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 .
Response to Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 05/04/2026.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-12, 14-29 are pending and are examined in this office action.
Claims 1, 24, 25, 27 have been amended.
No new claim has been added and claims 6-8, 10, 13, has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 05/04/2026, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot. The Examiner found features modified to claims that have changed the scope of the invention as a whole, Therefore, Applicant’s remarks regarding rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 for the claims are moot. Applicant's remarks are considered as forward looking statement for the newly reconstructed claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 3. The examiner notes that the foreign priority application (AU2017903470, filed 08/28/2017) is contained within the file wrapper (dated 02/28/2020). The examiner further notes that the foreign priority application is in English. The examiner has reviewed this subject matter and does not find support under 35 USC 112(a) for the current claims. See MPEP 216. In particular, the examiner fails to find support “dividing the sky into a plurality of spatial regions wherein each spatial region comprises a range of azimuth and elevation coordinates;
obtaining a plurality of link quality estimates from monitoring the plurality of transmission links; estimating, for each of the plurality of link quality estimates, a spatial location wherein the spatial location is an estimate of an azimuth and an elevation of the associated transmitter with respect to the installation location at the time of the transmission; obtaining, for each spatial region, a spatial aggregated link quality estimate by combining the link quality estimates having a spatial location within the respective spatial region;” . Therefore, for the purposes of applying prior art, the examiner considers the effective filing date of the claims to be 02/28/2020. If the applicant disagrees with this conclusion, they are invited to provide support for 112(a) on the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 3-5, 9, 12, 14-18, 23-29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recite a) “wherein the comprehensive sky view map representation is a spatial summary of link quality over the entirety of the sky comprising a polar plot centered on the fixed terminal location and where rotation and radius indicate link quality over azimuth (0-360) and elevation (0-90°) coordinates, respectively, or an equivalent parametric representation of a comprehensive sky view map constructed using a distribution, or superposition of distributions, on a sphere, is determined by:
dividing the sky into a plurality of spatial regions wherein each spatial region comprises a range of azimuth and elevation coordinates;
obtaining a plurality of link quality estimates from monitoring the plurality of transmission links; estimating, for each of the plurality of link quality estimates, a spatial location wherein the spatial location is an estimate of an azimuth and an elevation of the associated transmitter with respect to the installation location at the time of the transmission; obtaining, for each spatial region, a spatial aggregated link quality estimate by combining the link quality estimates having a spatial location within the respective spatial region; ” (claim 1; Line 7-124). However, there is no support in the specification for this feature. Instead, specification, HALEY et al. (US 20200367067 A1) Fig. 3, Fig. 4 Fig, 5 paragraphs 0066-0068, 0071-0075 indicates
“[0066] In one embodiment the reference link receiver reports an estimate of observed receive power, P.sub.R, or some other metric such as Carrier to Noise Ratio (CNR) or Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), from which P.sub.R can be determined. An estimate of the additional loss, {circumflex over (L)}.sub.A, introduced into the channel is then determined from the difference between the expected and observed received signal powers, i.e., {circumflex over (L)}.sub.A={circumflex over (P)}.sub.R−P.sub.R. The additional loss may then be used as a link quality metric, where increased additional loss indicates reduced link quality and vice-versa, and it may be compared to the expected available link margin to predict if reception is likely to be successful. The additional loss estimates could be averaged estimates, for example by combining multiple individual estimates, or by using aggregated or averaged values of observed receive power, or the expected receive power may be based on components which are aggregated or averaged estimates. The additional loss estimates could also be based on fitting a statistical model to observed data, or generated using machine learning, data mining, or artificial intelligence techniques. The additional loss estimates may be a single value, or include time dependent effects, such as time of day (e.g., day/night) or time of year (summer/winter) effects, for example due to atmospheric effects. In some embodiments the terminal may include environmental sensors such as humidity and temperature sensors, and/or terminal hardware sensors (e.g., receiver temperature), and the link quality estimates may be based on sensed values .
[0067] In another embodiment the terminal communications link is bidirectional and the communications receiver provides the terminal with feedback messages (or information), such as acknowledgement messages, or performance statistics such as packet success rate, or CNR/SNR estimates. The acknowledgement (ACK), or a set of acknowledgements, may be provided in real time, or may be delivered after some latency, e.g., in the case of a distributed system where execution of baseband receiver signal processing is not physically collocated with the radio receiver. In this case a link quality metric may be derived using the acknowledgements, or other performance metrics, such as a count of the number of retries required for successful reception to a given receiver location, or the average packet success rate when transmitting to a receiver located within some region in space. For example the sky could be divided into predefined regions (e.g., based on azimuthal and altitude/elevation angles) and counts kept for each predefined spatial region.
