DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 2-21 have been examined and are pending. The amendments received in the Office on 6/18/2024 have been accepted.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2024 and 2/04/2026 have been found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings were received on 4/05/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
6. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
7. 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.
8. Claims 2, 5-8, 11, 14-17, and 20 (hereinafter “Application”) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,432,308 B2 (hereinafter “Patent”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2010/0120357 A1 to Agarwal (hereinafter “Agarwal”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the Application (as described below) are transparently found in the Patent, either in a one-to-one fashion (claim to claim) or in a one-to-many fashion (claim to multiple claims) with indistinguishable wording variations, and therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Take an example of comparing claim 2 of the Application and claim 1 of the Patent, in further view of Agarwal:
Application, Claim 2:
A method, comprising:
identifying, for a forward link satellite beam of a multi-beam satellite communications system, first forward link data streams for communication with a first set of terminals and second forward link data streams for communication with a second set of terminals, wherein the second set of terminals are located on respective transportation platforms and provide a communication service to respective pluralities of mobile devices on the respective transportation platforms,
and wherein the second forward link data streams are associated with the respective pluralities of mobile devices; identifying beam resources of the forward link satellite beam for a first time period; determining first respective amounts of demand associated with the first forward link data streams for a first time period; determining second respective amounts of demand for the second forward link data streams for the first time period; and managing data flow of the first forward link data streams and the second forward link data streams via the forward link satellite beam over the first time period based at least in part on the first respective amounts of demand associated with the first forward link data streams for the first time period and the second respective amounts of demand associated with the second forward link data streams for the first time period, wherein managing the data flow comprises prioritizing one or more of the second forward link data streams over one or more of the first forward link data streams based at least in part on first respective traffic types for the first forward link data streams, and second respective traffic types for the second forward link data streams.
Patent, Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
identifying, for a forward link satellite beam of a multi-beam satellite communications system, first forward link data streams for communication with a first set of terminals and second forward link data streams for communication with a second set of terminals, wherein the second set of terminals are located on respective transportation platforms and provide a communication service to respective pluralities of mobile devices on the respective transportation platforms according to respective user-specific traffic policies, and wherein the second forward link data streams are associated with the respective pluralities of mobile devices;
determining first respective amounts of demand associated with the first forward link data streams for a first time period; determining a first aggregate resource demand for the second forward link data streams for the first time period;
allocating first respective sets of beam resources to the first set of terminals and the second set of terminals for the first time period based at least in part on the first respective amounts of demand associated with the first forward link data streams for the first time period, the first aggregate resource demand for the second forward link data streams for the first time period, and a first provisioned service level of the respective user-specific traffic policies;
determining second respective amounts of demand associated with the first forward link data streams for a second time period; determining a second aggregate resource demand for the second forward link data streams for the second time period; and
allocating second respective sets of beam resources to the first set of terminals and the second set of terminals for the second time period based at least in part on the second respective amounts of demand associated with the first forward link data streams for the second time period, the second aggregate resource demand for the second time period for the second forward link data streams for the second time period, and a second provisioned service level of the respective user-specific traffic policies.
The Patent does not explicitly disclose the underlined portions of the Application.
However, these features cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Agarwal. Agarwal is similarly concerned with beam allocation and management (Agarwal: [0005], [0008-0009]). Agarwal discloses the underlined portions,
identifying beam resources of the forward link satellite beam for a first period (Agarwal: [0085-0086] – resource allocations for satellite beams include a time duration.),
managing data flow of the first forward link data streams and the second forward link data streams via the forward link satellite beam over the first time period based at least in part on the first respective amounts of demand associated with the first forward link data streams for the first time period and the second respective amounts of demand associated with the second forward link data streams for the first time period (Agarwal: [0082] – “…the terminals 130 in each beam 150 may transmit resource requests. The NCC 140 may receive the transmitted resource requests via satellite 105, and use the requests to generate per-beam resource request data associated with a defined time duration (e.g., n epochs). The NCC 140 may also identify an amount of allocatable resource units for the defined time duration. The NCC 140 may then use the per-beam resource request data to dynamically allocate portions of the allocatable resource units to each of the beams to generate a per-beam resource unit allocation for the defined time duration.” See also [0086-0089].), wherein managing the data flow comprises prioritizing one or more of the second forward link data streams over one or more of the first forward link data streams based at least in part on first respective traffic types for the first forward link data (Agarwal: [0093-0094], [0098-0102] – corresponds to prioritizing one stream over another based a terminal’s traffic class.), and second respective traffic types for the second forward link data streams (Agarwal: [0093-0094], [0098-0102] – corresponds to prioritizing one stream over another based a terminal’s traffic class, wherein a traffic class has multiple different types, i.e., class 1, class 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (pre-AIA ) to modify the method of a multi-beam satellite communications system according to the Application in view of the multi-beam satellite communications system according to Agarwal to manage data flows based on priorities and traffic classes for the reasons of dynamically assign bandwidth among beams to meet quality of service level agreements amongst a plurality of requesting devices (Agarwal: [0006-0007]).
