DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 02/05/2025, wherein:
Claim 1-2, 5-25, and 28-35 are pending.
Claim 1, 5-15, 17-25, 28-33, and 35 are amended.
Claim 3-4 and 26-27 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1, 6, 8, 15, 19-20, 25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty et al. (US 20230118482 A1) in view of Pelletier et al. (US 20210266953 A1) and Zhao (US 20180103456 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chakraborty discloses a method for communicating in a communications system, the method comprising:
receiving a request for return link bandwidth from a first user terminal and from a second user terminal (¶0071 – “Each of the user terminals 110a, 110b is configured to request return-link grants on the satellite network 140 from the scheduler 170 via the gateway routing device 150”);
assigning a first return link channel to the first user terminal based at least in part on transmission characteristics of the first user terminal (¶0078, ¶0080, Fig. 9 step 905, ¶0132), the first return link channel selected from a plurality of return link channels grouped together in a return channel group, the first return link channel comprising a first frequency band (Fig. 3B and ¶0080 disclose resource allocation on various frequency slot – i.e. first frequency band);
assigning a first transmit grant time period to the first user terminal (¶0078, Fig. 9 step 915; ¶0132-0133 – “At block 915, the scheduler distributes allocated resource grants in time by adjusting a time position within the slot of each resource grant to the one or more user terminals”);
assigning a second return link channel to the second user terminal based at least in part on transmission characteristics of the second user terminal (¶0078, ¶0080, Fig. 9 step 905, ¶0132), the second return link channel selected from the plurality of return link channels in the return channel group, the second return link channel comprising a second frequency band (Fig. 3B and ¶0080 disclose resource allocation on various frequency slot – i.e. second frequency band);
assigning a second transmit grant time period to the second user terminal (¶0078, Fig. 9 step 915; ¶0132-0133 – “At block 915, the scheduler distributes allocated resource grants in time by adjusting a time position within the slot of each resource grant to the one or more user terminals”);
communicating the first return link channel, the first transmit grant time period, the second return link channel, the second transmit grant time period to the corresponding user terminal (Fig. 10 step 1040 and ¶0139 – “If so, the network resource manager moves to block 1040 to transmit the resulting schedules to the user terminals”);
wherein the plurality of return link channels in the return channel group each have different transmission characteristics in which at least one return link channel has a frequency band that at least partially overlaps a frequency band of another return link channel (¶0080 and Fig. 3b disclose that the figure shows that terminal 110a and 110b have resources allocated in partially overlapping frequency ranges; the possibility of shared frequency channels derives also directly and unambiguously from ¶0108).
However, the reference is silent on details about determining whether the first frequency band at least partially overlaps with the second frequency band; determining whether the first transmit grant time period at least partially overlaps with the second transmit grant time period; and responsive to determining that the first frequency band at least partially overlaps with the second frequency band and that the first transmit grant time period at least partially overlaps with the second transmit grant time period, assigning a third return link channel to the first user terminal, the third return link channel having a third frequency band that does not overlap with the second frequency band.
Pelletier discloses determining whether the first frequency band at least partially overlaps with the second frequency band; determining whether the first transmit grant time period at least partially overlaps with the second transmit grant time period (¶0156 – “Some embodiments relate to preemption. In some embodiments, preemption prioritizes one transmission over another, overlapping transmission. In some embodiments, a preempting transmission may interrupt an ongoing transmission. For example, the WTRU may determine that a transmission associated with each of two grants may be performed, at least in part, if the WTRU determines that one grant overlaps in time and/or resources another grant (a grant is used as an example of a set of scheduling information herein for convenience, however this applies generally to sets of scheduling information)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Chakraborty to incorporate ability to determine overlapping grant from Pelletier because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to determine conflict of resource grant.
Zhao discloses responsive to determining that the first frequency band at least partially overlaps with the second frequency band and that the first transmit grant time period at least partially overlaps with the second transmit grant time period, assigning a third return link channel to the first user terminal, the third return link channel having a third frequency band that does not overlap with the second frequency band (¶0132-0133).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Chakraborty and Pelletier to incorporate ability to detect and resolve collision from Zhao because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve resource allocation.
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Chakraborty, Pelletier, and Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein communicating assigned return link channels and transmit grant time periods to the first and second user terminals is responsive to determining that the first frequency band does not overlap with the second frequency band or that the first transmit grant time period does not overlap with the second transmit grant time period (Chakraborty - ¶0078, Fig. 9 step 915; and ¶0132-0133 – “At block 915, the scheduler distributes allocated resource grants in time by adjusting a time position within the slot of each resource grant to the one or more user terminals”).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Chakraborty, Pelletier, and Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein all possible return link channels of the communications system are included in the return channel group (Chakraborty - ¶0030 – “In some embodiments, resource grants are grouped into a plurality of return channel groups, individual return channel groups comprising a set of frequency channels allocated to a collection of user terminals. In further embodiments, distributing allocated resource grants in time comprises inverting a time order of resource grants in a return channel group for randomly selected slots”).
Regarding claim 15, the scope and content of the claim recites a communications system to provide communication over a network that performs the method of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as presented in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Chakraborty, Pelletier, and Zhao discloses the communications system of claim 15, wherein the network comprises a terrestrial network (Chakraborty - ¶0075 – “For example, the network communications system can be provided by satellites, by terrestrial-based equipment, or a combination of satellites and terrestrial networks”).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Chakraborty, Pelletier, and Zhao discloses the communications system of claim 15, wherein the network comprises a cellular network (Pelletier – Fig. 1A discloses the communication system comprising cellular network). The combined teaching would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 15.
Regarding claim 25, the scope and content of the claim recites a scheduler in a communications system for performing the method of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as presented in claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, the scope and content of the claim recites a scheduler in a communications system for performing the method of claim 6, therefore, being addressed as presented in claim 6.
Regarding claim 30, the scope and content of the claim recites a scheduler in a communications system for performing the method of claim 8, therefore, being addressed as presented in claim 8.
Claim 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty et al. (US 20230118482 A1) in view of Pelletier et al. (US 20210266953 A1), Zhao (US 20180103456 A1) and Ravishankar et al. (US 20170085329 A1).
Regarding claim 16-18, the combined teaching of Chakraborty, Pelletier, and Zhao discloses the communications system of claim 16-18, wherein the network comprises a satellite network with at least one low earth orbit satellite or wherein the network comprises a satellite network with at least one medium earth orbit satellite or wherein the network comprises a satellite network with at least one geosynchronous earth orbit satellite.
Ravishankar discloses wherein the network comprises a satellite network with at least one low earth orbit satellite (claim 1- “A satellite communications system comprising: a plurality of one or more of low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites and geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) satellites”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Chakraborty, Pelletier, and Zhao to incorporate various type of network structure from Ravishankar because doing so would combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize various satellite network structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 5, 7, 9-14, 21-24, 28, and 31-35 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DUNG HONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