[0068] In another embodiment the terminal uses information from the reference link to predict and compare the relative quality of a communications link across candidate locations of a receiver (for example in different regions of the sky). The relative comparison does not require absolute calculation of additional loss, and can therefore be performed without knowledge of transmit power or antenna characteristics. For example, the terminal may record observed CNR values, SNR values, and corresponding relative GNSS satellite locations for one or more GNSS reference links, and use this as the metric for predicting communications link quality. Observed CNR or SNR may also be used in the case where the reference link is a communications link, along with other measures such as Acknowledgement rates. The terminal could store records of the metrics and analyze these historical (temporal) records to build up a model which can be used for link quality estimates.
0071] FIG. 3 is a Sky View Map 300 constructed using CNR values and corresponding relative satellite locations for multiple GPS satellites recorded by a terminal during an experiment over 8 days. In this case the terminal was mounted on the southern side of a building, with the building obstructing the northern view of the sky. The Sky View Map is a polar plot with rotation indicating azimuth (North zero degrees) and radial measurements representing elevation (or altitude angles). The example provided in the figure shows that the obstruction causes reduced CNR on the northern side of the wall. The slope of the wall 310 is also shown in the figure. Regions also exist where the GPS satellites did not visit, e.g., 320. Such regions could be marked as having unknown link quality using orbital parameters for the satellites. In this example, when multiple CNR observations were made at the same azimuth/elevation position the average CNR at that position was calculated. Other functions could be applied in place of the average, e.g., median, maximum, minimum.
[0072] In one embodiment a threshold is applied to the Sky View Map, removing samples having CNR below the threshold, with the remaining samples indicating a region where the view of the sky is less likely to be obstructed and hence communications link quality to a satellite is likely to be higher. FIG. 4 is a thresholded Sky View Map 400 which shows the regions in the Sky View Map of FIG. 3 where the CNR is greater than or equal to a threshold of 33 dB. Based on this, the terminal may select to limit its transmissions to within azimuth and elevations that are within this region, thus avoiding the obstruction on the northern side.
[0073] FIG. 5 is a sky view map 500 for the installation shown in FIG. 1 according to an embodiment. In this embodiment the numbers around the sky view map represent azimuth angles where the North is at 0° and the dashed circles and numbers within the sky view map indicate altitude angles where the zenith is 90°. In this map the shading represents poorer link quality, and as can be seen a first zone 510 towards the north covering azimuth angles from 315° to 45° represents the poorest link quality due to obstruction by building 40 north of the terminal. A second zone 520 which extends from around azimuth angles from 300° to 60° represents intermediate link quality. A further zone 530 of moderate (better than intermediate) link quality due to a terrestrial interference source located between azimuth angles from 120° to 180° and altitude angles from 0° to 30° with respect to the terminal (i.e., approximately south east horizon with respect to the terminal).
[0074] In another embodiment the terminal has access to multiple reference link receiver sources (e.g., from a communications system and from GNSS). The terminal estimates link quality based on each receiver, and then combines the estimates to an aggregate link quality estimate. These aggregates could be combined (i.e., spatial aggregation) to create an average sky map. Similarly link quality estimates could be based on aggregated or averages values for specific receivers (i.e., based on repeated measures for the same receiver), or averaged over receivers of the same type, for example different GNSS systems (i.e., GPS satellites, GLONASS satellites, Beidou satellites) or satellites with the same hardware (e.g., same GPS Block). That is aggregation could be performed based on a class of receiver or reference link. For example aggregates could be based on distance to the receiver (which is related to orbital locations). Distance ranges/bins could be predefined, and averaging performed for all receivers in a given distance range. Estimation may include generation of error estimates, for example to allow probabilistic thresholds to be used, for example in deciding what transmission parameters to be used. For example if there is high confidence in good transmission conditions then transmission power could be reduced on the assumption of stable conditions, compared to where the confidence is lower suggesting the good conditions may be more variable, and thus more caution is warranted.
[0075] In another embodiment the terminal stores and uses a model and/or database that relates communications link quality to short duration measurements of GNSS satellite signal strength metrics (such as CNR) and positions of these GNSS satellites in the sky relative to the terminal. The model or database may be constructed using offline experiments (conducted in controlled environments) or via simulation, or through some combination of these approaches. Various statistical modelling, machine learning and data mining methods may be used to build the model and/or the database. In some embodiments the database may be used as a lookup table, and may be derived from a model based on experiments and simulation. The measurements may be optionally normalized to take into account the known path length to the satellite (e.g., dB relative to nominally expected signal strength for a specific satellite at the known distance). Experiments may also be used to determine the minimum expected duration test period of GNSS satellite measurements required to provide sufficient data samples such that database query can give a high degree of confidence on the expected quality of the communications link. Similarly the database could be used to refine or update estimates over time. For example each month the terminal could take a set of test measurements and provide these to a model or use a lookup table (or compare these with the database) to produce a new set of link quality estimates to be used for the next month. In some embodiments updates to the model may be periodically provided to terminals by the satellites.”
The amended claim limitation “wherein the comprehensive sky view map representation is a spatial summary of link quality over the entirety of the sky comprising a polar plot centered on the fixed terminal location and where rotation and radius indicate link quality over azimuth (0-360) and elevation (0-90°) coordinates, respectively, or an equivalent parametric representation of a comprehensive sky view map constructed using a distribution, or superposition of distributions, on a sphere, is determined by:
dividing the sky into a plurality of spatial regions wherein each spatial region comprises a range of azimuth and elevation coordinates;
obtaining a plurality of link quality estimates from monitoring the plurality of transmission links; estimating, for each of the plurality of link quality estimates, a spatial location wherein the spatial location is an estimate of an azimuth and an elevation of the associated transmitter with respect to the installation location at the time of the transmission; obtaining, for each spatial region, a spatial aggregated link quality estimate by combining the link quality estimates having a spatial location within the respective spatial region” appears to be broaden aspect of what is disclosed originally and raises the issues regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention (See MPEP § 2163.05.I.A). Therefore the claim omits an element which applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed and as such does not comply with the written description requirement. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For the purposes of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner assumes any feature as necessarily being appropriate.
Claim 1 recite b) “a comprehensive sky view map…encompasses an entirety of the sky”; however, the specification of the instant application does not provide support for the claimed “comprehensive” nor the “entirety of the sky”. At best, the specification only appears to support the ability to claim a “Sky view map”, not a comprehensive one, nor one that is defined by being the entirety of the sky.
Claim 1 recite c) “recites 0-360 for the azimuth and 0-90 for the elevation. The specification does not expressly recite these ranges and the Examiner suggests removing these range values from the claim.
Claim 1 recite d) “associated transmitter with respect to the installation location at the time of the transmission” – this is not expressly stated, but furthermore, nowhere else it shows how can claim the precise moment the estimation is occurring.
Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For the purposes of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner assumes any feature as necessarily being appropriate.
Claims 24, 25, 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
All Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-12, 14-23,26, 28-29 which depend on the above rejected independent claims are also interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for their respective independent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 3-5, 9, 12, 14-18, 23-29, are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, which draws to (all emphases below added by examiner)
“obtaining, for each spatial region, a spatial aggregated link quality estimate by combining the link quality estimates having a spatial location within the respective spatial region;” which has indefiniteness issues.
regarding “the link quality” above, it appears to have inadequate antecedent basis. Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and in the context of the whole claim, the examiner believes it should be “obtaining, for each spatial region, a spatial aggregated link quality estimate by combining the plurality of link quality estimates having a spatial location within the respective spatial region”.
Regarding claim 1, which draws to (all emphases below added by examiner)
a) “obtaining, for each spatial region, a spatial aggregated link quality estimate by combining the link quality estimates having a spatial location within the respective spatial region;” which has indefiniteness issues.
(1) regarding “the link quality” above, it appears to have inadequate antecedent basis. Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and in the context of the whole claim, the examiner believes it should be “obtaining, for each spatial region, a spatial aggregated link quality estimate by combining the plurality of link quality estimates having a spatial location within the respective spatial region”.
Claim 1 b) recites “a comprehensive sky view map” twice. Once at line 5 and another around line 16 (right after the 0-360 and 0-90 degree elements). In the middle of this, the claim further recites “the comprehensive sky view map”.
This leads to some confusion since it is unclear if the second “a comprehensive sky view map” refers to the same 1st “comprehensive sky view map” or a different “comprehensive sky view map”. This is important since the 2nd mention of “comprehensive sky view map”” then claims all the determination steps.
For the purposes of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner assumes any feature as necessarily being appropriate.
Claims 24, 25, 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
All Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 11-12, 14-23,26, 28-29 which depend on the above rejected independent claims are also interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for their respective independent claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 M MOSTAZIR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4785. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm PST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/M Mostazir Rahman/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights