DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 § 112
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “high speed” and “low speed” in claims 1 and 14 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “high speed” and “low speed” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0072574 (hereinafter “Xu”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0258898 (hereinafter “Ma”)
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches: A method of dynamic in-route reconfiguration in a shared bandwidth network, the method comprising: receiving at least one of transmit power capability ([0057] spectrum efficiency information) and demand requirements ([0058] bandwidth requirements) from one or more active network terminals ([0058] the bandwidth requirements of a given TG) of the shared bandwidth network ([0002] Users in a shared access broadband network); determining a resulting in-route configuration with a distribution of high speed and low speed in-route capacity during operation of the shared bandwidth network based on the received at least one of transmit power capability and demand requirements ([0043]); when the determined resulting in-route configuration is different from the current in-route configuration, establishing the determined resulting in-route configuration as the current in-route configuration and storing the established current in-route configuration in a dynamic in-route reconfiguration manager ([0061] At operation 506, the CRO can allocate the assigned bandwidth to each IPGW instance. In particular, the CRO may calculate the overall demand for resources and a weighted (by throughput) average spectrum efficiency for the multiple IPGW instances associated with each TG. Accordingly, and once the allocated bandwidth is obtained, each IPGW instance schedules the respective terminals of the appropriate TG and sends traffic to the respective CRO (as illustrated in FIG. 4)); and transmitting the established current in-route configuration to the one or more active network terminals ([0046] the IPGW assigns the allocated bandwidth to the individual terminals making up the TG; [0061] each IPGW instance schedules the respective terminals of the appropriate TG).
Xu teaches: [0010] “comparing the available overall bandwidth of the entire shared access broadband network to communication needs associated with each of a plurality of TGs operative in the shared access broadband network, the communication needs comprising at least one of estimated bandwidth, demand requests, and spectrum efficiency associated with each of the plurality of TGs.” Xu does not, however, explicitly teach: comparing the determined resulting in-route configuration to a current in-route configuration with the distribution of high speed and low speed in-route capacity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ma teaches: comparing the determined resulting in-route configuration ([0184] e.g., configuration 300) to a current in-route configuration with the distribution of high speed and low speed in-route capacity ([0184] e.g., configuration 400).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu to include the feature of comparing configurations to determine an optimal configuration and a combination of Xu with Ma renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., determining an optimal configuration).
Regarding claim 2, Xu teaches: wherein: the shared bandwidth network comprises a satellite network (Fig. 3, 306a, 306b); and the network terminals comprise satellite terminals (Fig. 3, 304a-f).
Regarding claim 3, Xu teaches: wherein the determining the resulting in-route configuration comprises exchanging in-route configuration with a process manager ([0033] SGW 102 may include high capacity earth stations with connectivity to ground telecommunications infrastructure. SGW 102 may be communicatively connected to RF terminal 110. RF terminal 110 may include an antenna, electronics and connectivity to allow communications access to satellite 106. RF terminal 110 may include the physical equipment responsible for sending and receiving signals to and from satellite 106, and may provide an air interface for SGW 102.).
Regarding claim 4, Xu teaches: determining the resulting in-route configuration comprises collecting at least one of terminal power feedback and demand requirements from the process manager (Fig. 2 [0057] At operation 500, the CROs receive demand requests from the IPGW instances with demand, spectrum efficiency information, and throughput for each TG.).
Regarding claim 5, Xu teaches: wherein the determining the resulting in-route configuration comprises determining whether the process manager ([0088] There can be two ways of updating the sorting list in accordance with various embodiments. In accordance with one embodiment, updating is performed periodically, i.e., the bandwidth manager keeps on using a sorting list for some time, so long as the update duration is sufficiently longer than the sorting time. In accordance with another embodiment, updating is performed continuously, i.e., the updated sort list applies to scheduling immediately.) or one or more of the active network terminals are ready to update the current in-route configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Xu teaches: wherein the receiving the demand requirements comprises receiving bandwidth requirements of at least one of the one or more active network terminals of the shared bandwidth network ([0058] bandwidth requirements).
Regarding claim 8, Xu teaches: determining the resulting in-route configuration comprises: configuring one or more in-routes at startup of the shared bandwidth network ([0063] That is, an initial allocation for the CROs can be determined based upon this information received from the CROs.); and dynamically adjusting the configured one or more in-routes based on the received at least one of transmit power capability and demand requirements ([0043] In particular, the CRO receives demand requests, as well as spectrum efficiency information, from the IPGW instances. Multiple CROs, each with their respective needs based on the IPGW reporting, send the estimated bandwidth, together with demand request, as well as IPGW's spectrum efficiency of each IPGW instance, to the bandwidth manager.).
Regarding claim 9, Xu teaches: wherein the receiving the transmit power capability requirements comprises obtaining a maximum power available to the one or more active network terminals in a beam (Abstract - Quality of service (QoS) metrics for such TGs can be satisfied in terms of maximum throughput and spectrum utilization).
Regarding claim 10, Xu teaches: wherein the receiving the demand requirements comprises receiving a distribution of bandwidths assigned to one or more functions of the shared bandwidth network ([0059] Accordingly, the bandwidth manager can perform TG bandwidth partitioning in a multi-IPGW, multi-CRO satellite network, where the bandwidth manager can perform bandwidth partitioning of multiple CROs, resulting in some assigned bandwidth (in kbps) for each CRO for multiple TGs.).
Regarding claim 11, Xu teaches: wherein the receiving the distribution of bandwidths comprises receiving a distribution of low speed bandwidth requirements and high speed bandwidth requirements among the one or more active network terminals of the shared bandwidth network ([0062] Accordingly, an average throughput of a TG proportional to its configured maximum subscription rate can be achieved. Additionally, and when appropriate, the bandwidth partitioning algorithm can partition bandwidth in favor of those TGs with a higher preference weight.).
Regarding claim 12, Xu teaches: wherein the determining the resulting in-route configuration comprises at least one of: mapping a plurality of bandwidths to one or more of the active network terminals in the shared bandwidth network ([0006] Further still, the method comprises receiving, from the bandwidth manager, an assigned bandwidth based on the bandwidth partitioning to be applied to the plurality of TGs and IPGW instances associated with each of the plurality of TGs, and allocating the assigned bandwidth to each IPGW instance.); and allocating one or more bandwidths to the one or more active network terminals ([0006] and allocating the assigned bandwidth to each IPGW instance.).
Regarding claim 13, Xu teaches: wherein the allocating the one or more bandwidths comprises combining bandwidths on a same satellite link ([0036] At each of IPGWs 108 a-108 c, real-time (RT) and non-real-time (NRT) traffic flows may be classified into different priorities. These traffic flows may be processed and multiplexed before being forwarded to priority queues at SGW 102).
Regarding claim 14, Xu teaches: A system for dynamic in-route reconfiguration in a shared bandwidth network, the system comprising: a processor; a memory configured to store executable instructions which when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform functions of: receiving at least one of transmit power capability ([0057] spectrum efficiency information) and demand requirements ([0058] bandwidth requirements) from one or more active network terminals ([0058] the bandwidth requirements of a given TG) of the shared bandwidth network ([0002] Users in a shared access broadband network); determining a resulting in-route configuration with a distribution of high speed and low speed in-route capacity during operation of the shared bandwidth network based on the received at least one of transmit power capability and demand requirements ([0043]); when the determined resulting in-route configuration is different from the current in-route configuration, establishing the determined resulting in-route configuration as the current in-route configuration and storing the established current in-route configuration in a dynamic in-route reconfiguration manager ([0061] At operation 506, the CRO can allocate the assigned bandwidth to each IPGW instance. In particular, the CRO may calculate the overall demand for resources and a weighted (by throughput) average spectrum efficiency for the multiple IPGW instances associated with each TG. Accordingly, and once the allocated bandwidth is obtained, each IPGW instance schedules the respective terminals of the appropriate TG and sends traffic to the respective CRO (as illustrated in FIG. 4)); and transmitting the established current in-route configuration to the one or more active network terminals ([0046] the IPGW assigns the allocated bandwidth to the individual terminals making up the TG; [0061] each IPGW instance schedules the respective terminals of the appropriate TG).
Xu teaches: [0010] “comparing the available overall bandwidth of the entire shared access broadband network to communication needs associated with each of a plurality of TGs operative in the shared access broadband network, the communication needs comprising at least one of estimated bandwidth, demand requests, and spectrum efficiency associated with each of the plurality of TGs.” Xu does not, however, explicitly teach: comparing the determined resulting in-route configuration to a current in-route configuration with the distribution of high speed and low speed in-route capacity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ma teaches: comparing the determined resulting in-route configuration ([0184] e.g., configuration 300) to a current in-route configuration with the distribution of high speed and low speed in-route capacity ([0184] e.g., configuration 400).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu to include the feature of comparing configurations to determine an optimal configuration and a combination of Xu with Ma renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., determining an optimal configuration).
Regarding claim 15, Xu teaches: wherein: the shared bandwidth network comprises a satellite network (Fig. 3, 306a, 306b); and the network terminals comprise satellite terminals (Fig. 3, 304a-f).
Regarding claim 16, Xu teaches: wherein the determining the resulting in-route configuration comprises exchanging in-route configuration with a process manager ([0033] SGW 102 may include high capacity earth stations with connectivity to ground telecommunications infrastructure. SGW 102 may be communicatively connected to RF terminal 110. RF terminal 110 may include an antenna, electronics and connectivity to allow communications access to satellite 106. RF terminal 110 may include the physical equipment responsible for sending and receiving signals to and from satellite 106, and may provide an air interface for SGW 102.).
Regarding claim 18, Xu teaches: wherein in order to determine the resulting in-route configuration: one or more in-routes are configured at startup of the shared bandwidth network ([0063] That is, an initial allocation for the CROs can be determined based upon this information received from the CROs.); and the configured one or more in-routes are dynamically adjusted based on the received at least one of transmit power capability and demand requirements ([0043] In particular, the CRO receives demand requests, as well as spectrum efficiency information, from the IPGW instances. Multiple CROs, each with their respective needs based on the IPGW reporting, send the estimated bandwidth, together with demand request, as well as IPGW's spectrum efficiency of each IPGW instance, to the bandwidth manager.).
Regarding claim 19, Xu teaches: wherein the processor is housed on each of the one or more active network terminals ([0142] According to one embodiment of the invention, dynamic bandwidth management, in accordance with example embodiments, are provided by computer system 900 in response to processor 904 executing an arrangement of instructions contained in main memory 906.).
Regarding claim 20, Xu teaches: wherein the processor is housed on at least one of a network terminal ([0003] In such a network, the IP layer and link gateway may be referred to as the IP gateway (IPGW) and the satellite gateway (SGW), respectively. The data stream may be broadcast to remote network nodes such as Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSATs).) and a server, the at least one of the network terminal and the server being separate from the active network terminals ([0041] That is, one SGW could have one or more CROs running on servers that can (in part) make up an SGW.).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 6 and 17 recite: wherein the establishing the determined resulting in-route configuration as the current in-route configuration comprises: determining that the determined resulting in-route configuration is in a valid file format; determining that the one or more active network terminals are ready to accept the determined resulting in-route configuration; exchanging a switch command with the process manager, the switch command including instructions to replace the current in-route configuration with the determined resulting in-route configuration; and confirming completion of the switch command by the process manager.
Xu teaches: formatting communications according to a protocol ([0035] Internet Protocol over Satellite (IPoS) standard (ETSI TS 102 354).).
Ma teaches: formatting communications according to a protocol ([0155], [0157] The core network 130 may provide user authentication, access authorization, tracking, Internet Protocol (IP) connectivity)
Cui (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0156760) formatting communications according to a protocol ([0003]).
Wang (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0192261) formatting communications according to a protocol ([0032]).
The above references, in combination, do not render obvious the claimed invention regarding to details about determining that the determined resulting in-route configuration is in a valid file format when viewed with the claim as a whole. Therefore, claims 6 and 17 and their dependent claims are allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN BARRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0201. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am EST to 5:00pm EST.
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, Jinsong HU can be reached at (571) 272-3965. 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.
/JAB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights