa, Sb) and/or specific for a customer (Begeja teaches, in ¶ 0029, lines 19-24, that The navigation application may provide the navigation information to the server 102. The pre-caching engine 101 may receive the user device information 125 including the navigation information from the server 102. In a particular aspect, the first user device 107 may be associated with a user account of the first user 137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift with the pre-caching engine taught in Begeja. The motivation is to reduce data stream interruption that may adversely impact the user experience [Begeja: ¶ 0002].
For Claim 12, Swift discloses all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the cache indicator includes a time schedule when data should be cached.
However, Begeja, in the analogous art, discloses that the cache indicator includes a time schedule when data should be cached (Begeja teaches, in ¶ 0036, that The pre-caching schedule 121 may include a user device pre-cache indicator 161 indicating whether the particular media data 133 is to be pre-cached at a user device …The pre-caching schedule 121 may indicate a first time 147 at (or by) which the particular media data 133 is to be requested from the content provider 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift with the pre-caching engine taught in Begeja. The motivation is to reduce data stream interruption that may adversely impact the user experience [Begeja: ¶ 0002].
For Claim 14, Swift discloses a network entity (9), wherein the circuitry (10) manages the monitored data traffic over a satellite communication link (7a, 7b) by using an available terrestrial communication link (18) (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0004, lines 11-14, the network sniffers may collect real-time packet and bit rate information for both the forward and return links established between the ground station and the constellation of satellites 16).
For Claim 15, Swift discloses a network entity (9), wherein the output of the machine learning algorithm (13) is based on the monitored data traffic (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0054, lines 1-3, training data is collected, such as by monitoring the network traffic supported by the network).
For Claim 17, Swift discloses a network entity (9), wherein the output of the machine learning algorithm (13) is further based on a capacity pool and/or a license pool (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0005, system bandwidth needs are generally approximated by the network link capacity. The network link capacity is, in turn, defined as the maximum rate for data transfer via the respective link. The system bandwidth is approximated by a pool of a plurality of link capacities).
For Claim 18, Swift discloses a network entity (9), wherein the output of the machine learning algorithm (13) is further based on a current time and/or a current day and/or a current month (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0044, The bandwidth profiles of FIGS. 13A-13F were developed by considering the network usage of all of the passengers onboard all of the flights traveling along a respective flight route during a three month period … each bandwidth profile is distinct from the other bandwidth profiles, but each bandwidth profile is consistent from day-to-day).
For Claim 19, Swift discloses a network entity (9), wherein the output of the machine learning algorithm (13) is further based on a quality of service requirement (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0060, provide meaningful estimations of the anticipated capacity of the network such that the network may be designed to provide the desired capacity while maintaining the requisite quality of service).
For Claim 24, Swift discloses a network entity (9), wherein the machine learning algorithm (13) is trained offline and/or trained, based on the monitored data traffic, during operation (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0054, lines 1-3, training data is collected, such as by monitoring the network traffic supported by the network).
For Claim 25, Swift discloses a network entity (9), wherein the circuitry (10) is further configured to establish the communication link (Swift teaches, FIG. 1, shows “satellite upload link” and “satellite download link” between Geosynchronous Ku-band Satellite 16 and Ground Station 18).
For Claim 26, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
For Claim 27, Swift discloses a satellite communications system, comprising: a ground station (2) configured to establish a satellite communication link (7a, 7b) with a re-mote station (3a, 3b) via a satellite (4); the remote station (3a, 3b) configured to transmit and receive data over the satellite communication link (7a, 7b) (Swift teaches, FIG. 1, shows “satellite upload link” and “satellite download link” between Geosynchronous Ku-band Satellite 16 and Ground Station 18); and a network entity (9) (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0024, a system for modeling network traffic is provided which includes a memory device …This system … also includes a processor) configured to:
monitor at least the data traffic transmitted over the satellite communication link (7a,7b) (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0054, lines 1-3, training data is collected, such as by monitoring the network traffic supported by the network); and
manage the monitored data traffic based on an output of a machine learning algorithm (13) (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0048, the artificial neural network is designed to model the capacity of the network, bandwidth profiles or other information indicative of the network usage are generally provided as outputs from the artificial neural network), the machine learning algorithm (13) being trained to predict at least one of a data capacity requirement and a quality of service (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0026, provide meaningful estimations of the anticipated capacity of the network such that the network may be designed to provide the desired capacity while maintaining the requisite quality of service) depending on at least one of a user behavior, a data traffic pattern, a cost and a time occurrence (Swift teaches, in ¶ 0043, lines 9-11, the network traffic [for the neural network] may be decomposed into categories based upon the individual users with each individual user being separately categorized).
