DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communications filed on 06/29/2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
3. Claims 1, 8, 10-20, have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. 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
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2019/0174361) in view of Schlack et al. (US 2010/0299552) and Certain et al. (US 8,612,330).
Regarding claim 1, Fu disclosed:
A method, comprising: receiving a request for dedicated bandwidth (Figure 2, A020 receive reservation of bandwidth) in a cellular network (Paragraph 32, cellular network 100)(Paragraph 32, network 100 can be a cellular network. Paragraph 49, wireless device 110 sends an inquiry for reservation of bandwidth for the wireless device to the core network node 130);
determining a timeframe (Paragraph 49, start time) for the dedicated bandwidth (Paragraph 49, the inquiry comprises information about the route to be travelled by the wireless device, a start time of when the wireless device is expected to start travelling the route, and indication about the bandwidth to be reserved. Paragraph 77, the time also includes a start time and a time duration or a start and stop timestamp);
in response to start of the timeframe: determining a total available bandwidth (Paragraph 76, available bandwidth) of the cellular network usable by network devices (Paragraph 76, subsequent to the radio network node 120 receiving the command for reservation of bandwidth, the radio network node 120 determines to grant or deny the command based on the period of time indicated by the parameter and based on available bandwidth of the radio network node 120. As bandwidth is considered available, it is usable by network devices);
determining remaining available bandwidth for network devices based on a comparison between the total available bandwidth and the dedicated bandwidth (Paragraphs 76, 78, the radio network node determines to grant or deny the command for reservation of bandwidth based on the available bandwidth of the network node. For example, if the reservation requests more than the available bandwidth, it is denied. If it requests less than the available bandwidth, it is granted. Therefore, the remaining available is determined as if there is any remaining, the command is granted);
identifying network devices currently using network bandwidth (Paragraph 80, in order to determine available bandwidth, the radio network node 120 interacts with multiple data sources that affect the load such as other passengers/users that are on the route); and
allocating the dedicated bandwidth for the network device of the user to use during the timeframe (Paragraph 76, the radio network node 120 determines to grant the command based on the available bandwidth of the radio network node 120 and the period of time).
While Fu disclosed determining whether a dedicated bandwidth request can be fulfilled (see above), Fu did not explicitly disclose determining that the remaining available bandwidth is insufficient for the identified network devices; and during the timeframe: for each corresponding network device of the identified network devices: reducing or managing an amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device for the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth.
However, in an analogous art, Schlack disclosed determining that the remaining available bandwidth is insufficient for the identified network devices (Paragraphs 9-10, bandwidth is dedicated for each video session. Paragraph 36, determining that there is insufficient bandwidth for the new session);
during the timeframe: for each corresponding network device of the identified network devices: reducing or managing (Paragraph 36, adjusting sessions) an amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device for the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth (Paragraph 36, if there is insufficient bandwidth, the session resource manage (SRM) 110 examines the existing sessions to determine which sessions may be adjusted to lower bit rate versions of the content to free up bandwidth in the network for the new session. Paragraph 69, monitoring the downstream bandwidth available for a given client based on the time it takes to transmit).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fu with Schlack because the references involve determining if there is sufficient bandwidth for requests, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reducing or managing of bandwidth of Schlack with the teachings of Fu in order to provide the benefits of adaptive bit rates to manage the bandwidth of an IP based delivery system (Schlack, Paragraph 11).
While Fu and Schlack disclosed a plurality of network devices (Fu, Paragraph 80, other passengers on the same route (who would be using bandwidth too); Fu and Schlack did not explicitly disclose receiving a request for dedicated bandwidth in a cellular network for a plurality of network devices of a user; and allocating the dedicated bandwidth for the plurality of network devices of the user to use during the timeframe.
