DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/365847 filed on 8/4/2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-22 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/419129 (hereinafter ‘129) in view of Tomasicchio et al. (hereinafter Tomasicchio) US 2019/0028185 A1.
Copending application ‘129 discloses most of claim 1 limitations [lines 1-11].
However, copending application ‘129 does not disclose “dynamically adjusting the bandwidth allocated to a particular channel of the plurality of channels based upon a present determination of a utilization of the particular channel of the plurality of channels.”
Tomasicchio directed to a telecommunications multi-beam satellite is provided that is controllable by a network control center via one or more control channels (abstract) teaches “dynamically adjusting the bandwidth allocated to a particular channel of the plurality of channels based upon a present determination of a utilization of the particular channel of the plurality of channels” (¶0037; see dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBAC). See also ¶0098-¶0102 & ¶0132-¶0138 the OPC 12 [management server] is designed to process signaling messages received from ground terminals, manage traffic resources, control frame-by-frame and in real-time [present determination of utilization] the BSP 11 for what concerns input-to-output interconnections, so as to dynamically assign the available resources [like bandwidth] to different satellite beams on the basis of ground terminals' needs; and [0102] handle control messages received from a ground NCC (not shown in FIG. 1), on the basis of which said OPC 12 can be reconfigured).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Tomasicchio into the system of copending application ‘129 in order to exploit reconfigurable software radio technologies and implements fast non-blocking switch routing algorithms driven by a dynamic bandwidth allocation scheme to dynamically control the digital transparent switching/routing stage (i.e., the BSP 11) so that the latter switches several traffic bursts in frequency, space and time domain on different destination satellite beams (¶0219).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the disclosure states “…on the order of less than two seconds (often less than 400 milliseconds) are typically are possible, rather than the much slower TDMA transitions….” See ¶0144. Examiner suggested to amend the specification to state “…are typically possible…” without a second “are.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-7: include “…further for…” this is not the correct language to use for drafting US applications. Examiner suggests replacing this language to “comprising” or other alternatives that is common/used in US applications.
Claim 1 limitation “a particular channel” in line 12 should be “the particular channel” since it refers back to line 10 “a particular channel.” If applicant means the channels are different, then proper distinction is needed. Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1 where they include similar limitation, thus the same rationale applies.
Claim 5 is not consistent when referring to “large data set” or “large datasets.” Applicant must be consistent. Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies.
Claim 6 is missing an “and” before the last limitation. claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-22 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example, see claim 5 “…a plurality of large data sets that are to be transmitted to a plurality of remote hosts… that is absent in the largest number of the plurality of remote hosts which are accessible to data transmitted by the plurality of satellite transponders… and which portions have not yet been received by the plurality of remote hosts; selecting a portion of the plurality of large datasets to be simultaneously transmitted using the plurality of satellite transponders to the plurality of remote hosts using a multicast protocol so as to maximize the portion” claim 6 “…so as to adjust an antenna from the at least one of the plurality of satellite transponders to the new transponder, and providing the remote host with a new channel on the new transponder, the new channel being a single channel per carrier transmission”
Claim 1 limitation “…setting a bandwidth available for a particular channel of the plurality of channels at a predetermined maximum” is not clear because Examiner cannot determine the scope of the claim. The specification is silent as to the scope of “predetermined maximum.” See ¶0027 & ¶0144-¶0145. Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Claim 3 is not clear for at least two reasons. First, the limitation calls for “…available in response to: unpreferred usage type…a preferred usage type” which one is it preferred or unpreferred usage type? Both do not work with each other at the same time. Second, claim interpretation is not clear because it is missing an “Or” and it includes an “and” in the wrong place. How is the below limitation interpreted?