Swift fails to expressly disclose managing data caching of a computing device (5a, 5b) by transmitting a cache indicator to the computing device (5a, 5b) which indicates whether the computing device (5a, 5b) should cache 20 data for a predetermined time period before transmitting the data, by the computing device, over the communication link.
However, Begeja, in the analogous art, discloses managing data caching of a computing device (5a, 5b) by transmitting a cache indicator to the computing device (5a, 5b) which indicates whether the computing device (5a, 5b) should cache 20 data for a predetermined time period before transmitting the data, by the computing device, over the communication link (Begeja teaches, in ¶ 0035, lines 9-11, that The pre-caching schedule 121 may indicate a retention duration threshold 164 associated with the particular media data. Begeja teaches, in ¶ 0043, lines 14-19, that the pre-caching engine 101 may, prior to transmission of the particular media data 133, initiate transmission of an instruction 131 to the first user device 107. The instruction 131 may direct the first user device 107 to pre-cache (e.g., store) the particular media data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift with the pre-caching engine taught in Begeja. The motivation is to reduce data stream interruption that may adversely impact the user experience [Begeja: ¶ 0002].
For Claim 28, please refer to the rejection of Claim 27, above.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over Douglas K. Swift (US 20090138420 A1) in view of LEE Begeja et al (US 20170280434 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noor A. Chowdhury et al (US 9900082 B1).
For Claim 5, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of managing equipment license assignments.
However, Chowdhury, in the analogous art, discloses managing equipment license assignments (Chowdhury teaches, in Col. 18, lines 49-53, that The dashboard presented on the interface 802b also includes a license status for multiple devices based on subscription in-flight services purchased by users. For example, different licenses can be granted for users that subscribe to access for a specified time period (e.g., five minutes, thirty minutes, one hour)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the subscribing taught in Chowdhury. The motivation is so that users that subscribe can be granted a seamless, and secure access to services.
For Claim 6, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of managing the equipment license assignments based on a license pool.
However, Chowdhury, in the analogous art, discloses managing the equipment license assignments based on a license pool (Chowdhury teaches, in Col. 18, lines 56-61, that As shown in FIG. 8B, the dashboard can display, for each of the cabin router 174, the gateway 110A, and link, a total number of active licenses, a total number of active licenses that will expire within a specified time period, and a total number of expired licenses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the subscribing taught in Chowdhury. The motivation is so that users that subscribe can be granted a seamless, and secure access to services.
Claims 7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over Douglas K. Swift (US 20090138420 A1) in view of LEE Begeja et al (US 20170280434 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Soonmok Kwon et al (US 20150120657 A1).
For Claim 7, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception to channel all all data which is to be transmitted over the communication link (7a, 7b, 18) to a computing device.
However, Kwon, in the analogous art, discloses to channel all all data which is to be transmitted over the communication link (7a, 7b, 18) to a computing device (Kwon teaches, in ¶ 0007, a data gathering apparatus gathers data in other devices inside the control network, stores the data in its own buffer, and transmits the data to an external service. In other words, the data gathering apparatus gathers all data that is to be transmitted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the data gathering apparatus taught in Kwon. The motivation is in order to gather measurement and control data of the control network [Kwon: ¶ 0007].
For Claim 13, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of managing data caching of a time schedule for data synchronization over the communication link.
However, Kwon, in the analogous art, discloses a time schedule for data synchronization over the communication link (Kwon teaches, in ¶ 0076, lines 15-18, that finally, the active and passive synchronizer 230 constantly schedules and executes active synchronization for all cache items (schedule and execute). Kwon teaches, in ¶ 0055, that the term `update time interval` refers to an interval between time points at which any item is updated by the active or passive synchronization method. The active and passive synchronizer 230 calculates the expected delay time using the following Equation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the active and passive synchronizer taught in Kwon. The motivation is to efficiently synchronize data buffered in network devices [Kwon: ¶ 0017].
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas K. Swift (US 20090138420 A1) in view of LEE Begeja et al (US 20170280434 A1) & Soonmok Kwon et al (US 20150120657 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Noor A. Chowdhury et al (US 9900082 B1).
For Claim 8, Swift, Begeja & Kwon disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception to compress the channeled data before transmission over the communication link.
However, Chowdhury, in the analogous art, discloses to compress the channeled data before transmission over the communication link (Chowdhury teaches, in Col. 6, lines 63-67, that the network optimization module 118 May include an IP header compression module that reduces bandwidth usage on networks with limited capacities or prohibitively costly usage rates. In such instances, the compression module is designed to operate with components of aviation communication system over the satellite network environment. The compression module may also be capable of performing packet voice steaming over various networks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the compression module taught in Chowdhury. The motivation is to reduce bandwidth usage on networks with limited capacities.
For Claim 9, Swift, Begeja & Kwon disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception to encrypt the channeled data before transmission over the communication link.
However, Chowdhury, in the analogous art, discloses to encrypt the channeled data before transmission over the communication link (Chowdhury teaches, in Col. 13, lines 29-36, that the cabin modem 174 may initiate a secure aircraft communication session between the computing device 160 and the terrestrial communication station (232). For instance, if the device key included within the activation request matches the device key assigned by the terrestrial communication station 110, then the cabin modem 174 may initiate the secure aircraft communication session between the computing device 160 and the terrestrial communication station 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the unique device key taught in Chowdhury. The motivation is to enable secure communications.
Claims 16, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas K. Swift (US 20090138420 A1) in view of LEE Begeja et al (US 20170280434 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VIDHYALAKSHMI Karthikeyan et al (GB 2539992 A).
For Claim 16, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception to predict, based on the monitored data traffic, at least one of a congestion and a free capacity.
However, Karthikeyan, in the analogous art, discloses to predict, based on the monitored data traffic, at least one of a congestion and a free capacity (Karthikeyan teaches, in page 20, lines 11-20, that Such a predictive model/can be built from historic data collected per QoS model and from network monitoring data using methods like regression analysis or neural networks, for example. The predictive model/predicts a future confidence vector for a QoS model Cj = fi(Pi.CiJ.F.B, C, C,...) Where … C^ is the expected future throughput, and there can be other variables describing the current traffic behaviour on the route such as rate of change of congestion (Explicit Congestion Notification markings on the route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the QoS model taught in Karthikeyan. The motivation is to project the impact of the traffic to be admitted in the network [Karthikeyan teaches, in page 21, lines 3-5].
For Claim 20, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the output of the machine learning algorithm is further based on a capacity request from a computing device utilizing the communication link.
However, Karthikeyan, in the analogous art, discloses that the output of the machine learning algorithm is further based on a capacity request from a computing device utilizing the communication link (Karthikeyan teaches, in page 3, lines 19-20, predicting expected traffic capacity on the network, or on a portion of the network, at a particular time and can also add to the assessment of the expected characteristics of the traffic flow for which a request has been made, for example a query may correspond to an equivalent query sent by the same client at the same time in the previous week).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the QoS model taught in Karthikeyan. The motivation is to project the impact of the traffic to be admitted in the network [Karthikeyan teaches, in page 21, lines 3-5].
For Claim 21, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the output of the machine learning algorithm is further based on a priority indicator.
However, Karthikeyan, in the analogous art, discloses that the output of the machine learning algorithm is further based on a priority indicator (Karthikeyan teaches, in page 11, lines 1-17, that the client may also interact with a gatekeeper entity in order to influence the available routes and selected CoS. The purpose of this interaction is to: 3) Enable the client to query the response and/or respond with one or more QoS models it desires which can be a mixture of performance driven models and policy-based models (RESERVE message)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the QoS model taught in Karthikeyan. The motivation is to project the impact of the traffic to be admitted in the network [Karthikeyan teaches, in page 21, lines 3-5].
For Claim 22, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the priority indicator is application specific and/or customer specific.
However, Karthikeyan, in the analogous art, discloses that the priority indicator is application specific and/or customer specific (Karthikeyan teaches, in page 11, lines 1-17, that the client may also interact with a gatekeeper entity in order to influence the available routes and selected CoS. The purpose of this interaction is to: 3) Enable the client to query the response and/or respond with one or more QoS models it desires which can be a mixture of performance driven models and policy-based models (RESERVE message)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the QoS model taught in Karthikeyan. The motivation is to project the impact of the traffic to be admitted in the network [Karthikeyan teaches, in page 21, lines 3-5].
For Claim 23, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception to predict, based on the monitored data traffic, at least one of a congestion and a free capacity.
However, Karthikeyan, in the analogous art, discloses to predict, based on the monitored data traffic, at least one of a congestion and a free capacity (Karthikeyan teaches, in page 16, lines 23-29, that The second is to take into account the specific QoS request from the client, if one is mandated using a min_QoS model, to determine minimum cost after filtering out routes that do not satisfy the min_QoS parameters. This can be done by sorting the routes according to performance first, applying the mandated QoS features to filter out routes that do not satisfy the requested performance and then sorting the remaining routes into ascending cost to offer the lowest cost route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the QoS model taught in Karthikeyan. The motivation is to project the impact of the traffic to be admitted in the network [Karthikeyan teaches, in page 21, lines 3-5].
Claims 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas K. Swift (US 20090138420 A1) in view of LEE Begeja et al (US 20170280434 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of George Peponides (US 20180234166 A1).
For Claim 30, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of managing a beamforming configuration of the satellite.
However, Peponides, in the analogous art, discloses managing a beamforming configuration of the satellite (Peponides teaches, in ¶ 0058, lines 12-16, These signals may take the form of beamforming coefficients, which paired with beamforming techniques known in the art, enable satellite 105 to direct satellite user beams in a manner that provides capacity adapted to the predicted spatial network resource demand).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the dynamic allocating of satellite capacity taught in Peponides. The motivation is to allow for a satellite communications system to better utilize scarce network capacity for providing network service to mobile vessels.
For Claim 31, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of estimating an optimized beamforming configuration of the satellite (4) depending on at least one of a location of an endpoint of the satellite communication link (7a, 7b), meteorological data, the predicted data capacity requirement and the predicted quality of service.
However, Peponides, in the analogous art, discloses estimating an optimized beamforming configuration of the satellite (4) depending on at least one of a location of an endpoint of the satellite communication link (7a, 7b), meteorological data, the predicted data capacity requirement and the predicted quality of service (Peponides teaches, in ¶ 0017, dynamically allocating satellite capacity based on mobile vessel network load forecasting. The described allocation techniques may use predicted locations and predicted network demands to predict the spatial network resource demand over a service area and one or more service periods. The techniques may then allocate capacity between different service areas to match the predicted spatial network resource demand during the one or more service periods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the dynamic allocating of satellite capacity taught in Peponides. The motivation is to allow for a satellite communications system to better utilize scarce network capacity for providing network service to mobile vessels.
For Claim 32, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of managing the beamforming configuration of the satellite (4) automatically or semi-automatically.
However, Peponides, in the analogous art, discloses managing the beamforming configuration of the satellite (4) automatically or semi-automatically (Peponides teaches, in ¶ 0055, lines 1-6, apportioning satellite network resources in response to predicted spatial network resource demand may include modifying beamforming for user beams. FIG. 6 is an example diagram 600 of modified beamforming of satellite user beams to dynamically allocate satellite network resource capacity based on network load forecasting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the dynamic allocating of satellite capacity taught in Peponides. The motivation is to allow for a satellite communications system to better utilize scarce network capacity for providing network service to mobile vessels.
For Claim 33, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of requesting operator acknowledgment of the beamforming configuration for the satellite (4) when the beamforming configuration is managed semi-automatically.
However, Peponides, in the analogous art, discloses requesting operator acknowledgment of the beamforming configuration for the satellite (4) when the beamforming configuration is managed semi-automatically (Peponides teaches, in ¶ 0033, lines 11-16, the predicted demand may be the predicted forward link utilization of the aircraft, since the forward link data downloaded by passengers (e.g., content such as videos, web pages, etc.) is typically much greater than the return link data uploaded (e.g., requests for content) by passengers. Peponides teaches, in ¶ 0033, lines 11-14, that Multi-user access terminal 170 may receive data from satellite 105 via user beam downlink 155-a and transmit data to satellite 105 via user beam uplink).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the dynamic allocating of satellite capacity taught in Peponides. The motivation is to allow for a satellite communications system to better utilize scarce network capacity for providing network service to mobile vessels.
For Claim 34, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of determining, in response to a change of the beamforming configuration of the satellite (4), a difference between the predicted quality of service and a determined quality of service of the monitored data traffic, and wherein the determined difference [is used to] optimize beamforming configuration of the satellite.
However, Peponides, in the analogous art, discloses determining, in response to a change of the beamforming configuration of the satellite (4), a difference between the predicted quality of service and a determined quality of service of the monitored data traffic (Peponides teaches, in ¶ 0080, lines 46-56, At or during the first service period, a difference between an actual spatial network resource demand and the predicted spatial network resource demand for the first service period may be determined. The difference may be compared to a threshold. For example, the difference between an average or peak of the actual spatial network resource demand for the first service period for a given user beam or region and the predicted spatial network resource demand may be compared to a threshold (e.g., a beam demand threshold or regional demand threshold, etc.)), and wherein the determined difference [is used to] optimize beamforming configuration of the satellite (Peponides teaches, in ¶ 0080, lines 56-61, that In response to determining that the difference exceeds the threshold, the predicted spatial network resource demand for the second service period may be revised. The revised predicted spatial network resource demand for the second service period may take into account the actual spatial network resource demand of the first service period. Peponides teaches, in ¶ 0059, lines 5-11, adapting a satellite capacity resource configuration by modifying beamforming coefficients may include re-configuring one or more fixed terminals 185 or multi-user access terminals 170 for the adapted beamformed user beams. For example, one or more fixed terminals may be switched to use a different bandwidth or polarization direction for the service period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the dynamic allocating of satellite capacity taught in Peponides. The motivation is to allow for a satellite communications system to better utilize scarce network capacity for providing network service to mobile vessels.
For Claim 35, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of estimating the optimized beamforming configuration of the satellite (4) further depending on satellite operator configuration rules.
However, Peponides, in the analogous art, discloses estimating the optimized beamforming configuration of the satellite (4) further depending on satellite operator configuration rules (Peponides teaches, in ¶ 0059, lines 5-18, adapting a satellite capacity resource configuration by modifying beamforming coefficients may include re-configuring one or more fixed terminals 185 or multi-user access terminals 170 for the adapted beamformed user beams. For example, one or more fixed terminals may be switched to use a different bandwidth or polarization direction for the service period. This re-configuration may include sending updated configuration parameters to the one or more fixed terminals 185 or multi-user access terminals 170 prior to the service period, with an indication of when the updated configuration parameters are to be used for communications. In some examples, adjusting beamforming may also require adjusting the satellite pathways).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the dynamic allocating of satellite capacity taught in Peponides. The motivation is to allow for a satellite communications system to better utilize scarce network capacity for providing network service to mobile vessels.
For Claim 36, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of estimating an optimized configuration of the ground station (2) and the remote station (3a), respectively.
However, Peponides, in the analogous art, discloses estimating an optimized configuration of the ground station (2) and the remote station (3a), respectively (Peponides teaches, in ¶ 0059, lines 5-18, adapting a satellite capacity resource configuration by modifying beamforming coefficients may include re-configuring one or more fixed terminals 185 or multi-user access terminals 170 for the adapted beamformed user beams. For example, one or more fixed terminals may be switched to use a different bandwidth or polarization direction for the service period. Peponides clarifies, in ¶ 0034, lines 5-7, that Fixed terminal 185 may be any two-way satellite ground station such as a very small aperture terminal (VSAT)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the dynamic allocating of satellite capacity taught in Peponides. The motivation is to allow for a satellite communications system to better utilize scarce network capacity for providing network service to mobile vessels.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas K. Swift (US 20090138420 A1) in view of LEE Begeja et al (US 20170280434 A1) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Arbinder Pabla (US 20230113662 A1).
For Claim 29, Swift & Begeja disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the cost includes a service type cost and a cost of re-allocating capacity licenses dynamically across different communication technologies.
However, Pabla, in the analogous art, discloses that the cost includes a service type cost and a cost of re-allocating capacity licenses dynamically (Pabla teaches, in ¶ 0105, lines 5-18, the system enables a primary spectrum license owner to apportion a spectrum asset by sub-licensing some or all of this spectrum to one or more wireless networks within the geo-domain of its primary license) across different communication technologies (Pabla teaches, in ¶ 0111, The radio device 206 may itself be a discrete radio unit or alternatively be a radio device incorporated in an access point device together with other radios that operate wireless spectrum either licensed or unlicensed that may not be controlled and administered by the spectrum manager 204. Such a multi-radio access point allows micro-operators to set up networks that can co-mingle wireless services and radio technology types).
Pabla further teaches, in ¶ 0116, lines 1-10, that A commercial framework for the sub-license could consist of billing and accounting compensation linked to measured or assignable parameters such as the air time usage of the activated radios, the actual bandwidth assigned to the radios, which may be a portion of the sub-licensable spectrum, the cumulative data capacity transited over the sub-licensed spectrum, the number of radios, and the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught in Swift & Begeja with the spectrum sub-licensing taught in Pabla. The motivation is that spectrum sublicensing presents potential new revenue from the sublicensing of the spectrum of the primary licensor [Pabla: in ¶ 0104].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the cited combination of references does not disclose or suggest “transmitting a cache indicator to a computing device that instructs the device to cache data it intends to transmit and to delay transmission of that data for a predetermined time period,” (page 12 of 15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees because, and as Applicant rightly asserts in remarks, Begeja teaches, in ¶ 0035, lines 9-11, that The pre-caching schedule 121 may indicate a retention duration threshold 164 associated with the particular media data. Begeja teaches, in ¶ 0043, lines 14-19, that the pre-caching engine 101 may, prior to transmission of the particular media data 133, initiate transmission of an instruction 131 to the first user device 107. The instruction 131 may direct the first user device 107 to pre-cache (e.g., store) the particular media data.
Examiner agrees with Applicant’s remarks that In Begeja, the base station transmits the media data to the device after sending a pre-cache indicator, wherein the pre-cache indicator indicates a retention duration threshold 164 associated with the particular media data (¶ 0035). Examiner also notes that the pre-caching engine 101 [of the base station] sends an instruction to the first user device 107 to pre-cache (e.g., store) the particular media data 133 until after a request time associated with the particular user device. The pre-caching engine 101 may send an instruction to the first user device 107 to provide the particular media data 133 to the particular user device when the particular user device is within a coverage area of the first user device 107 (¶ 0045).
Clearly, Begeja teaches a first user device receiving a pre-cache indicator from a base station, and caching media data until needed by a second user device in within the coverage area of the first user device. It is also clear that the predetermined time period during which the first user device caches the data is the time between when the first user device receives the data and the time when the first user device provides the data to the second user device.
Furthermore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that “In Begeja, the device does not delay its own data transmission based on a time-based instruction from the network entity”.
First, Examiner would like to note that Applicant is “arguing limitations which are not claimed,” (see MPEP 2145 (VI)). In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., [Specifically, in claim 1, the device to delay its own data transmission based on a time-based instruction from the network entity]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim only requires that the device receives a cache indicator which indicates whether the computing device should cache data for a predetermined time period before transmitting the data. No actual transmission is claimed, and/or delayed based on the cache indicator.
Nevertheless, as argued supra, Begeja teaches that the pre-caching engine 101 [of the base station] may send an instruction to the first user device 107 to provide the particular media data 133 to the particular user device when the particular user device is within a coverage area of the first user device 107 (¶ 0045). To repeat, the predetermined time period during which the first user device caches the data is the time between when the first user device receives the data and the time when the first user device provides the data to the second user device.
Based on the above rebuttal, Examiner respectfully submits that the combination of references does disclose, suggest, or otherwise renders obvious Independent claims 1, 26, 27 and 28.
Additionally, Because the combination of Swift and Begeja teaches or suggests the amended independent claim, the additional limitations recited in dependent claims 2-9, 11-25, 29-36 and 8-9 cannot render the claims non-obvious. In fact, claims 2-9, 11-25, 29-36 are rejected on their own merits, as well as, for depending from rejected base claims.
For at least the above reasons, Examiner respectfully submits that claims 1-9, 11-36 are not yet in condition for allowance.
In light of the above rebuttal, the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-36, contained in this office action, is hereby made final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412