CTNF 18/931,177 CTNF 85707 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the vehicle comprising a telecommunication controller appears to be software per se. With respect to claim 16, the specification lacks support for the controller to be comprised of hardware and one could reasonably interpret the controller as software programmed with instructions. Claim 17-20 are dependent on claim 16 and do not limit the controller further and therefore is rejected for the same reasoning. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 9-13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 2021/0114616 A1) in view of Addepalli et al. (US 2015/0029987 A1), and further in view of Phillips et al. (US 2017/0374121 A1) . With respect to claim 1, Altman discloses: a telecommunications method comprising, through one or more controllers: (i.e., vehicular controller/processor performing communications through one or more controllers in Altman, ¶0011, ¶0021, ¶0032) acquiring communication traffic metadata from one or more communication applications in a vehicle (i.e., communication traffic metadata by exchanging application demand, performance, latency, goodput, and bandwidth information with vehicle communication applications. in Altman, ¶0022, ¶0023, ¶0025); identifying an achievable communication data rate for a first wireless communication option along a projected driving route of the vehicle (i.e., predicting expected goodput/bandwidth per wireless link along route segments of a projected driving route. in Altman, ¶0086, ¶0087, ¶0118, ¶0222); and if all of the following are true (i.e., requiring link performance and application-demand conditions to be satisfied before choosing the wireless option in Altman, ¶0025, ¶0087, ¶0101), using the first wireless communication option for communication with the one or more communication applications (ALTM fits because it uses the first wireless communication option by allocating a selected link or device to carry communications for the vehicle applications in Altman, ¶0024, ¶0071, ¶0054); all or substantially all data rate time gaps during which the achievable communication data rate will be less than a required communication data rate for the one or more communication applications will be less than a maximum latency time (i.e., mapping data-rate time gaps by forecasting goodput/latency per route segment and flagging durations with below-required bandwidth or excessive latency in Altman, ¶0087, ¶0124, ¶0101). Altman discloses a correlate4d communication map with route/time of physical travel (¶0128). Altman do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Addepalli, in order to optimize interface selection to maintain quality and performance of wireless coverage (¶0217), discloses: baseline communications traffic of the one or more communication applications will be supported by the first communication option (i.e., requiring minimum throughput, maximum jitter, and maximum delay as a baseline traffic support check for each application. in Addepalli, ¶0075). Based on Altman in view of Addepalli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Addepalli to improve upon those of Altman in order to optimize interface selection to maintain quality and performance of wireless coverage. Altman discloses identifying route segments that would put the vehicle system offline for a duration of travel (¶0124). Altman and Addepalli do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Phillips, in order to improve video quality by providing alternate content during an outage and resume the streaming session (¶0038), discloses: all or substantially all data communication deficits during which the achievable communication data rate will be less than the required communication data rate will be recovered by use of the first communication option at or before the maximum latency time. (i.e., time-shift, preload, persistent-session, and resume steps recover delayed media data within the estimated outage/latency window in Phillips, ¶0003, ¶0007, ¶0084). Based on Altman in view of Addepalli, and further in view of Phillips, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Phillips to improve upon those of Altman in order to improve video quality by providing alternate content during an outage and resume the streaming session. With respect to claim 2, Altman discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the first wireless communication option comprises cellular telecommunications. (i.e., communication over cellular modem/transceiver or cellular network, including 2G, 3G, 4G, LTE, or 5G. in Altman, ¶0011, ¶0017, ¶0033). With respect to claim 3, Altman discloses: the method of claim 2, wherein the first wireless communication option comprises fifth generation (“5G”) cellular telecommunications (i.e., 5G cellular networks and 5G cellular transceivers as available in Altman, ¶0017, ¶0033, ¶0035). With respect to claim 4, Altman discloses identifying route segments that would put the vehicle system offline for a duration of travel (¶0124). Altman and Addepalli do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Phillips, in order to improve video quality by providing alternate content during an outage and resume the streaming session (¶0038), discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising performing a gap test (i.e., an outage-duration calculation supplies the test measurement for predicted poor-coverage intervals along the route in Phillips, ¶0050, ¶0055, ¶0007), wherein for a plurality of locations along the projected driving route of the vehicle when the achievable communication data rate will be less than the required communication data rate, confirming that any accumulated data communication deficits will be recovered within the maximum latency time (i.e., estimates each outage location and duration and resumes the stream after the outage, confirming accumulated deficits can be recovered. in Phillips, ¶0037, ¶0050, ¶0055, ¶0084). Based on Altman in view of Addepalli, and further in view of Phillips, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Phillips to improve upon those of Altman in order to improve video quality by providing alternate content during an outage and resume the streaming session. With respect to claim 5, Altman discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the communication applications is self-describing (ALTM fits because applications provide demand and performance information to the bonding layer, making at least one communication application self-describing. in Altman, ¶0023, ¶0025). With respect to claim 9, the limitation(s) of claim 9 are similar to those of claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 1. Altman further discloses: a telecommunications method comprising, through one or more controllers: acquiring communication traffic metadata from one or more communication applications in a vehicle; (i.e., acquiring communication traffic metadata by exchanging application demand, performance, latency, goodput, and bandwidth information with vehicle communication applications in Altman, ¶0022, ¶0023, ¶0025) identifying a first achievable communication data rate for a first cellular communication option along a projected driving route of the vehicle; (i.e., predicting expected goodput/bandwidth for a first cellular link along route segments. in Altman, ¶0005, ¶0017, ¶0087, ¶0219) identifying a second achievable communication data rate for a second cellular communication option along the projected driving route of the vehicle; (i.e., further predicting expected goodput/bandwidth for another cellular link along the same route in Altman, ¶0005, ¶0033, ¶0087, ¶0224) confirming that the first cellular communication option can support a baseline communications traffic of the one or more communication applications along the projected driving route (i.e., checking route performance against application traffic and bandwidth demand. in Altman, ¶0101, ¶0119, ¶0126); confirming that the second cellular communication option can support the baseline communication traffic; (i.e., evaluating each available link against application requirements in Altman, ¶0017, ¶0119); confirming that with use of the second cellular communication option, all or substantially all data rate time gaps during which the second achievable communication data rate will be less than the required communication data rate will be less than the maximum latency time (i.e., compares service levels for different cellular network options in Altman, ¶0087, ¶0119) confirming that with use of the second cellular communication option, all or substantially all second data communication deficits during which the second achievable communication data rate will be less than the required communication data rate will be recovered by use of the second communication option at or before the maximum latency time (i.e., applies the same deficit planning to available cellular links and compares predicted performance across cellular options in Altman, ¶0088, ¶0089, ¶0119), using the first cellular communication option for communication by the communication applications (i.e., responsive to selecting a cellular link, it allocates that first cellular communication option for application traffic in Altman, ¶0024, ¶0071, ¶0233). Altman discloses a correlate4d communication map with route/time of physical travel (¶0128). Altman do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Addepalli, in order to optimize interface selection to maintain quality and performance of wireless coverage (¶0217), discloses: if by use of the first cellular communication option, all or substantially all of the first data communication deficits will be recovered more quickly than the second data communication deficits will be recovered by use of the second cellular communication option (i.e., cost/optimization framework uses link capacity and path delay, making faster deficit recovery a selection criterion. in Addepalli, ¶0021, ¶0132, ¶0157). Based on Altman in view of Addepalli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Addepalli to improve upon those of Altman in order to optimize interface selection to maintain quality and performance of wireless coverage. Altman discloses identifying route segments that would put the vehicle system offline for a duration of travel (¶0124). Altman and Addepalli do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Phillips, in order to improve video quality by providing alternate content during an outage and resume the streaming session (¶0038), discloses: confirming that with use of the first cellular communication option, all or substantially all data rate time gaps during which the first achievable communication data rate will be less than a required communication data rate for the one or more communication applications will be less than a maximum latency time (i.e., estimating white-spot locations and traversal duration, allowing first-option data-rate gaps to be confirmed below maximum latency in Phillips, ¶0037, ¶0050, ¶0055); confirming that with use of the first cellular communication option, all or substantially all first data communication deficits during which the first achievable communication data rate will be less than the required communication data rate will be recovered by use of the first communication option at or before the maximum latency time; (i.e., time-shifting, preloading, persistent state, and post-outage resume recover first-option deficits within the latency window in Phillips, ¶0003, ¶0007, ¶0084). Based on Altman in view of Addepalli, and further in view of Phillips, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Phillips to improve upon those of Altman in order to improve video quality by providing alternate content during an outage and resume the streaming session. With respect to claim 10, Altman discloses: the method of claim 9, wherein the first cellular communication option comprises 5G cellular telecommunications (i.e., cellular communication n can be 5G among its vehicular cellular networks/transceivers in Altman, ¶0017, ¶0033, ¶0035) and the second cellular communication option comprises 4G LTE cellular telecommunications (i.e., 4G-LTE, expressly identified among the cellular networks/transceivers in Altman, ¶0017, ¶0021, ¶0035). With respect to claim 11, Altman discloses: the method of claim 9, wherein the first cellular communication option and the second cellular communication option each comprise 5G cellular telecommunications (i.e., multiple vehicular/occupant cellular transceivers that may each be 5G, allowing first and second 5G options in Altman, ¶0033, ¶0035). With respect to claim 12, the limitation(s) of claim 12 are similar to those of claim(s) 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 5. With respect to claim 13, Altman discloses identifying route segments that would put the vehicle system offline for a duration of travel (¶0124). Altman and Addepalli do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Phillips, in order to improve video quality by providing alternate content during an outage and resume the streaming session (¶0038), discloses: the method of claim 12, wherein the at least one communication application communicates using variable bitrate traffic (i.e., ABR streaming uses multiple variable bit-rate profiles and switches between encoded segments based on network resources in Phillips, ¶0039, ¶0040) and the at least one communication application provides information that characterizes the variable bitrate traffic. (i.e., manifest describes encoding rates and available streams at different bitrates in Phillips, ¶0039, ¶0040). Based on Altman in view of Addepalli, and further in view of Phillips, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Phillips to improve upon those of Altman in order to improve video quality by providing alternate content during an outage and resume the streaming session. With respect to claim 16, the limitation(s) of claim 16 are similar to those of claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 1. With respect to claim 17, the limitation(s) of claim 17 are similar to those of claim(s) 2. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 2. With respect to claim 18, the limitation(s) of claim 18 are similar to those of claim(s) 3. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 3. With respect to claim 19, the limitation(s) of claim 19 are similar to those of claim(s) 5. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 5 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 2021/0114616 A1) in view of Addepalli et al. (US 2015/0029987 A1) and Phillips et al. (US 2017/0374121 A1), and further in view of Luna et al. (US 2012/0131184 A1) With respect to claim 6, Altman discloses determine usage of multiple links during particular time-slot, period or route-segment (¶0071). Altman, Addepalli, and Phillips do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Luna, in order to improve link efficiency by using polling intervals, priority to minimize data transfers (¶0089), discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the communication traffic metadata is acquired from non-self-describing communication applications (i.e., observes application requests and monitors applications, providing metadata in Luna, ¶0098, ¶0185). Based on Altman in view of Addepalli and Phillips, and further in view of Luna, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Luna to improve upon those of Altman in order to improve link efficiency by using polling intervals, priority to minimize data transfers. With respect to claim 14, the limitation(s) of claim 14 are similar to those of claim(s) 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 6 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 8, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman (US 2021/0114616 A1) in view of Addepalli et al. (US 2015/0029987 A1) and Phillips et al. (US 2017/0374121 A1), and further in view of Okholm et al. (US 2008/0239956 A1) . With respect to claim 7, Altman discloses: the method of claim 1, to infer communication profiles, baseline traffic, and allowable latency for at least one of the communication applications. (i.e., application requirements, bandwidth demand, latency, and route-segment adequacy in Altman, ¶0025, ¶0101, ¶0119). Altman discloses IP performance level view at a route and time slot (¶0121). Altman, Addepalli, and Phillips do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Okholm, in order to improve classification of traffic by reducing processing burden through sampling to report on traffic flow (¶0106), discloses: , further comprising sampling data traffic with at least one of the communication applications (i.e., samples selected packets/flows and sends them for traffic-management processing. in Okholm, ¶0044, ¶0051, ¶0104). Based on Altman in view of Addepalli and Phillips, and further in view of Okholm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Okholm to improve upon those of Altman in order to improve classification of traffic by reducing processing burden through sampling to report on traffic flow. With respect to claim 8, Altman discloses IP performance level view at a route and time slot (¶0121). Altman, Addepalli, and Phillips do(es) not explicitly disclose the following. Okholm, in order to improve classification of traffic by reducing processing burden through sampling to report on traffic flow (¶0106), discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the communication traffic metadata is acquired by sampling TCP/IP layer communications traffic with at least one of the communication applications (i.e., samples TCP/IP-layer packets using IP addresses, ports, protocol identifiers, and TCP SYN/FIN/RST events. in Okholm, ¶0098, ¶0100). Based on Altman in view of Addepalli and Phillips, and further in view of Okholm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Okholm to improve upon those of Altman in order to improve classification of traffic by reducing processing burden through sampling to report on traffic flow. With respect to claim 15, the limitation(s) of claim 15 are similar to those of claim(s) 8. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 8. With respect to claim 20, the limitation(s) of claim 20 are similar to those of claim(s) 8. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim(s) 8. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN L LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern). 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, Joon Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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. Sherman Lin 5/16/2026 /S. L./Examiner, Art Unit 2447 /JOON H HWANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/931,177 Page 2 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/931,177 Page 3 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/931,177 Page 4 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/931,177 Page 5 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/931,177 Page 6 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/931,177 Page 7 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/931,177 Page 8 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/931,177 Page 9 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/931,177 Page 10 Art Unit: 2447 Application/Control Number: 18/931,177 Page 11 Art Unit: 2447
Prosecution Insights