DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/10/2025 and 09/09/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a route manager (RM) configured to provide routing tables” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gopal et al. (“Gopal”) [USPAT 9,763,167].
Regarding claim 1, the Gopal reference discloses a satellite communication system comprising: a satellite constellation with a plurality of satellites [ie. “private software defined satellite network (SDSN) that employs a constellation of airborne network nodes” and “Such airborne network nodes may be deployed via any of a multitude of airborne platforms, such as satellite platforms (including geostationary earth orbit (GEO) satellites, medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites and/or low earth orbit (LEO) satellites), high altitude platforms (HAPs ), aircraft, etc”; Gopal; figures 2A and 2B; column 3, lines 26-51 and col 13, lines 23-46];
a route manager (RM) configured to provide routing tables that include a quality of service (QoS) attribute to the plurality of satellites [ie. link date rates, based on requirements, within Forwarding Tables from System Controller (“route manager”); Gopal; fig 5 and 6C; col 26, lines 8-42, col 27, lines 37-67, and col 31, lines 1-47], wherein:
a satellite of the plurality of satellites uses the QoS attribute to provide differentiated quality of service for the data by routing the data on a link to a next node of the plurality of satellites [Gopal; col 20, line 37 – col 21, line 32, col 22, lines 4-25, and “differentiated quality of service” col 33, line 53 - col 34, line 15] based on the QoS attribute and corresponding QoS information in a packet header of the data [Gopal; col. 23, line 41 – col 24, line 16].
Regarding claim 2, the Gopal reference further discloses the RM is located on a ground-based server and the routing tables are uploaded to the plurality of satellites [Gopal; col 3, lines 26-65 and col 22, lines 45-63].
Regarding claim 3, the Gopal reference further discloses the plurality of satellites monitor data in data traffic flow and determine where data is to be sent based on packet header information in the data and the QoS attributes in the routing table [Gopal; col 11, lines 8-33 and col 22, lines 24-63].
Regarding claim 4, the Gopal reference discloses the QoS attribute includes error sensitivity, security sensitivity, delay sensitivity, congestion, interference, and priority [ie. packet loss, permitted jurisdiction to pass through, delay, congestion, jitter, and priority; Gopal; Table 2; col 1, lines 61-67, col 26, lines 8-42, and col 28, lines 1-23].
Regarding claim 5, the Gopal reference further discloses the satellite of the plurality of satellites uses a QoS attribute to determine a priority of sending data to a user terminal compared to other data having a lower priority QoS attribute [Gopal; col 11, line 8 - col 12, line 23, col 16, lines 46-66, and col 20, lines 37-67].
Regarding claim 7, the Gopal reference further discloses the satellite of the plurality of satellites receives packets from user terminals and organizes user packets into user queues based on a plurality of QoS attributes [Gopal; col 11, line 8 - col 12, line 23, col 16, lines 46-66, and col 20, lines 37-67].
Regarding claim 8, the Gopal reference further discloses the satellite of the plurality of satellites organizes packets from the user queues into per-link queues based on a relative user priority and the plurality of QoS attributes, and schedules packet transmissions into links from the per-link queues [Gopal; col 11, line 8 - col 12, line 23, col 16, lines 46-66, and col 20, line 37 – col 21, line 32].
Regarding claim 9, the Gopal reference further discloses the plurality of satellites comprises medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites and low earth orbit (LEO) satellites [Gopal; fig 2A; col 3, lines 26-50].
Regarding claim 10, the Gopal reference discloses a method of communicating on a multi-satellite communication system comprising: receiving a routing table on a satellite of a plurality of satellites [Gopal; fig 2A, 2B, 5 and 6C; col 26, lines 8-42, col 27, lines 37-67, and col 31, lines 1-47]
where the routing table includes a quality of service (QoS) attribute configured for the satellite to provide differentiated QoS routing of data among a plurality of satellites [Gopal; col 20, line 37 – col 21, line 32, col 22, lines 4-25, and “differentiated quality of service” col 33, line 53 - col 34, line 15]; and
routing data on a link to a next node of the plurality of satellites based on the QoS attribute and information in a packet header of the data [Gopal; col. 23, line 41 – col 24, line 16].
Regarding claim 11, the Gopal reference further discloses determining the routing table for the satellite is performed by a route manager located on a ground-based server [Gopal; col 3, lines 26-65 and col 22, lines 45-63].
Regarding claim 12, the Gopal reference further discloses the satellite monitors data in data traffic flow and determine where data is to be sent based on data header information in the data and the QoS attributes in the routing table [Gopal; col 11, lines 8-33 and col 22, lines 24-63].
Regarding claim 13, the Gopal reference discloses the QoS attribute includes error sensitivity, security sensitivity, delay sensitivity, congestion, interference, and priority [ie. packet loss, permitted jurisdiction to pass through, delay, congestion, jitter, and priority; Gopal; Table 2; col 1, lines 61-67, col 26, lines 8-42, and col 28, lines 1-23].
Regarding claim 14, the Gopal reference further discloses the satellite of the plurality of satellites uses the priority QoS attribute to determine a priority of sending data to a user terminal compared to other data having a lower priority QoS attribute [Gopal; col 11, line 8 - col 12, line 23, col 16, lines 46-66, and col 20, lines 37-67].
Regarding claim 16, the Gopal reference further discloses receiving packets from user terminals, organizing user packets into queues based on attributes, organizing packets into per-link queues based on a relative user priority and the attributes, and scheduling packet transmissions into links from the per-link queues to route data on the link to a next node [Gopal; col 11, line 8 - col 12, line 23, col 16, lines 46-66, and col 20, line 37 – col 21, line 32].
Regarding claim 17, the Gopal reference discloses a method of communicating on a multi-satellite communication system comprising: receiving link status information from a plurality of satellites [Gopal; fig 5; col 5, lines 20-59];
determining routing tables for the plurality of satellites by a route management function (RM) located on a ground-based server wherein the routing tables include a quality of service (QoS) attribute to be used by a satellite of the plurality of satellites to provide QoS routing of data among the plurality of satellites [Gopal; fig 2A, 2B, 5 and 6C; col 26, lines 8-42, col 27, lines 37-67, and col 31, lines 1-47];
uploading the determined routing tables to the plurality of satellites [Gopal; col 26, lines 8-42], and
monitoring data on the plurality of satellites in data traffic flow to determine where data is to be sent based on data header information in the data and the QoS attribute in the routing tables [Gopal; col 15, lines 6-65, col 25, lines 1-12, and col 31, lines 1-47].
Regarding claim 18, the Gopal reference discloses the QoS attribute includes error sensitivity, security sensitivity, delay sensitivity, congestion, interference, and priority [ie. packet loss, permitted jurisdiction to pass through, delay, congestion, jitter, and priority; Gopal; Table 2; col 1, lines 61-67, col 26, lines 8-42, and col 28, lines 1-23].
Regarding claim 19, the Gopal reference further discloses a satellite of the plurality of satellites uses a priority QoS attribute to determine a priority of sending data to a user terminal compared to other data having a lower priority QoS attribute [Gopal; col 11, line 8 - col 12, line 23, col 16, lines 46-66, and col 20, lines 37-67].
Regarding claim 20, the Gopal reference further discloses organizing user packets into user queues based on a plurality of QoS attributes; organizing packets from the user queues into per-link queues based on a relative user priority and the plurality of QoS attributes, and scheduling packet transmissions into links from the per-link queues to route data on a link to a next node [Gopal; col 11, line 8 - col 12, line 23, col 16, lines 46-66, and col 20, line 37 – col 21, line 32].
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 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopal in view of Chakravorty [PGPUB 2002/0044553].
Regarding claim 6, the Gopal reference further discloses the RM determines a security sensitive QoS attribute and routes data on a secure route to avoid sending data through a gateway at an unsecured location [“The SC receives and processes global routing constraints from the NOC (e.g., constraints on the available routes-such as, an enterprise may place constraints on the nodes through which certain data is permitted to pass through, or certain governmental rules that a jurisdiction may place with respect to the routing of certain data through nodes located in the respective jurisdiction)” and ““As specified above, according to one embodiment, a route entry of the FT includes a traffic type or QoS field, a source address field, a destination address field and a next hop network node route field. The source address field reflects an originating source address of the packet (e.g., reflecting a particular customer node/site or terminal), the destination address field reflects an ultimate destination address for the packet (e.g., reflecting a particular destination customer node/site or terminal), the traffic type or QoS field reflects the traffic type (e.g., indicating a priority level) of the packet”; Gopal; col 23, lines 56-67 and col 28, lines 15-22]. The Gopal reference does not specifically disclose security enabled bit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Chakravorty reference discloses security sensitive QoS attribute by a security enabled bit [Chakravorty; fig 1 and 2; para 0019 and 0101]. The Gopal and Chakravorty references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage high quality of service for routing data. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of security enabled bit, taught by Chakravorty, into the system, taught by Gopal. The motivation for doing so would have been for privacy [Chakravorty; para 0101].
Regarding claim 15, the Gopal reference further discloses the RM determines a security sensitive QoS attribute and routes data on a secure route to avoid sending data through a gateway at an unsecured location [“The SC receives and processes global routing constraints from the NOC (e.g., constraints on the available routes-such as, an enterprise may place constraints on the nodes through which certain data is permitted to pass through, or certain governmental rules that a jurisdiction may place with respect to the routing of certain data through nodes located in the respective jurisdiction)” and ““As specified above, according to one embodiment, a route entry of the FT includes a traffic type or QoS field, a source address field, a destination address field and a next hop network node route field. The source address field reflects an originating source address of the packet (e.g., reflecting a particular customer node/site or terminal), the destination address field reflects an ultimate destination address for the packet (e.g., reflecting a particular destination customer node/site or terminal), the traffic type or QoS field reflects the traffic type (e.g., indicating a priority level) of the packet”; Gopal; col 23, lines 56-67 and col 28, lines 15-22]. The Gopal reference does not specifically disclose security enabled bit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Chakravorty reference discloses security sensitive QoS attribute by a security enabled bit [Chakravorty; fig 1 and 2; para 0019 and 0101]. The Gopal and Chakravorty references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage high quality of service for routing data. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of security enabled bit, taught by Chakravorty, into the system, taught by Gopal. The motivation for doing so would have been for privacy [Chakravorty; para 0101].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kay et al. [PGPUB 2018/0084476] describes inter-satellite links in a non-geostationary orbits.
Yan et al. [PGPUB 2021/0306069] describes routing with MEO and LEO satellites.
Glottmann et al. [PGPUB 2019/0116544] describes MEO/LEO satellite mesh for routing real-time video.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458