Examiner further notes,
Claim 5 of the Application corresponds to claim 12 of the Patent;
Claim 7 of the Application corresponds to claim 2 of the Patent;
Claim 8 of the Application corresponds to claim 4 of the Patent;
Claim 11 of the Application corresponds to claim 14 of the Patent, in further in view of Agarwal, as outlined above with respect to claim 2 of the Application and claim 1 of the Patent;
Claim 14 of the Application corresponds to claim 12 of the Patent;
Claim 16 of the Application corresponds to claim 15 of the Patent;
Claim 17 of the Application corresponds to claim 16 of the Patent; and
Claim 20 of the Application corresponds to claim 14 of the Patent, in further in view of Agarwal, as outlined above with respect to claim 2 of the Application and claim 1 of the Patent.
Examiner further notes,
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the Application nor the Patent discloses the features of claim 5. However, Agarwal discloses,
identifying a user-specific traffic policy for each mobile device of the respective pluralities of mobile devices (Agarwal: [0061-0063] – interpreted to correspond to allocating specific resources to terminals based on polic(ies). See also [0058] describing service level agreements per terminal as user-specific policy.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (pre-AIA ) to modify the method of a multi-beam satellite communications system according to the Application in view of the multi-beam satellite communications system according to Agarwal to manage data flows based on priorities and traffic classes for the reasons of dynamically assign bandwidth among beams to meet quality of service level agreements amongst a plurality of requesting devices (Agarwal: [0006-0007]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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 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.
11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
12. Claims 2, 5-8, 11, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2010/0120357 A1 to Agarwal (hereinafter “Agarwal”).
Regarding Claim 2, Agarwal discloses a method, comprising:
identifying, for a forward link satellite beam of a multi-beam satellite communications system, first forward link data streams for communication with a first set of terminals and second forward link data streams for communication with a second set of terminals (Agarwal: Figure 1 with [0056-0057] – satellite, 105, is operable to communicate with a plurality of terminals, 130, utilizing a plurality of beams in either the uplink or downlink. See also [0058] and [0063-0064] – downlink streams correspond to data and control communications comprising at least IP datagrams.), wherein the second set of terminals are located on respective transportation platforms (Agarwal: [0059] – terminals may be mobile or fixed, suggesting at least two different “platforms” of transportation.) and provide a communication service to respective pluralities of mobile devices on the respective transportation platforms (Agarwal: [0058-0059] – corresponds to providing communication services based on the terminal being fixed or mobile and having different service level agreements.), and wherein the second forward link data streams are associated with the respective pluralities of mobile devices (Agarwal: Figure 1 with [0056-0057] – satellite, 105, is operable to communicate with a plurality of terminals, 130, utilizing a plurality of beams in either the uplink or downlink. See also [0058-0059] and [0063-0064] – downlink streams correspond to data and control communications comprising at least IP datagrams. See also [0101-0102] – includes determining different types of traffic for the plurality of terminals as a priority class.);
identifying beam resources of the forward link satellite beam for a first period (Agarwal: [0085-0086] – resource allocations for satellite beams include a time duration.),
determining first respective amounts of demand associated with the first forward link data streams for a first time period (Agarwal: [0051], [0058-0059], [0063], and [0072-0073] – corresponds to a number of bandwidth periods at a time or in a time slot.);
determining second respective amounts of demand for the second forward link data streams for the first time period (Agarwal: [0051], [0058-0059], [0063], and [0072-0073] – corresponds to a number of bandwidth periods at a time or in a time slot, corresponding to multiple data streams per demand for a time duration.); and
managing data flow of the first forward link data streams and the second forward link data streams via the forward link satellite beam over the first time period based at least in part on the first respective amounts of demand associated with the first forward link data streams for the first time period and the second respective amounts of demand associated with the second forward link data streams for the first time period (Agarwal: [0082] – “…the terminals 130 in each beam 150 may transmit resource requests. The NCC 140 may receive the transmitted resource requests via satellite 105, and use the requests to generate per-beam resource request data associated with a defined time duration (e.g., n epochs). The NCC 140 may also identify an amount of allocatable resource units for the defined time duration. The NCC 140 may then use the per-beam resource request data to dynamically allocate portions of the allocatable resource units to each of the beams to generate a per-beam resource unit allocation for the defined time duration.” See also [0086-0089].), wherein managing the data flow comprises prioritizing one or more of the second forward link data streams over one or more of the first forward link data streams based at least in part on first respective traffic types for the first forward link data (Agarwal: [0093-0094], [0098-0102] – corresponds to prioritizing one stream over another based a terminal’s traffic class.), and second respective traffic types for the second forward link data streams (Agarwal: [0093-0094], [0098-0102] – corresponds to prioritizing one stream over another based a terminal’s traffic class, wherein a traffic class has multiple different types, i.e., class 1, class 2.).
Regarding Claim 5, Agarwal discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
identifying each of the second forward link data streams based on at least one of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses assigned to each of the pluralities of mobile devices (Agarwal: [0060] – corresponds to identifying IP packets.), virtual local area network (VLAN) tag addresses assigned to each of the pluralities of mobile devices (alternative language), or tunneling protocol addresses assigned to each of the plurality of mobile devices (alternative language).
Regarding Claim 6, Agarwal discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
identifying a user-specific traffic policy for each mobile device of the respective pluralities of mobile devices (Agarwal: [0061-0063] – interpreted to correspond to allocating specific resources to terminals based on polic(ies). See also [0058] describing service level agreements per terminal as user-specific policy.).
Regarding Claim 7, Agarwal discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the user-specific traffic policies comprise at least one of a minimum information rate (MinIR), a committed information rate (CIR) (Agarwal: [0009] – “The allocation may be based on bandwidth requests received from particular terminals. In some instances, the allocation may be made based on information in the requests such as terminal priority, traffic class, minimum sustained rate (MinSR), committed information rate (CIR), and requested information rate (RIR).”), a peak information rate (PIR) (alternative language), or a maximum amount of data (alternative language).
Regarding Claim 8, Agarwal discloses the method of claim 2, wherein managing the data flow of the first forward link data streams and the second forward link data streams further comprises:
traffic shaping the one or more of the first forward link data streams based on prioritizing one or more of the second forward link data streams over one or more of the first forward link data streams (Agarwal: [0093-0094], [0098-0102] – corresponds to prioritizing one stream over another based a terminal’s traffic class.).
Claims 11 and 14-17, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claims 2 and 5-8, recite similar features as claims 2 and 5-8, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 2 and 5-8. Please see above rejections of claims 2 and 5-8. Agarwal discloses the apparatus as a satellite system comprising a multi-beam satellite (Agarwal: Figure 1 with [0056], element 105), a network resource scheduler (Agarwal: Figure 1 with [0060] – corresponding to one or more modems, elements 115a-115n, that perform scheduling.), and a mobile terminal network request processor (Agarwal: Figure 1 with [0058] – corresponds to DBRA control unit, element 125, operable to receive requests from the terminals.).
Claim 20, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claim 2, recites similar features as claim 2 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 2. Please see above rejection of claim 2. Agarwal further discloses the apparatus as a satellite communication system comprising a processor (Agarwal: Figure 1, element 125 and Figure 7 with [0083-0084] – one or more processors in the DBRA) and a memory (Agarwal: Figure 1, element 125 and Figure 7 with [0083-0084] – memory in the DBRA).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 21 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.
Conclusion
14. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 March 11, 2026