For example, the limitation “…the bandwidth available in response to: the usage type being an unpreferred usage type, the usage type being a preferred usage type, the user being associated with inefficient user of available bandwidth, the user being associated with a priority user group, and the usage type being a forbidden for use on a network controlled by the network management system, a determination that the usage type has been high-bandwidth utilization for a duration exceeding a predetermined threshold or during a predetermined time period during which bandwidth usage must be managed”
Does the limitation requires “…the bandwidth available in response to: the usage type being an unpreferred usage type, the usage type being a preferred usage type, the user being associated with inefficient user of available bandwidth, the user being associated with a priority user group,” and “the usage type being a forbidden for use on a network controlled by the network management system, a determination that the usage type has been high-bandwidth utilization for a duration exceeding a predetermined threshold or during a predetermined time period during which bandwidth usage must be managed”
or is it missing an “or”? Examiner interprets the limitation to include an “Or” where one condition will satisfy the claim.
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar to claim 3, thus the same rationale applies. Thus, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim 5 limitation “…that is absent in the largest number of the plurality of remote hosts which are accessible to data transmitted by the plurality of satellite transponders” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies. Thus, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
The underline limitation of claim 5 “…the plurality of large datasets…” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies. Thus, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim 7 limitation “the group” is rejected because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Claims 14 and 21 are substantially similar to claim 7, thus the same rationale applies. Thus, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim 7 “the group” is not clear. What does “the group” consist of? The limitations following “selected from the group…” are not written as separate conditions or as different options in a group. Claims 14 and 21 are substantially similar to claim 7, thus the same rationale applies. Thus, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim 7 limitation “the ground” is also rejected because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Claims 14 and 21 are substantially similar to claim 7, thus the same rationale applies. Thus, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20 and 22 are also rejected for depending on rejected base claim.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8-11, 14-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasicchio in view of Wells US 2008/0212518 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Tomasicchio teaches a network management system for use with a software defined radio for a mobile network system (¶0037-¶0040; see dynamic bandwidth allocation in SDR. See also Fig. 1 & ¶0095; a reconfigurable regenerative dynamic control sub-system based on SDR technology, that in the following will be referred to as On-board Processor Controller (OPC) and that in FIG. 1 is denoted as a whole by 12), the network management system comprising:
a management server, comprising a computing device (¶0095; Fig. 1 includes On-board Processor Controller (OPC) and that in FIG. 1 is denoted as a whole by 12 [ management server]. The management server/computing device is also similar to TRM 121. See Fig. 2 & ¶0119-¶0122; TRM 121 [computing device/management server], the TRM 121 handles the capacity requests from the ground terminals by assigning the requested resources, if available, on the basis of a priority order which is established by the QoS rules, and generates a routing map indicating switch input-to-output interconnections corresponding to the resource assignment performed), the management server for:
setting a bandwidth available for a particular channel of the plurality of channels at a predetermined maximum (Fig. 2 & ¶0132-¶0138; capacity request scheduling and resource (in particular bandwidth) allocation is then carried out (block 24); the bandwidth allocation includes determining which uplink (U/L) slot(s), within the Frame, can be used by which ground terminal and which is the associated downlink (D/L) slot(s); the allocation process assigns resources to a requesting ground terminal on the basis of the perimeter established at end-to-end connection setup level for the different QoS classes [predetermined maximum bandwidth] and arbitrated by the ground control; it also takes into account the expiration time of the capacity requests in order to de-allocate resources (on the basis of the timestamp) if no updates are received);
dynamically adjusting the bandwidth allocated to a particular channel of the plurality of channels based upon a present determination of a utilization of the particular channel of the plurality of channels (¶0037; see dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBAC). See also ¶0098-¶0102 & ¶0132-¶0138 the OPC 12 [management server] is designed to process signaling messages received from ground terminals, manage traffic resources, control frame-by-frame and in real-time [present determination of utilization] the BSP 11 for what concerns input-to-output interconnections, so as to dynamically assign the available resources [like bandwidth] to different satellite beams on the basis of ground terminals' needs; and [0102] handle control messages received from a ground NCC (not shown in FIG. 1), on the basis of which said OPC 12 can be reconfigured).
Tomasicchio does not expressly teach “a plurality of satellite transponders, each satellite transponder operating using single channel per carrier (SCPC) transmission to allocate an entire bandwidth of a given frequency channel of a plurality of channels to the network management system;
at least one ground station in communication with the plurality of satellite transponders, the at least one ground station communicating on at least one of the plurality of channels, using the plurality of satellite transponders, to a remote host;”
However, the limitations are obvious as admitted prior art. See applicant’s background i.e. ¶0008. Despite that, Examiner still uses a different reference to reject the claims.
Wells teaches a plurality of satellite transponders (¶0050; transponders 33), each satellite transponder operating using single channel per carrier (SCPC) transmission to allocate an entire bandwidth of a given frequency channel of a plurality of channels to the network management system (¶0004 & ¶0050-¶0053; using SCPC and transponder for bandwidth);
at least one ground station in communication with the plurality of satellite transponders (Fig. 1 -transponders 33), the at least one ground station communicating on at least one of the plurality of channels (Fig. 1- Host 12), using the plurality of satellite transponders, to a remote host (Fig. 1-remote terminal 1).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Wells into the system of Tomasicchio in order to use SCPC links for the return path (¶0017). Utilizing such teachings enable the system/ISP to serve thousands of subscribers with a Committed Bit Rate (CBR) of 2 Mb/s and an SCPC return channel of 128 or 256 Kb/s. Id.
Regarding Claim 2, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 Tomasicchio further teaches wherein the management server is further for dynamically adjusting the size, total number of transponders allocated to the particular channel or dynamically selecting more, or fewer of the plurality of transponders for use by the remote host based upon at least one of: the available transponders covering a geographic area serviced by the plurality of satellite transponders (¶0025 & ¶0101 & ¶0122-¶0138; a further example of fully regenerative satellite architecture is provided also in US 2012/300697 A1, which relates to dynamic frequency assignment in a multi-beam satellite system, wherein available frequency channels are dynamically assigned to particular beams of the multi-beam satellite system. According to US 2012/300697 A1, the frequency assignment may be based on the amount of frequency allocated to particular beams of the multi-beam satellite system, utilizing a given frequency selection method employing frequency reuse constraints. There may be a number of distinct frequency channels that are each assigned to one or more different beams. Such a system may be made up of a satellite in communication with terminals (e.g., user terminals or gateways). The satellite may receive and compile bandwidth request data from the terminals, and use this information in frequency assignment), the utilization of the particular channel of the plurality of channels, the utilization of the plurality of channels relative to the particular channel, the utilization of a total of available bandwidth across the plurality of transponders that is utilized by a plurality of hosts including the remote host, movement of the remote host into or out of the geographic area serviced by the plurality of satellite transponders, and movement of other remote hosts into or out of the geographic area serviced by the plurality of satellite transponders.
Regarding Claim 3, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 Tomasicchio further teaches wherein the management server is further for: detecting a usage type for data of at least one user of a plurality of users or a particular user reliant upon the remote host (¶0122-¶0138; determining the request type);
and altering a bandwidth available to the at least one of a plurality of users to increase or decrease the bandwidth available in response to: the usage type being an unpreferred usage type, the usage type being a preferred usage type, the user being associated with inefficient user of available bandwidth, the user being associated with a priority user group (¶0122-¶0138; determining the request type and priority level of the request),
and the usage type being a forbidden for use on a network controlled by the network management system, a determination that the usage type has been high-bandwidth utilization for a duration exceeding a predetermined threshold or during a predetermined time period during which bandwidth usage must be managed.
Regarding Claim 4, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 Tomasicchio further teaches wherein the management server is further for: allocating bandwidth on one or more transponders of the plurality of transponders on a satellite with an irregular orbit (obvious from ¶0098-¶0102 because the OPC 12 is preferably designed to: [0099] process signaling messages received from ground terminals (not shown in FIG. 1); [0100] manage traffic resources; [0101] control, frame-by-frame and in real-time, the BSP 11 for what concerns input-to-output interconnections, so as to dynamically assign the available resources to different satellite beams on the basis of ground terminals' needs; and [0102] handle control messages received from a ground NCC (not shown in FIG. 1), on the basis of which said OPC 12 can be reconfigured); and providing to the remote host data sufficient to continually adjust an antenna (obvious from ¶0098-¶0102 because the OPC 12 is preferably designed to: [0099] process signaling messages received from ground terminals (not shown in FIG. 1); [0100] manage traffic resources; [0101] control, frame-by-frame and in real-time, the BSP 11 for what concerns input-to-output interconnections, so as to dynamically assign the available resources to different satellite beams on the basis of ground terminals' needs; and [0102] handle control messages received from a ground NCC (not shown in FIG. 1), on the basis of which said OPC 12 can be reconfigured) suitable for communication with the satellite with the irregular orbit to maintain a degraded connection to the satellite with the irregular orbit for use by the remote host (interpreted to be intended use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate what is known in the art in the system of Tomasicchio to reach this claim in order to exploit reconfigurable software radio technologies and implements fast non-blocking switch routing algorithms driven by a dynamic bandwidth allocation scheme to dynamically control the digital transparent switching/routing stage (i.e., the BSP 11) so that the latter switches several traffic bursts in frequency, space and time domain on different destination satellite beams (¶0219).