However, in an analogous art, Certain disclosed receiving a request for dedicated bandwidth in a cellular network for a plurality of network devices of a user (Column 3, Line 65 – Column 4, Line 14, the time at which certain guarantees are provided vary. A customer/user requests a certain QoS, such as a certain amount of bandwidth at a certain time of day. Column 44, Lines 1-5, Figure 8A, a user requests a volume of 200GB capacity in a specific region, with 100mbps of bandwidth between 11PM and 12AM every day. Column 47, Lines 30-33, network includes a cellular network. Column 49, Lines 1-14, having one or more user computers, where the user or client devices include any number of devices. As the user is the reservation principal in this case (and not a single specific device) and as the user is allowed to make multiple requests and there are multiple user/client devices, they would all operate under the resource arrangement that is initially requested);
allocating the dedicated bandwidth for the plurality of network devices of the user to use during the timeframe (Column 29, Lines 1-30, if the request is for a dedicated capacity, the request can be fulfilled using dedicated capacity storage. Before fulfilling, it is ensured that the dedicated capacity is not already in use or schedule for use for other purposes and ensure that the request was received within the appropriate use period).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fu and Schlack with Certain because the references involve determining if there is sufficient bandwidth for requests, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the allocation of dedicated bandwidth to the plurality of devices of Certain with the teachings of Fu and Schlack in order to provide improved granularity (Certain, Column 2, Lines 18-20).
Regarding claims 12, 20, the claims are substantially similar to claim 1. Claim 12 recites a memory and a processor (Fu, Paragraph 189, processor. Paragraph 192, memory) and the total available bandwidth being an amount of data that can be transmitted across the wireless network during the timeframe independent of network devices currently using bandwidth of the wireless network (Fu, Paragraph 80, in order to determine available bandwidth, using data such as traffic situation, weather conditions, and other passengers in route). Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fu, Paragraph 193, computer readable medium); determining a remaining amount of bandwidth available to the network devices currently using the wireless network based on a difference between a total amount of bandwidth available in the wireless network and the amount of bandwidth dedicated for the selected user (Fu, Paragraphs 79-80, to determine an available bandwidth, looking at the consumed or occupied bandwidth); and the amount of bandwidth available to network devices currently using network bandwidth is less than the remaining amount of bandwidth available to network devices currently using the wireless network (Fu, Paragraphs 76, 78, the radio network node determines to grant or deny the command for reservation of bandwidth based on the available bandwidth of the network node. For example, if the reservation requests more than the available bandwidth, it is denied. If it requests less than the available bandwidth, it is granted). Therefore, the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 4, 15, the limitations of claims 1, 12, have been addressed. Fu, Schlack, and Certain disclosed:
wherein reducing or managing the amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device comprises: identifying a first service level agreement with a first network device (Schlack, Paragraph 52, Figure 5, viewers have different SLAs. The highest is the ‘gold’ package where they are not subject to bit rate modifications. The other SLAs are standard and free. Standard session 520-3 (i.e., first SLA) and the corresponding device that receives the content 510-2 would receive 12 MBPS);
identifying a second service level agreement with a second network device (Schlack, Figure 5, showing a different standard session of 12 MBPS for content 510-3);
reducing, for the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth, the amount of bandwidth available to the first network device a first amount based on the first service level agreement (Schlack, Paragraph 54, Figure 5, adjusting the standard session 520-2 from 12 MBPS to standard session 530-2 10 MBPS); and
reducing, for the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth, the amount of bandwidth available to the second network device a second amount based on the second service level agreement, wherein the second amount is less than the first amount (Schlack, Paragraph 54, Figure 5, adjusting the standard session 520-3 from 12 MBPS to standard session 530-3 8 MBPS).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 7, 17, the limitations of claims 1, 12, have been addressed. Fu, Schlack, and Certain disclosed:
wherein reducing or managing the amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device comprises: instructing the corresponding network device of the reduced or managed amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device during the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth (Schlack, Paragraph 59, the SRM notifies the CMTS of the change in the reserved bandwidth for the video sessions and sends a command to adjust the reserved bandwidth for each session. Paragraph 61, the client is notified of the bit rate change).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claims 8, 18, the limitations of claims 1, 12, have been addressed. Fu, Schlack, and Certain disclosed:
wherein receiving the request for the dedicated bandwidth in the cellular network comprises: providing a graphical user interface to the user (Fu, Paragraphs 49-50, the user sending an inquiry for reservation of bandwidth for the wireless device through an app or input by the user (i.e., graphical user interface) executing on the wireless device; and
receiving input from the user via the graphical user interface indicating an amount of dedicated bandwidth and the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth (Fu, Paragraphs 49-50, the user sending an inquiry for reservation of bandwidth through an app).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 8 have been addressed. Fu, Schlack, and Certain disclosed:
wherein the user comprises at least one of a network device manufacturer, emergency services, a government entity, or a paying network client (Certain, Column 2, Lines 32-41, a user or customer…may be a paying customer or subscriber of the service).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Fu, Schlack, and Certain disclosed:
wherein identifying network devices currently using network bandwidth comprises: identifying network devices that are currently using network bandwidth (Fu, Paragraph 80, in order to determine available bandwidth, the radio network node 120 interacts with multiple data sources that affect the load such as other passengers/users that are on the route); and
selecting a subset of the network devices to reduce or manage bandwidth during the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth (Schlack, Paragraph 36, if there is insufficient bandwidth, the session resource manage (SRM) 110 examines the existing sessions to determine which sessions (i.e., subset) may be adjusted to lower bit rate versions of the content to free up bandwidth in the network for the new session. Paragraph 69, monitoring the downstream bandwidth available for a given client based on the time it takes to transmit).
For motivation, please refer to claim 1.
7. Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 14, 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2019/0174361) in view of Schlack et al. (US 2010/0299552), Certain et al. (US 8,612,330), and Shaffer et al. (US 7,023,839).
Regarding claims 2, 13, the limitations of claims 1, 12, have been addressed. Fu, Schlack, and Certain did not explicitly disclose:
wherein reducing or managing the amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device comprises: determining a first voice codec currently being used by the corresponding network device; and selecting a second voice codec for the corresponding network device to use during the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth, wherein the second voice codec results in use of less bandwidth than the first voice codec.
However, in an analogous art, Schaffer disclosed wherein reducing or managing the amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device comprises: determining a first voice codec currently being used by the corresponding network device (Column 2, Lines 60-65, the H.323 terminals implement audio (i.e., voice) and video codecs. Column 7, Lines 24-42, the bandwidth allocation server (BWAS) and the bandwidth monitor monitors the bandwidth usage and if the bandwidth usage is over a threshold X, the BWAS sends a command to the H.323 terminals to adjust their coding hierarchies, such as stepping down to the next fastest coding algorithm or stepping down to a selected algorithm. Each H.323 terminal adjusts their hierarchy so that the higher-speed, more bandwidth intense coding algorithms (i.e., first voice codec) are not employed); and
selecting a second voice codec for the corresponding network device to use during the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth, wherein the second voice codec results in use of less bandwidth than the first voice codec (Column 7, Lines 24-42, commanding the H.323 terminals to step down to the next fastest coding algorithm (i.e., second voice codec)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fu, Schlack, and Certain with Shaffer because the references involve bandwidth preservation, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second voice codecs of Shaffer with the teachings of Fu, Schlack, and Certain in order to efficiently use system bandwidth (Shaffer, Column 1, Lines 34-35).
Regarding claims 3, 14, the limitations of claims 1, 12, have been addressed. Fu, Schlack, and Certain did not explicitly disclose:
wherein reducing or managing the amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device comprises: determining a first video codec currently being used to transmit video data to the corresponding network device; and selecting a second video codec for transmitting video data to the corresponding network device during the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth, wherein the second video codec results in use of less bandwidth than the first video codec.
However, in an analogous art, Shaffer disclosed wherein reducing or managing the amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device comprises: determining a first video codec currently being used to transmit video data to the corresponding network device (Column 2, Lines 60-65, the H.323 terminals implement audio (i.e., voice) and video codecs. Column 7, Lines 24-42, the bandwidth allocation server (BWAS) and the bandwidth monitor monitors the bandwidth usage and if the bandwidth usage is over a threshold X, the BWAS sends a command to the H.323 terminals to adjust their coding hierarchies, such as stepping down to the next fastest coding algorithm or stepping down to a selected algorithm. Each H.323 terminal adjusts their hierarchy so that the higher-speed, more bandwidth intense coding algorithms (i.e., first video codec) are not employed); and
selecting a second video codec for transmitting video data to the corresponding network device during the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth, wherein the second video codec results in use of less bandwidth than the first video codec (Column 7, Lines 24-42, commanding the H.323 terminals to step down to the next fastest coding algorithm (i.e., second video codec)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fu, Schlack, and Certain with Shaffer because the references involve bandwidth preservation, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second video codecs of Shaffer with the teachings of Fu, Schlack, and Certain in order to efficiently use system bandwidth (Shaffer, Column 1, Lines 34-35).
Regarding claims 6, 16, the limitations of claims 1, 12, have been addressed. Fu, Schlack, and Certain did not explicitly disclose:
wherein reducing or managing the amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device comprises: instructing the corresponding network device to employ a video codec or a voice codec that utilizes less bandwidth during the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth compared to the video codec or the voice codec being used by the corresponding network device prior to the timeframe.
However, in an analogous art, Shaffer disclosed wherein reducing or managing the amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device comprises: instructing the corresponding network device to employ a video codec or a voice codec that utilizes less bandwidth during the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth compared to the video codec or the voice codec being used by the corresponding network device prior to the timeframe (Column 7, Lines 24-42, the bandwidth allocation server (BWAS) and the bandwidth monitor monitors the bandwidth usage and if the bandwidth usage is over a threshold X, the BWAS sends a command to the H.323 terminals to adjust their coding hierarchies, such as stepping down to the next fastest coding algorithm or stepping down to a selected algorithm. Each H.323 terminal adjusts their hierarchy so that the higher-speed, more bandwidth intense coding algorithms are not employed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fu, Schlack, and Certain with Shaffer because the references involve bandwidth preservation, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the video or voice codecs of Shaffer with the teachings of Fu, Schlack, and Certain in order to efficiently use system bandwidth (Shaffer, Column 1, Lines 34-35).
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2019/0174361) in view of Schlack et al. (US 2010/0299552), Certain et al. (US 8,612,330), and Tao et al. (US 2010/0081441).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Fu, Schlack, and Certain did not explicitly disclose:
wherein reducing or managing the amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device comprises: identifying a first network device that is a first distance away from a cellular tower; identifying a second network device that is a second distance away from the cellular tower; reducing the amount of bandwidth available to the first network device a first amount for the timeframe based on the first distance; and reducing the amount of bandwidth available to the second network device a second amount for the timeframe based on the second distance, wherein the second amount is less than the first amount.
However, in an analogous art, Tao disclosed wherein reducing or managing the amount of bandwidth available to the corresponding network device comprises: identifying a first network device that is a first distance away from a cellular tower (Paragraph 29, cell center regions are near the base station while cell boundary regions are far from the base station. Paragraph 46, each cell of the base station (i.e., cellular tower) is partitioned into a cell center region and cell boundary regions. Paragraph 55, network bandwidth is partitioned into two parts, a first part for mobile stations in the center region and a second part for mobile stations in the boundary regions);
identifying a second network device that is a second distance away from the cellular tower (Figure 1A showing multiple mobile stations in varying distances from the base station center);
reducing the amount of bandwidth available to the first network device a first amount for the timeframe based on the first distance (Paragraph 62, any residual bandwidth is then allocated for the center region after the boundary region is allocated bandwidth (i.e., less bandwidth than the boundary)); and
reducing the amount of bandwidth available to the second network device a second amount for the timeframe based on the second distance, wherein the second amount is less than the first amount (Paragraph 62, bandwidth is first allocated to cell boundary regions as they have the strongest interference (i.e., more bandwidth then center region)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fu, Schlack, and Certain with Tao because the references involve bandwidth preservation, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the distance away from the cellular tower of Tao with the teachings of Fu, Schlack, and Certain in order to maximize spectral efficiency (Tao, Paragraph 10).
9. Claims 10, 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2019/0174361) in view of Schlack et al. (US 2010/0299552), Certain et al. (US 8,612,330), and Lu et al. (US 2016/0062759).
Regarding claims 10, 19, the limitations of claims 1, 12, have been addressed. Fu, Schlack, and Certain did not explicitly disclose:
wherein allocating the dedicated bandwidth for the request comprises: identifying a plurality of network devices that are running an out-of-date version of software; and causing the plurality of network devices to download and install an up-to-date version of the software during the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth.
However, in an analogous art, Lu disclosed wherein allocating the dedicated bandwidth for the request comprises: identifying the plurality of network devices as devices that are running an out-of-date version of software (Paragraph 20, when it is determined what the latest firmware version is and when the firmware version of a plurality of clients such as client A 21 and B 23 are earlier than the latest firmware version (i.e., out of date), the clients will send a request for the latest firmware version); and
causing the plurality of network devices to download and install an up-to-date version of the software during the timeframe for the dedicated bandwidth (Paragraph 20, calculating the total bandwidth of other devices that are downloading the latest firmware update and the client devices which transmit the download request. If the calculated total bandwidth is not larger than the total downloading bandwidth, the server sends reply information to the clients and then transmits the latest firmware to clients that requested it).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fu, Schlack, and Certain with Lu because the references involve bandwidth preservation, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the updating of software of Lu with the teachings of Fu, Schlack, and Certain in order to increase firmware update speed (Lu, Paragraph 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/S.C.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights