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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to substantially or accurately reflect the subject matter of the claimed invention in the present case; for example, the Abstract refers to “clusters”, which are not recited in the claims herein. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-7 are 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 for the following reasons.
AS to claim 1, this claim recites “network data collector”, “network discovery analyzer”, “network performance analyzer”, “network profile designer” and “profile controller”. All of these elements may be embodied in and by software code that performs the steps associated with each of these elements. This means that claim 1 is directed to software per se, which is not statutory subject matter. Applicant may consider amending, for instance, “network data collector” to “network data collector DEVICE”, or “network data collector CIRCUITRY”, to the extent the requisite support exists in the original disclosure.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under Section 101 due to their dependence from claim 1, and for the fact that these claims do not recited subject matter that would overcome the deficiencies of claim 1 under Section 101 as discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1,8,14,5,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0022926 A1 to Ling et al.
As to claim 1, Ling discloses a system for performing broadband profile management in a cable network that provides data services to a plurality of cable modems with a cable modem termination system (CMTS), the system including (Fig. 1: cmts 102, fiber node 104 and associated devices/elements):
a network data collector configured to establish a network connection with the CMTS (Fig. 1: cmts 102, fiber node 104 and associated devices/elements such as 106 and 108, 104/106/108/110 teaching embodiments of “network data collector”; see, e.g., paragraphs 22-29);
a network discovery analyzer configured to: discover OFDM channels utilized by the CMTS, each of the channels including a plurality of OFDM subcarriers (paragraphs 31-33,45-47, Fig. 1: cmts 102 [“network discovery analyzer”] “may communicate with a plurality of cable modems (e.g., 112.sub.1-112.sub.5) using a plurality of orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (OFDM) subcarriers (e.g., subcarriers 1-8 of FIG. 4). The CMTS may determine a performance metric of each of the cable modems”, where each connection between cmts 102 and the cms 112 is a “channel”, teaching this limitation); and discover a current set of profiles for the cable network (paragraphs 31-33,38,45-47, Fig. 1: cmts 102 [“network discovery analyzer”] “For each one of the plurality of OFDM subcarriers and each one of the cable modems, the CMTS may select physical layer parameters to be used for communication with the one of the cable modems on the one of the OFDM subcarriers based on a performance metric of the one of the cable modems”), each of the profiles defining a modulation order for each of the plurality of OFDM subcarriers in each OFDM channel (paragraphs 31-33, 38,45-47, Fig. 1: cmts 102 [“network discovery analyzer”] “For each one of the plurality of OFDM subcarriers and each one of the cable modems, the CMTS may select physical layer parameters to be used for communication with the one of the cable modems on the one of the OFDM subcarriers based on a performance metric of the one of the cable modems”, the “physical layer parameters” teaching “profile”, where paragraph 33 discloses that “physical layer parameter” may include “modulation parameters”);
a network performance analyzer configured to discover signal quality values for the cable network (paragraphs 31-33, 38,45-47, Fig. 1: cmts 102 [“network performance analyzer”], “Upon receipt of the message 202, a CM 112.sub.X may measure, over the channels/subbands on which the message was sent, one or more metrics (e.g., SNR versus frequency profile) for the transmission 202. The CM 112.sub.X may then report the metric(s) back to the CMTS 102 via a message 204.”);
a network profile designer configured to: obtain signal quality values for the plurality of OFDM subcarriers to generate a mapping between the signal quality values and the OFDM subcarriers (paragraphs 31-33, 38,45-47, Fig. 1: cmts 102 [“network profile designer”], “Upon receipt of the message 202, a CM 112.sub.X may measure, over the channels/subbands on which the message was sent, one or more metrics (e.g., SNR versus frequency profile) for the transmission 202. The CM 112.sub.X may then report the metric(s) back to the CMTS 102 via a message 204”; Figs. 2b-4, paragraphs 34-37,41-47, disclosing/depicting the mapping between “metrics”/”signal quality values” and the OFDM subcarriers); and generate a plurality of profiles based upon the mapping between the signal quality values and the OFDM subcarriers (paragraphs 31-33, 38,45-47, Fig. 1: cmts 102 [“network performance analyzer”], “Upon receipt of the message 202, a CM 112.sub.X may measure, over the channels/subbands on which the message was sent, one or more metrics (e.g., SNR versus frequency profile) for the transmission 202. The CM 112.sub.X may then report the metric(s) back to the CMTS 102 via a message 204”; Figs. 2b-4, paragraphs 34-38,41-47: “CMTS 102 may utilize the data corresponding to graphs 242.sub.1-242.sub.8 shown when determining physical layer communication parameters to be used for each of the channels/subcarriers.”); and
a profile controller configured to assign each of the cable modems to one of the plurality of profiles (see discussion and citations above, cmts 102 teaching “profile controller”, further see paragraph 38: “the physical layer parameters for a channel/subcarrier may be selected such that all CMs in the service group can successfully receive transmissions to the service group.”).
As to claim 5, Ling discloses the system as in the parent claim 1.
Ling further discloses wherein the network profile designer is configured to: channelize subcarriers of each of the OFDM channels into bands of subcarriers; and obtain the signal quality values to the plurality of OFDM subcarriers by mapping a signal quality value to each of band of subcarriers (paragraphs 31-33, 38,45-47, Fig. 1: cmts 102 [“network profile designer”], “Upon receipt of the message 202, a CM 112.sub.X may measure, over the channels/subbands on which the message was sent, one or more metrics (e.g., SNR versus frequency profile) for the transmission 202. The CM 112.sub.X may then report the metric(s) back to the CMTS 102 via a message 204”; Figs. 2b-4, paragraphs 34-38,41-47: “CMTS 102 may utilize the data corresponding to graphs 242.sub.1-242.sub.8 shown when determining physical layer communication parameters to be used for each of the channels/subcarriers”; in particular, see Fig. 3, paragraphs 41-43, disclosing grouping CMs into different “service groups” that are assigned to different subcarriers [“band of subcarriers”] over certain timeslots, and assigned different “physical layer parameters”, which as discussed, include modulation configurations)
As to claim 7, Ling discloses the system as in the parent claim 1.
Ling further discloses wherein the signal quality data includes at least one of: codeword error data, modulation error ratios for the subcarriers, and power data that indicates power levels of communications between the cable modems and the CMTS. (paragraph 30: “ A measured performance metric may be, for example, an SNR-related metric such as noise levels, strength of received desired signals, SNR at a particular frequency, SNR over a range of frequencies (an SNR profile), bit error rate, symbol error rate, and/or the like”, teaching a BRI embodiment of this limitation).
AS to claims 8,14, see rejection for claim 1 above.
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.
Claim(s) 2,4,9,15,11,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0022926 A1 to Ling et al., in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,085,287 B1 to Chapman.
As to claim 2, Ling discloses the system as in the parent claim 1.
Ling does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the network data collector is configured to remotely establish the network connection with the CMTS via an internet protocol (IP) network.
Chapman discloses wherein the network data collector is configured to remotely establish the network connection with the CMTS via an internet protocol (IP) network. (col. 1, lines 40-65: “Internet”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Chapman’s teaching of using the internet/IP to remote establish the connection with the CMTS, with Ling’s disclosure/teaching of CMTS systems, since both are clearly in very similar fields of technical endeavors. The cited references are directed to data/CMTS communication infrastructures featuring similar CMTS/fiber node/CM elements. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for cable content communications (Chapman, cols. 1-4; Ling, paragraphs 1-30). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 4, Ling discloses the system as in the parent claim 1.
Ling does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the network discovery analyzer is configured to generate a topology mapping between a specific OFDM channel and downstream channel Id (DCID).
Chapman discloses wherein the network discovery analyzer is configured to generate a topology mapping between a specific OFDM channel and downstream channel Id (DCID). (col. 5, lines 4-40; col. 14, lines 14-65: “downstream channel identifier field 626”; col. 15, lines 5-33; col. 16, lines 15-40; col. 26, line 59- col. 27, line 10, disclosing OFDM).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Chapman’s teaching of generating a topology mapping between a specific OFDM channel and downstream channel Id (DCID), with Ling’s disclosure/teaching of CMTS to CM channels, to reject this limitation, by further characterizing the channels/subcarriers disclosed in Ling in the manner disclosed and taught in Chapman, since both are clearly in very similar fields of technical endeavors. The cited references are directed to data/CMTS communication infrastructures featuring similar CMTS/fiber node/CM elements. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for cable content communications (Chapman, cols. 1-4; Ling, paragraphs 1-30). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
AS to claims 9,15, see rejection for claim 2 above.
AS to claim 11,17, see rejection for claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 3,6,10,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0022926 A1 to Ling et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0223611 A1 to Ode et al.
As to claim 3, Ling discloses the system as in the parent claim 1.
Ling further discloses wherein the network discovery analyzer is configured to obtain configuration information for the cable network including exclusion band (paragraph 36, where information on the reserve frequencies teaches frequencies not within the reserve frequency band, i.e., exclusion band).
Ling does not appear to explicitly disclose non-data subcarriers.
Ode discloses non-data subcarriers. (paragraph 68: “subcarriers dedicated to the transmission of the control signal”)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Ode’s teaching of non-data carriers, with Ling’s disclosure/teaching above, to reject this claim, since it would have been obvious to a phosita that the “configuration information for the cable network” disclosed in Ling, may also be modified to include information on non-data carriers as taught in Ode, since both are clearly in very similar fields of technical endeavors, i.e., data processing and preparation for digital communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for digital content communications (Chapman, cols. 1-4; Ling, paragraphs 1-30; Ode, paragraphs 1-23). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 6, Ling discloses the system as in the parent claim 5.
Ling does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each band is 6 MHz.
Ode discloses wherein each band is 6 MHz. (paragraph 66: 6 MHz)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Ode’s teaching of 6 Mhz, with Ling’s disclosure/teachings, to reject this claim, since it would have been obvious to a phosita to characterize the frequency/channel bands in Ling as having the 6 MHz bandwidth disclosed in Ode. Both references are clearly in very similar fields of technical endeavors, i.e., data processing and preparation for digital communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for digital content communications (Chapman, cols. 1-4; Ling, paragraphs 1-30; Ode, paragraphs 1-23). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
AS to claims 10,16, see rejection for claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 12,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0022926 A1 to Ling et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0041990 A1 to Thibeault et al.
As to claim 12, Ling discloses the system as in the parent claim 8.
Ling further discloses channelizing subcarriers of each of the OFDM channels into bands of subcarriers; wherein obtaining the signal quality values for the plurality of OFDM subcarriers includes mapping a signal quality value to each of band of subcarriers (paragraphs 31-33, 38,45-47, Fig. 1: cmts 102 [“network profile designer”], “Upon receipt of the message 202, a CM 112.sub.X may measure, over the channels/subbands on which the message was sent, one or more metrics (e.g., SNR versus frequency profile) for the transmission 202. The CM 112.sub.X may then report the metric(s) back to the CMTS 102 via a message 204”; Figs. 2b-4, paragraphs 34-38,41-47: “CMTS 102 may utilize the data corresponding to graphs 242.sub.1-242.sub.8 shown when determining physical layer communication parameters to be used for each of the channels/subcarriers”; in particular, see Fig. 3, paragraphs 41-43, disclosing grouping CMs into different “service groups” that are assigned to different subcarriers [“band of subcarriers”] over certain timeslots, and assigned different “physical layer parameters”, which as discussed, include modulation configurations)
Ling does not appear to explicitly disclose MER.
Thibeault discloses MER (paragraph 13: MER modulation error rate).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Thibeault’s teaching of MER, with Ling’s disclosure/teaching above, to reject this claim, since it would have been obvious to a phosita that the signal quality value disclosed by Ling may be embodied by the MER disclosed in Thibeault, and since both are clearly in very similar fields of technical endeavors, i.e., data processing and preparation for digital communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for digital content communications (Chapman, cols. 1-4; Ling, paragraphs 1-30; Ode, paragraphs 1-23; Thibeault, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
AS to claim 18, see rejection for claim 12 above.
Claim(s) 13,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0022926 A1 to Ling et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0041990 A1 to Thibeault et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0223611 A1 to Ode et al.
As to claim 13, Ling and Thibeault teach the system as in the parent claim 12.
Ling and Thibeault do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each band is 6 MHz.
Ode discloses wherein each band is 6 MHz. (paragraph 66: 6 MHz)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Ode’s teaching of 6 Mhz, with Thibeault and Ling’s disclosure/teachings, to reject this claim, since it would have been obvious to a phosita to characterize the frequency/channel bands in Ling as having the 6 MHz bandwidth disclosed in Ode. Both references are clearly in very similar fields of technical endeavors, i.e., data processing and preparation for digital communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for digital content communications (Chapman, cols. 1-4; Ling, paragraphs 1-30; Ode, paragraphs 1-23; Thibeault, paragraphs 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
AS to claim 19, see rejection for claim 13 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