Regarding Claim 7, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 Wells further teaches wherein the management server is further for selecting disconnecting the remote host from the particular channel upon detection of conditions selected from the group: descending or ascending to a predetermined distance from the ground and entering a particular airspace or jurisdiction in which use of the channel or access to a network using the network management system is prohibited (¶0094-¶0096; this limitation is obvious because when task 100 detects an inappropriate bandwidth, a task 102 determines whether transmission is now complete. In other words, task 102 determines whether the communications link is no longer needed. If task 102 determines that transmission is complete, program control proceeds to task 92, where network access controller 42 sends a signal to remote transmitter 36 to turn the transmit carrier off. Network access controller 42 then returns to monitoring data interface 42 for an RTS as described above).
Claims 8-11, 14-18 and 21-22 are substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasicchio in view of Wells and further in view of Settle US 2005/0037706 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 Wells further teaches wherein the management server is further for: maintaining a database of a plurality of large data sets that are to be transmitted to a plurality of remote hosts (Fig. 1, ¶0015, ¶0041; obvious because FIG. 1 can be used in applications that call for broadcast (voice or video) messages, isolated area telephone service, circuit restoral or, large file transfer applications. ¶0118; variety of other embodiments of system 10 are envisioned. For example, if large file transfers and large e-mail attachments create a situation where the throughput is not high enough using the assigned channel, the circuit would remain busy for a long time to pass the data. In order to prevent this, a second group of channels may be added. The additional channels allow a higher data rate carrier, one that is more suited for larger file transfers, or even video conferencing. One of the possible configurations for the system is to assign permanent channels to certain high traffic stations during part of the day);
Tomasicchio in view of Wells do not expressly teach detecting which of the plurality of remote hosts have which portions of the large data sets and which portions have not yet been received by the plurality of remote hosts; selecting a portion of the plurality of large datasets to be simultaneously transmitted using the plurality of satellite transponders to the plurality of remote hosts using a multicast protocol so as to maximize the portion of the plurality of large datasets that is absent in the largest number of the plurality of remote hosts which are accessible to data transmitted by the plurality of satellite transponders.
Settle teaches detecting which of the plurality of remote hosts have which portions of the large data sets and which portions have not yet been received by the plurality of remote hosts (Fig. 7 & ¶0141-¶0145; obvious because each digital media content provider initiates a multicast distribution by submitting digital media content to one multicast server along with a client list that spans several client pools (such as, for example, Client List-3 shown in FIG. 7, which includes client in Client Pools 1-3). There is no restriction on content submission to several multicast servers simultaneously, and thus the control system manages system resources such that all distribution requests are serviced);
selecting a portion of the plurality of large datasets to be simultaneously transmitted using the plurality of satellite transponders to the plurality of remote hosts using a multicast protocol (Fig. 7 & ¶0143; master arbitration server responds with rate, time slice, channel assignment(s), satellite assignment(s), and a transaction identifier. The local arbitration server is now capable of initiating a multicast distribution through its associated multicast server based on the response from the master arbitration server. The rate information in the master arbitration response is multi-tiered, containing rates associated with channels that are in turn associated with satellites)
so as to maximize the portion of the plurality of large datasets that is absent in the largest number of the plurality of remote hosts which are accessible to data transmitted by the plurality of satellite transponders (interpreted as intended use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Settle into the system of Tomasicchio in view of Wells so that the reduction in transmission time that can be achieved through more efficient use of the satellite transponder communication channel can enable new applications for satellite communications by providing significant cost savings, and advantages of speed and increased channel capacity. Utilizing such teachings permit the multicast server that initiates a multicast distribution to control how it sends data to the various uplink sites necessary for the multicast distribution based on the client list. The multicast server may use its local uplink equipment as well as other uplink equipment according to the client list. Access to remote uplink equipment necessary for the multicast distribution is facilitated through the master control network and respective local arbitration server as shown in FIG. 1 (¶0143).
Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasicchio in view of Wells and further in view of Parkman et al. (hereinafter Parkman) US 2004/0092263 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 wherein the management server is further for:
But does not expressly teach detecting that the remote host is transitioning out of a geographic area serviced by the particular channel; selecting a new transponder of the plurality of the satellite transponders; transitioning the remote host to the new transponder of the plurality of satellite transponders by instructing the new transponder and the remote host to begin transmission on the new transponder at a predetermined time, providing the remote host with the location of the new transponder
so as to adjust an antenna from the at least one of the plurality of satellite transponders to the new transponder, and providing the remote host with a new channel on the new transponder, the new channel being a single channel per carrier transmission (intended use);
the antenna acquiring a signal and beginning communication using the new transponder in less than two seconds using the new channel.
Parkman teaches detecting that the remote host is transitioning out of a geographic area serviced by the particular channel (¶0030; This request for a hand-off is initiated by ground station 22a when it detects that the aircraft 12 has entered the area of overlap 14c of the two coverage regions 14a and 14b); selecting a new transponder of the plurality of the satellite transponders (¶0031; the NOC 26 selects forward link and return link assignments which the aircraft 12 is to use when it begins communicating with the transponders 18c.sub.1 and 18d.sub.1 of satellites 18c and 18d, respectively, as indicated at step 52 of FIG. 4); transitioning the remote host to the new transponder of the plurality of satellite transponders by instructing the new transponder and the remote host to begin transmission on the new transponder at a predetermined time, providing the remote host with the location of the new transponder (¶0030-¶0031; Next, the NOC 26 selects forward link and return link assignments which the aircraft 12 is to use when it begins communicating with the transponders 18c.sub.1 and 18d.sub.1 of satellites 18c and 18d, respectively, as indicated at step 52 of FIG. 4. This step also involves having the ground station 22b transmit to ground station 22a, via the NOC 26, a "traffic key" wrapped in the platform public key, if encryption is being used. The "traffic key" is preferably a 168 bit Triple DES symmetric traffic encryption key (per FIPS PUB 46-3, hereby incorporated by reference into the present application), wrapped in the asymmetric public key of the recipient. Once the ground station 22a has received the forward link and return link transponder assignments from ground station 22b, it transmits this information via satellite 18a to the aircraft 12, as indicated by arrows 54a and 54b, and as also indicated at step 56 in FIG. 4. The aircraft 12 then acknowledges the new assignments via signals transmitted from its mobile transceiver 20 via the return link transponder 18b.sub.1 of satellite 18b, as indicated at step 58 in FIG. 4, and by arrows 55a and 55b) so as to adjust an antenna from the at least one of the plurality of satellite transponders to the new transponder, and providing the remote host with a new channel on the new transponder, the new channel being a single channel per carrier transmission (interpreted as intended use);
the antenna acquiring a signal and beginning communication using the new transponder in less than two seconds using the new channel (¶0036; Requesting the forward link and return link assignments from the ground station 22b of region 14b takes approximately two seconds or less, as indicated by time interval 76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Park into the system of Tomasicchio in view of Wells in order to provide a system and method for coordinating the break of an existing return communications link between a mobile platform and a first ground based transceiver located within a first coverage region, and establishing a new communications link between the mobile platform and a second ground based transceiver located within a second coverage region, where the mobile platform is communicating with the ground based transceivers via satellite transponders orbiting above each of the first and second coverage regions (¶0006).
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455