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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A1) The argument by the applicants states “Gopal separates routing decisions from QoS handling and performs queueing operations based on QoS, not routing of data on a link to a next node as required by claim 1” and “Gopal discloses that QoS influences priority, ordering, and dropping within queues, and that queues are associated with an already selected port (i.e., route) to perform QoS-based differentiation within an already-selected route, and not for selecting the route” [Reply; pages 6-7].
Response by the examiner: The claim language states “by routing the data on a link to a next node of the plurality of satellites based on”. The claim language does not specifically disclose “selecting the route”. The Gopal reference does disclose a forwarding table function, which prioritizes packets, based on QoS, destined for each particular port/link to the next hop network node [Gopal, col 20, lines 37-65 and col 23, lines 41-67]. The queues of the port are used to route the data on a link to a next node. These queues of the port are based on the traffic type or QoS field (indicating priority level). The claim language does not disclose only the use of a port (without a queue) to route the data on a link to a next node based on QoS. The claim language only discloses a satellite constellation and a route manager but not a port or router or switch to route “the data on a link”. Therefore, the Gopal reference discloses the broad claim limitation of “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 based on the QoS attribute and corresponding QoS information in a packet header of the data”, as in claim 1.
A2) The argument by the applicants states “QoS influences how packets are handled within queues in Gopal, not which port (route) is selected for data routing or the actual routing of the data on a link to a next node as required by claim 1” [Reply; page 7].
Response by the examiner: The citation of col 20, line 37 - col 21, line 32, of the Gopal reference, discloses figure 3. As shown in figure 3, of the Gopal reference, after the data packet is processed, the network node routes the data packet on a link to the next node (ie. terminal node). The QoS within the teachings of Gopal is used to route data by placing the data in queues for routing. The claim language does not specifically state “which port (route) is selected for data routing” or the “actual” routing of the data on a link to a next node. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “selected for routing”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the Gopal reference discloses the broad claim limitation of “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 based on the QoS attribute and corresponding QoS information in a packet header of the data”, as in claim 1.
A3) The argument by the applicants states “routing of Gopal is performed based on forwarding logic and next-hop determination, rather than explicitly based on a QoS attribute”, “Gopal still does not disclose that QoS is used as an independent basis for routing”, and “At no point does Gopal disclose that QoS attributes alone determine the next-hop node, that QoS information in the packet header drives route selection, that routing paths are selected based on QoS in the manner required by claim 1” [Reply; pages 6-7].
Response by the examiner: The forwarding logic (“forwarding table function”), within the Gopal reference, does disclose Quality of Service requirement [Gopal; col 16, lines 46-66, col 20, lines 37-65, and col 24, lines 54-65]. The claim language does not specifically state the QoS is used as “an independent basis for routing”. Also, the claim language does not specifically state only/alone the QoS is used for routing. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “independent basis” and “alone”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The data routing is “based on” the QoS attribute and QoS information in the packet header. The claim language does not exclude other factors for basing the data routing. As shown by the Gopal reference, multiple attributes are based on for the routing of data. Therefore, the Gopal reference discloses the broad claim limitation of “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 based on the QoS attribute and corresponding QoS information in a packet header of the data”, as in claim 1.
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 under35 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 [Go pal; 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 Go pal 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 Go pal 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 Go pal 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 [Go pal; 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 [Go pal; 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 [Go pal; 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 [Go pal; 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 on a link to a next node 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 Go pal 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 [Go pal; 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 the link to the 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 [PG PUB 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.
Yang et al. [PGPUB 2020/0374228] describes routing based on QoS requirements.
Cui et al. [PGPUB 2018/0159766] describes creating a QoS tag for a packet for routing.
Ma et al. [PGPUB 2015/0229970] describes differentiating QoS service for packets with a single packet stream.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights