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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending of which claims 2-10 and 12-16 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specifications do not describe or even cite the claimed “future” download or upload throughput. In short, there is not support for the claimed limitation of “future” download or upload throughput.
Claims 2, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specifications do not describe or even cite the claimed “future” download or upload throughput. As such, the claimed limitation of “future” is not enabled.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al (US PGPub No: 7,701,934) in view of Shevade et al (US PGPub No: 2022/0311744), hereafter referred to as Walter and Shevade, respectively.
With regard to claims 1, 6, and 11, Walter teaches through Shevade, a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, at one or more computing devices, one or more data packets to or from a private network (Walter teaches the NMS receiving one or more modified management messages and determining the originating device of each modified data packet within; see column 5, lines 32-34, Walter. The NMS is connected to manage devices in private networks; see Figure 1 and column 3, lines 46-47, Walter);
determining, from information contained within the one or more data packets, one or more requirements of the private network for supporting an operation associated with the one or more data packets; configuring, using the one or more determined requirements, one or more Internet services parameters (Walter explains how the NMS can use the management data packet to control operation of each managed device within a private network by establishing the network settings for each managed device. The NMS can then modify the network settings in the managed devices to ensure that the private network is operating according to the terms of the SLA and the predefined management scheme; see column 5, lines 51-58, Walter);
and routing, using the one or more configured Internet service parameters, the one or more data packets (see below).
While Walter teaches implementing internet service parameters based on the private network requirements, Walter does not explicitly cite routing using the parameters. In the same field of endeavor, Shevade also teaches a network (in particular, a radio-based network, equivalent to the claimed internet service) that supports private networks, the radio-based network’s parameters are determined at least in part on the private network (parameters based on the private network) (see paragraphs 78 and 100, Shevade). In particular, Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. network outside of private network). The network plan can set various parameters including bandwidth and throughput; see paragraph 100, Shevade. A customer is then able to provision, deprovision, and scale network use (via RAN), dynamically and on demand, the RAN then routing/forwarding traffic enforcing the rules such as security (routing using one or more configured parameters); see paragraphs 22, 27, and 130, Shevade.
By incorporating the private network’s requirement, the radio-based network (internet service) can improve reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Shevade, with those of Walter to improve network reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade.
With regard to claims 2, 7, and 12, Walter teaches through Shevade, the computer-implemented method wherein determining the one or more requirements from the information contained within the one or more data packets comprises determining at least a first requirement for supporting a furture download throughput or upload throughput; and configuring the one or more Internet service parameters using the one or more determined requirements from the information contained within the one or more data packets comprises configuring a parameter to increase or decrease at least one of download throughput or upload throughput to satisfy the first requirement for supporting the future download throughput or upload throughput.
While Walter teaches implementing internet service parameters based on the private network requirements, Walter does not explicitly cite the parameters including download/upload throughput. In the same field of endeavor, Shevade also teaches a network (in particular, a radio-based network, equivalent to the claimed internet service) that supports private networks, the radio-based network’s parameters are determined at least in part on the private network (parameters based on the private network) (see paragraphs 78 and 100, Shevade). In particular, Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. network outside of private network). The network plan can set various parameters including bandwidth and throughput; see paragraph 100, Shevade. The plan can include a schedule of coverage (i.e. future upload/download); see paragraph 100, Shevade.
By incorporating the private network’s requirement, the radio-based network (internet service) can improve reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Shevade, with those of Walter to improve network reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade.
With regard to claims 3, 8, and 13, Walter teaches through Shevade, the computer-implemented method wherein determining the one or more requirements from the information contained within the one or more data packets comprises determining at least one parameter that affects a latency associated with the private network; and configuring the one or more Internet services parameters using the one or more determined requirements from the information contained within the one or more data packets comprises configuring the parameters that affects the latency associated with the private network.
While Walter teaches implementing internet service parameters based on the private network requirements, Walter does not explicitly cite the parameters including parameters that affect latency. In the same field of endeavor, Shevade also teaches a network (in particular, a radio-based network, equivalent to the claimed internet service) that supports private networks, the radio-based network’s parameters are determined at least in part on the private network (parameters based on the private network) (see paragraphs 78 and 100, Shevade). In particular, Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. network outside of private network). The network plan can set various parameters including latency, for instance a maximum network latency; see paragraph 100, Shevade.
By incorporating the private network’s requirement, the radio-based network (internet service) can improve reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Shevade, with those of Walter to improve network reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade.
With regard to claims 4, 9, and 14, Walter teaches through Shevade, the computer-implemented method wherein configuring the one or more Internet services parameters comprises: changing, by the one or more computing devices, at least one operating parameter of a radio access network (RAN) device
While Walter teaches implementing internet service parameters based on the private network requirements, Walter does not explicitly cite the parameters including parameters of a radio access network device. In the same field of endeavor, Shevade also teaches a network (in particular, a radio-based network, equivalent to the claimed internet service) that supports private networks, the radio-based network’s parameters are determined at least in part on the private network (parameters based on the private network) (see paragraphs 78 and 100, Shevade). In particular, Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. radio access network). The network plan can set various parameters including parameters of devices within the radio-based network (i.e. parameter of a radio access network device); see paragraph 100, Shevade.
By incorporating the private network’s requirement, the radio-based network (internet service) can improve reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Shevade, with those of Walter to improve network reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade.
With regard to claims 5, 10, and 15, Walter teaches through Shevade, the computer-implemented method wherein configuring the one or more Internet services parameters comprises: adjusting a signal strength of the RAN device
While Walter teaches implementing internet service parameters based on the private network requirements, Walter does not explicitly cite the parameters including signal strength of the RAN device. In the same field of endeavor, Shevade also teaches a network (in particular, a radio-based network, equivalent to the claimed internet service) that supports private networks, the radio-based network’s parameters are determined at least in part on the private network (parameters based on the private network) (see paragraphs 78 and 100, Shevade). In particular, Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. radio access network). The network plan can set various parameters including parameters of devices within the radio-based network (i.e. parameter of a radio access network device); see paragraph 100, Shevade. This includes setting the max/min signal strength; see paragraphs 104 and 112, Shevade.
By incorporating the private network’s requirement, the radio-based network (internet service) can improve reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Shevade, with those of Walter to improve network reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade.
With regards to claim 16, Walter teaches through Shevade, the computer-implemented wherein determining the one or more requirements of the private network for supporting the operations associated with the one or more data packets comprises: obtaining information that indicates (i) a transport requirement and (ii) a security requirement; and configuring the one or more Internet services parameters based on (i) the transport requirement and (ii) the security requirement
While Walter teaches implementing internet service parameters based on the private network requirements, Walter does not explicitly cite the requirements being transport and security requirements. In the same field of endeavor, Shevade also teaches a network (in particular, a radio-based network, equivalent to the claimed internet service) that supports private networks, the radio-based network’s parameters are determined at least in part on the private network (parameters based on the private network) (see paragraphs 78 and 100, Shevade). In particular, Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. radio access network). The network plan can set various parameters including parameters of devices within the radio-based network (i.e. parameter of a radio access network device); see paragraph 100, Shevade. This includes setting and enforcing latency and bandwidth (i.e. transport parameters) and security groups and access control (i.e. security parameters); see paragraphs 100, 111, 113-114, 130, Shevade.
By incorporating the private network’s requirement, the radio-based network (internet service) can improve reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Shevade, with those of Walter to improve network reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade.
With regards to claim 17, Walter teaches through Shevade, the computer-implemented method wherein obtaining the information that indicates the security requirement comprises: obtaining information that indicates a requirement of at least one of: privacy, access control, authentication, or encryption
While Walter teaches implementing internet service parameters based on the private network requirements, Walter does not explicitly cite the requirements of at least privacy, access control, authentication, or encryption. In the same field of endeavor, Shevade also teaches a network (in particular, a radio-based network, equivalent to the claimed internet service) that supports private networks, the radio-based network’s parameters are determined at least in part on the private network (parameters based on the private network) (see paragraphs 78 and 100, Shevade). In particular, Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. radio access network). The network plan can set various parameters including parameters of devices within the radio-based network (i.e. parameter of a radio access network device); see paragraph 100, Shevade. This includes setting and enforcing security groups and access control (i.e. security parameters); see paragraphs 111, 113-114, 130, Shevade.
By incorporating the private network’s requirement, the radio-based network (internet service) can improve reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Shevade, with those of Walter to improve network reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade.
With regards to claim 18, Walter teaches through Shevade, the computer-implemented method wherein obtaining the information that indicates the transport requirement comprises: obtaining information that indicates a requirement of at least one of: a routing protocol, a data sharing protocol, a data storing protocol, a data application layer protocol, or communication method
While Walter teaches implementing internet service parameters based on the private network requirements, Walter does not explicitly cite the requirements of a routing protocol, data sharing protocol, data storing protocol, data application layer protocol, or communication method. In the same field of endeavor, Shevade also teaches a network (in particular, a radio-based network, equivalent to the claimed internet service) that supports private networks, the radio-based network’s parameters are determined at least in part on the private network (parameters based on the private network) (see paragraphs 78 and 100, Shevade). In particular, Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. radio access network). The network plan can set various parameters including parameters of devices within the radio-based network (i.e. parameter of a radio access network device); see paragraph 100, Shevade. This includes setting and enforcing various communication protocols; see paragraphs 89-90, Shevade.
By incorporating the private network’s requirement, the radio-based network (internet service) can improve reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Shevade, with those of Walter to improve network reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade.
With regards to claim 19, Walter teaches through Shevade, the computer-implemented method wherein a requirement of the communication method indicates either fiber or wireless communication
While Walter teaches implementing internet service parameters based on the private network requirements, Walter does not explicitly cite the requirement indicating fiber or wireless. In the same field of endeavor, Shevade also teaches a network (in particular, a radio-based network, equivalent to the claimed internet service) that supports private networks, the radio-based network’s parameters are determined at least in part on the private network (parameters based on the private network) (see paragraphs 78 and 100, Shevade). In particular, Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. radio access network). The network plan can set various parameters including parameters of devices within the radio-based network (i.e. parameter of a radio access network device); see paragraph 100, Shevade. This includes setting and enforcing fiber and wireless; see paragraphs 79-81, and 82 as well as paragraphs 12-13, Shevade.
By incorporating the private network’s requirement, the radio-based network (internet service) can improve reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Shevade, with those of Walter to improve network reliability and performance; see paragraph 23, Shevade.
With regards to claim 20, Walter teaches through Shevade, the computer-implemented method comprising: parsing the one or more data packets to obtain the information contained within the one or more data packets; and determining, using the parsed information, the one or more requirements (Walter teaches the NMS using the packets to determine if managed devices are operating according to parameters and to control operations of the managed devices by establishing network settings for each managed device; see column 5, lines 47-58, Walter. It is implicit that the parameters/settings are parsed).
Response to Arguments
The RCE filed on February 24, 2026 has been entered with no remarks or amendments beyond those filed in the January 26, 2026 after final response. As such, the amendments and the remarks filed on January 26, 2026 are being addressed.
With respect to the independent claims, applicant argues the claim limitation of, “...determining, from information contained within the one or more data packets, one or more requirements of the private network for supporting an operation associated with the one or more data packets." The examiner contends that Walter's "predefined parameters" are not from the packet and hence the limitation is not taught. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained within the final office action, Walter teaches the NMS receiving one or more modified management messages and determining the originating device of each modified data packet within; see column 5, lines 32-34. The NMS is connected to manage devices in private networks; see Figure 1 and column 3, lines 46-47. The NMS can use the management data packet to control operation of each managed device within a private network by establishing the network settings for each managed device. The NMS can then modify the network settings in the managed devices to ensure that they private network is operating according to the terms of the SLA and the predefined management scheme; see column 5, lines 51-58. The management data packet is used to control the operation by modifying network settings (i.e. private network requirements for supporting operation associated with the packet) of the managed device, to ensure the managed device is in compliance/supporting the private network's SLA. As such, applicant's arguments are not deemed persuasive.
With respect to amended claims 2, 7, and 12, applicant suggests that neither Walter nor Shevade teach the newly amended limitation now stating, “…determining the one or more requirements from the information contained within the one or more data packets comprises determining at least a first requirement for supporting a furture download throughput or upload throughput; and configuring the one or more Internet service parameters using the one or more determined requirements from the information contained within the one or more data packets comprises configuring a parameter to increase or decrease at least one of download throughput or upload throughput to satisfy the first requirement for supporting the future download throughput or upload throughput”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. network outside of private network). The network plan can set various parameters including bandwidth and throughput; see paragraph 100, Shevade. The plan can include a schedule of coverage (i.e. future upload/download); see paragraph 100, Shevade. As such, it is believed at least Shevade teaches the amended claim limitation.
In addition, claims 2, 7, and 12 are subject to new 112 rejections for now being supported by the applicant’s specifications. In particular, the specifications are silent with respect the newly claimed “future” download and upload throughputs. This creates enablement and written description issues, which result in the 112 1st paragraph rejections.
Finally with respect to claims 3, 8, and 13, applicant suggests that neither Walter nor Shevade teach the newly amended limitations now stating, “…determining the one or more requirements from the information contained within the one or more data packets comprises determining at least one parameter that affects a latency associated with the private network; and configuring the one or more Internet services parameters using the one or more determined requirements from the information contained within the one or more data packets comprises configuring the parameters that affects the latency associated with the private network...” The examiner again respectfully disagrees. Shevade teaches a network plan that is a specification of a radio-based network (e.g. network outside of private network). The network plan can set various parameters including latency, for instance a maximum network latency; see paragraph 100, Shevade. As such, it is believed at least Shevade teaches the amended claim limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AZIZUL Q CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-3909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/AZIZUL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights