DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent theunjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patentand to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutoryobviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claimsare not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinctfrom the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipatedby, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 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 a non-statutorydouble patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown tobe commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result ofactivities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 of instant application 18/810,981 are rejected on the ground ofnon-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 ofUS Patent 12/095,675 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinctfrom each other because claims 1-20 of US Patent 12/095,675 B2 contain the limitations ofclaims 1-20 of the instant application ‘981 and as such the 12/095,675 B2 patent anticipates claims 1-20 of the ‘981 instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goettle (hereinafter “Goe”, US Patent Publication 2020/0244346 A1).
As per claims 1, 20, Goe discloses A computer processing system (100) and method for dynamic bandwidth allocation of a network in a transportation network, the system comprising a processor configured to:
Receive schedule data, wherein the schedule data comprises data defining a plurality of different journeys between an origin and a destination, and data defining an equipment type (paragraphs [0064, 0072], Spot beam coverage region is based on knowledge of flight schedules and aircraft traffic between city pairs. A breakdown of passenger usage determines streaming video to tablets, smartphones, and laptops);
Identify a predetermined event type for each journey based on the schedule data (paragraphs [0064, 0139], Events such as seasonal changes in jet stream, seasonal changes in demand, weather, and communication service transitions are all events and factors that are identified);
Generate a request to change the bandwidth allocation of the network based on the predetermined event type and the equipment type (paragraphs [0076, 0078, 0088]).
As per claim 2, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 1, wherein the module is further configured to generate the request in response to identifying the predetermined event type for a particular journey (paragraph [0088]).
As per claim 3, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a second module (105) communicatively coupled to the first module (103) and configured to receive the request to change the bandwidth allocation of the network (paragraph [0062]).
As per claim 4, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 3, wherein the system further comprises a local access network including one or more control devices (113) communicatively connected to the second module (105) (paragraphs [0070, 0090]).
As per claim 5, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 4, wherein the one or more control devices (113) are configured to provide a network connection to a customer via a customer network (115) (paragraph [0059]).
As per claim 6, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 1, wherein the module (103) is further configured to identify an amount of data associated with the equipment type for a selected journey (paragraph [0072]).
As per claim 7, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 6, wherein the module (103) is further configured to identify a current bandwidth allocation for a customer (paragraph [0072]).
As per claim 8, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 7, wherein the module (103) is configured to generate the request based on the amount of data associated with the equipment type for a selected journey and the current bandwidth allocation for the customer (paragraph [0089]).
As per claim 9, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 1, wherein the module (103) is further configured to receive updates to the schedule data (paragraphs [0078, 0084]).
As per claim 10, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 1, wherein the module (103) further comprises a memory for storing a parsed version of the schedule data (paragraph [0113]).
As per claims 11, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 1, wherein the schedule data further comprises data defining an estimated time associated with each of the plurality of journeys (paragraph [0062]).
As per claim 16, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 1, wherein the equipment type is an aircraft type (paragraphs [0003, 0093]).
As per claim 17, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 1, wherein the journeys are flights (paragraph [0064]).
As per claim 18, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 1, wherein the schedule data is flight schedule data (paragraph [0064]).
As per claim 19, Goe discloses The computer processing system of claim 18, wherein the flight schedule data comprises one or more of passenger related information, flight number, flight date, flight status, scheduled arrival time, estimated arrival time scheduled departure time, or estimated departure time (paragraph [0064]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA BURGESS ANYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3996. The examiner can normally be reached IFP M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
March 4, 2026
/BARBARA B Anyan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457