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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 11-13, and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited references fail to anticipate or render the claimed subject matter (combined with other limitations claimed in the claimed subject matter) obvious over any of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination. Therefore, when taken as a whole application, and incorporating all the respective limitations, none of the prior art discloses the features as claimed. For instance, although Chari, Davies, and Bhaskaran disclose primary and backup satellite/terrestrial links, as well as predictive failures, they do not disclose the detailed limitations and specific relationships as recited in claims 3, 11, and 17, including encapsulation wrappers, IDs, and counter values with relative positions. Consequently, these claims, as well as their dependent claims, are allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 9, and 15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chari (US 20220278743 A1, cited by Applicant of Record) in view of Bhaskaran (US 20180302770 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chari discloses a method comprising:
establishing a primary communication link over a first Wide Area Network (WAN) to communicate data between a first device and a second device, the first WAN including a low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite network (LEO is the primary link [par. 0022]);
establishing a backup communication link over at least one of the first WAN or a second WAN (Another LEO (i.e., first WAN) or GEO (i.e., second WAN) is the backup link [par. 0022]);
communicating a traffic stream between the first device and the second device using the primary communication link (Services (i.e., traffic stream) are communicated using LEO [par. 0022]);
monitoring performance of the primary communication link during communication of the traffic stream to generate performance data (Non-LEO links are established for when LEO link become degraded (i.e., monitoring performance) [par. 0016, 22-23]);
determining, using the performance data, that an outage or impairment associated with the primary communication link (LEO degraded (i.e., impairment) [par. 0016, 23]);
based at least in part on determining the outage or impairment, replicating a portion of the traffic stream that is to be communicated via the primary communication link to generate a replicated traffic stream (Soft handoff using duplicate (i.e., replicating) stream [par. 0016-17, 22-23]);
communicating the portion of the traffic stream using the primary communication link during a period of time (Soft handoff (i.e., communicating with both primary and backup simultaneously) [par. 0017, 22-23, 31]); and
communicating the replicated traffic stream using the backup communication link at least partly during the period of time (Soft handoff using duplicate stream (i.e., communicating with both primary and backup simultaneously) [par. 0017, 22-23, 31]).
Although Chari discloses wherein: the backup communication link is communicated over the second WAN (i.e., GEO), as well as determining, as also discussed above, Chari does not explicitly disclose predicting, … is to occur at a future time; predicting … and prior to the future time, proactively. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Bhaskaran.
In the same field of endeavor, Bhaskaran discloses:
predicting, … is to occur at a future time (Predict connectivity events and perform predictive flow placement before the vehicle encounters any network holes [par. 0047]);
predicting … and prior to the future time, proactively (Predict connectivity events and perform predictive flow placement before the vehicle encounters any network holes [par. 0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chari with Bhaskaran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of maximizing application continuity [Bhaskaran par. 0047].
Regarding claim 9, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Chari further discloses a routing device [fig. 3] that acts as a proxy for a client device [fig. 2], the routing device comprising: one or more processors [fig. 3 no. 322]; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions [fig. 3 no. 328], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chari with Bhaskaran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of maximizing application continuity [Bhaskaran par. 0047].
Regarding claim 15, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Chari further discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions [fig. 3 no. 328] that, when executed by one or more processors [fig. 3 no. 322], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chari with Bhaskaran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of maximizing application continuity [Bhaskaran par. 0047].
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Chari and Bhaskaran disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Chari further discloses:
wherein the establishing of the primary communication link and the backup communication link, the monitoring the performance of the primary communication link, and the replicating of the portion of the traffic stream are performed by a proxy running on a routing device associated with the first device (The satellite terminal can be considered a proxy associated with the devices on the plane [fig. 2-3, see also par. 0037]).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Chari and Bhaskaran disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Chari further discloses:
wherein the establishing of the primary communication link and the backup communication link, the monitoring the performance of the primary communication link, and the replicating of the portion of the traffic stream are performed by a client running on the first device (The satellite terminal can be considered the client for the devices on the plane [fig. 2-3]).
Claims 2, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chari and Bhaskaran as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 respectively, and further in view of Vasseur (US 20150333953 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 16, Chari and Bhaskaran disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Chari further discloses further comprising:
determining that the outage or impairment associated with the primary communication link has cleared (Temporary [par. 0016, 31]);
based at least in part on determining the outage or impairment has cleared, stopping the replicating of the traffic stream (Temporary and soft-handoff, for some duration of time, where the primary LEO is preferred (i.e., back to primary) [par. 0016-17, 22-23, 31]).
Although Chari discloses temporary and preferred paths as discussed above, Chari and Bhaskaran do not explicitly disclose and stopping communicating the replicated traffic stream; and communicating the traffic stream using the primary link and not the backup communication link. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Vasseur.
In the same field of endeavor, Vasseur discloses:
and stopping communicating the replicated traffic stream [fig. 6A-7B]; and
communicating the traffic stream using the primary link and not the backup communication link [fig. 6A-7B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chari and Bhaskaran with Vasseur. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of using the primary/preferred path [Vasseur par. 0078].
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chari and Bhaskaran as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively, and further in view of Davies (US 20190150080 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Chari and Bhaskaran disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Chari discloses wherein: the backup communication link is communicated over the second WAN (i.e., GEO) as also discussed above, Chari and Bhaskaran do not explicitly disclose and the second WAN is a terrestrial WAN. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Davies.
In the same field of endeavor, Davies discloses:
and the second WAN is a terrestrial WAN [par. 0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chari and Bhaskaran with Davies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of ensuring continuous access to the service [Davies par. 0015].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465