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 .
This Office Action is in response to Terminal Disclaimer filed 6/2/26 and amendment filed 6/2/26.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes the following argument(s):
The Specification of the present application discussed that “the module is further configured to identify an amount of data associated with the equipment type for a selected journey”.
The Specification of the present application discussed that “different equipment types have different data requirements”.
The system of Goettle is silent as to adapting to changes in equipment type, let alone generating a request to change bandwidth based on those changes.
In response to argument(s):
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., [the module is further configured to identify an amount of data associated with the equipment type for a selected journey]) 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).
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., [adapting to changes in equipment type]) 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).
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., [different equipment types have different data requirements]) 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).
However, Goettle teaches generating a request to change bandwidth based on event type and equipment type not based on the change to the event type and equipment type. Specifically Goettle teaches adjusting the bandwidth of the connection to reduce system costs. Also, adjusting bandwidth due to the gateway beam and user beam and airplane that is served by a particular spot beam (paragraphs [0076, 0079,0088])
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.
June 23, 2026
/BARBARA B Anyan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights