DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
NOTICE: 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 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 non-obviousness.
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, 11-12, 15-16, 19-22, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuart (US Pat. 5,666,648) in view of Krebs (US Pub. 2016/0094288).
Regarding claim 1, Stuart discloses a satellite system for global communications {Stuart: Fig. 1: Col. 11: 50-Col. 12: 7: four orbital plans (OR1-OR4), each including 3 satellites operated at low earth orbit (LEO)} comprising:
a set of satellites in an inclined LEO constellation {Stuart: Fig. 1, Col. 11: 50-62: within satellite orbital plans OR1-OR4, the OR2-OR4 are inclined LEO constellations {Stuart: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22};
a first user terminal for transmitting to, and receiving signals from, said first and second set of satellites {Stuart: Col. 4: 49-64: sending terminal GA sends a message to a receiving terminal GC via polar gateway GB and two satellites located at different polar orbits (OR1 to OR2). Stuart: Figs. 2-7: Col. 12: 8-44: a store-and-forward message from sending terminal GA is transmitted at time T1 to satellite S1/OR1; The message is delivered to the polar gateway GB and then transferred to another satellite S1/OR2 when it is flying by the polar gateway GB at time T2}; and
a Gateway, a base station or a second user terminal for transmitting to, and receiving signals from, said first and second set of satellites {Stuart: Col. 4: 49-64: sending terminal GA sends a message to a receiving terminal GC via a polar gateway GB and two satellites located at different polar orbits (OR1 and OR2). Stuart: Figs. 2-7: Col. 12: 8-44: a store-and-forward message from sending terminal GA is transmitted to satellite S1 of OR1 which is then delivered to the polar gateway GB; the polar gateway GB transfers the message to the satellite S1 of OR2, which finally delivers to receiving terminal GC when the satellite S1 of OR2 is flying by the polar gateway GB at time T2};
said first set and second set of satellites in combination, providing global coverage with no satellites in an equatorial orbit ({Stuart: Fig. 1, Col. 11: 50-62: satellite orbital plans OR1-OR4 are polar LEO constellations, configured to be operated at inclination of 80o (See Stuart: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22); within satellite orbital plans OR1-OR4, the OR2-OR4 are inclined LEO constellations {Stuart: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22};
However, Stuart fails to disclose each satellite in the set of satellites having ISL (inter-satellite link) functionality.
Krebs discloses each satellite in the set of satellites having ISL (inter-satellite link) functionality {Krebs: [0003]; Fig. 1A-3B: [0043]-[0048]: inter-satellite links (ISL) are used to communicate with satellite of the same plane/orbit or with other satellites at different plane/orbits}.
Similarly to Stuart, Krebs shares the same field of endeavor in providing communication services in a polar satellite communication system; As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Krebs and Stuart before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate inter-satellite link configuration as taught by Krebs to Stuart, as such Stuart LEO satellite can therefore exchange communication with other satellites in the same or with different satellite constellation to improve the cost expenditure and simplicity advantage in the design of the satellite communication system {Krebs: [0003]}.
Regarding Claim 11, Stuart and Krebs disclose the satellite system of claim 1, wherein said satellites of said polar LEO constellation orbit at an altitude of between 800 km and 1400 km {Stuart: Col. 24: 17-39: the LEO satellites system is operated at 1,100km altitude, but may varying within a range of 500km to maximum of 1400km}.
Regarding Claim 12, Stuart and Krebs disclose the satellite system of claim 11, Although, Stuart and Krebs fail to disclose wherein said satellites of said inclined LEO constellation orbit at an exact altitude of about 1250 km.
Stuart (Col. 24: 17-39), however discloses the LEO satellites system is operated at 1,100km altitude and varies within a range of 500km to maximum of 1400km.
Krebs {[0031]-[0032]} in another hand, discloses the satellites 200 orbiting the earth at altitude A1 of 1,300km; and that satellites 202a and 202b orbits at altitude A2 or A3, lower than A1.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Stuart and or Krebs using the altitude A2 and A3 at lower altitude than a maximum altitude (i.e. A1) to configure the satellite altitude at 1,250km to meet the claimed invention to improve the security and the latency for long distance traffic routing via the use of satellite communication {Krebs: [0030]}.
Regarding Claim 15, Stuart and Krebs discloses the satellite system of claim 1, each of said first and second set of satellites having an IP router functionality {Krebs: [0056]: routing information is used for Internet Protocol (IP) routing}.
Regarding Claim 16, Stuart and Krebs discloses the satellite system of claim 15, each of said first and second set of satellites having an IP router load management functionality {Krebs: [0056]-[0058]: satellite system 100 using IP interface for routing data ([0056]. Satellite system processor 110 controls and manages the weights, the health and link load of all communication links between the satellite and other ground-based devices ([0058])}.
Regarding Claim 19, Stuart discloses “said set of satellites provides a minimum elevation angle of approximately 20 degrees” (Fig. 1, Col. 11: 50-62: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22; Fig. 1: Col. 11: 50-Col. 12: 7, Col. 4: 49-64; Figs. 2-7: Col. 12: 8-44).
Regarding Claim 20, Stuart discloses “wherein each of said satellites has a broad fixed beam of approximately 108 degrees beamwidth, pointed directly below the satellite” (Fig. 1, Col. 11: 50-62: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22; Fig. 1: Col. 11: 50-Col. 12: 7, Col. 4: 49-64; Figs. 2-7: Col. 12: 8-44).
Regarding Claim 21, Stuart discloses “routing software configured to ignore possible ISL communications where two given satellites are moving too quickly with respect to one another” (Fig. 1, Col. 11: 50-62: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22; Fig. 1: Col. 11: 50-Col. 12: 7, Col. 4: 49-64; Figs. 2-7: Col. 12: 8-44).
Regarding Claim 22, Stuart discloses “wherein said each of said satellites has narrow steerable beams and Wide Area Coverage beams” (Fig. 1, Col. 11: 50-62: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22; Fig. 1: Col. 11: 50-Col. 12: 7, Col. 4: 49-64; Figs. 2-7: Col. 12: 8-44).
Regarding Claim 25, Stuart discloses “wherein said inclined LEO constellation comprises six planes, equally spaced (Fig. 1, Col. 11: 50-62: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22; Fig. 1: Col. 11: 50-Col. 12: 7, Col. 4: 49-64; Figs. 2-7: Col. 12: 8-44).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuart in view of “Krebs” and further in view of Stuart et al. (US Pat. 5,678,175, herein ‘St-175”).
Regarding Claim 5, Stuart and Krebs disclose the satellite system of claim 1, However, Stuart and Krebs fail to disclose wherein said inclined LEO constellation comprises five planes, equally spaced.
St-175 discloses wherein said inclined LEO constellation comprises five planes, equally spaced {Stuart: Column 27: Claims 10-11: the satellite communication system includes a five orbital planes equally spaced}.
Sharing the same field of endeavor in providing satellite communications configuration and setting; As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of St-175 and Stuart before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate polar satellite plane configuration as taught by St-175 to Stuart, as such, Stuart LEO satellites can be configured to operate in five orbital planes as claimed to improve the mobile satellite services demand especially for the areas underserved by the traditional terrestrial wireless networks {St-175: Col. 3: lns. 6-12}.
Regarding Claim 6, Stuart, Krebs and St-175 disclose the satellite system of claim 5, wherein said planes of said inclined LEO constellation are inclined between 5 degrees and 75 degrees {Krebs: [0004]; [0010]; Fig. 7: [0066]: LEO satellite constellation inclination angle is greater than 0 and less than 90}.
Regarding Claim 7, Stuart, Krebs and St-175 disclose the satellite system of claim 6, wherein said planes of said inclined LEO constellation are inclined about 37.4 degrees {Krebs: [0037]: squint angle of the satellite antenna is about 37 degrees. Krebs: [0004]; [0010]; Fig. 7: [0066]: LEO satellite constellation inclination angle is greater than 0 and less than 90}.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuart in view of Krebs and further in view of Lindsay et al. (US Pub. 2016/0149599, hereinafter “Lindsay”).
Regarding Claim 13, Stuart and Krebs disclose the satellite system of claim 1, However, Stuart and Krebs fail to disclose wherein the Gateway, the base station, or the second user terminal are operable to avoid satellite user terminals by switching the Gateway, the base station or the second user terminal to an alternate LEO satellite that has an angular separation with a GEO satellite greater than a calculated discrimination angle, as measured at the GEO user terminal.
Lindsay discloses the satellite system wherein the Gateway, the base station, or the second user terminal are operable to avoid interference with a GEO satellite user terminals by switching the Gateway, the base station or the second user terminal to an alternate LEO satellite that has an angular separation with a GEO satellite greater than a calculated discrimination angle, as measured at the GEO user terminal {Lindsay: Fig. 12 & 15: [0057]-[0061]; [0066]: at the Equator when potential interference with a GEO satellite system is encountered, the satellites 1241-1243 or 1540-4 transmission is switched off and handover data to the adjacent satellites until a discrimination angle with the Equatorial plane 220 is out-of-view}.
Similarly to Stuart, Lindsay provides configuration for LEO satellite constellation operating in a polar orbital plane; As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Lindsay and Stuart before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the satellite transmission switching as taught by Lindsay to Stuart, as such, Stuart LEO satellites can therefore control the satellite transmission when interference with other satellite system is detected at a discrimination angle as claimed to improve the service coverage performance for the satellite communication systems by avoiding potential interference between the two satellite systems {Lindsay: [0029]}.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuart in view of Krebs and further in view of Jalali et al.(US Pub. 2015/0162975)
Regarding Claim 17, Stuart and Krebs disclose the satellite system of claim 1, However, Stuart and Krebs fail to disclose wherein said communications comprises broadband communications.
Jalali discloses wherein said communications comprises broadband communications {Jalali: Fig. 1: [0026]; [0030]: NGSO or LEO satellite system is configured to provide broadband Internet to homes and/or enterprises}.
Similarly to Stuart, Jalali shares the same field of endeavor in providing configuration for satellite communication system; As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jalali and Stuart before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the broadband Internet as taught by Jalali to Stuart, as such, Stuart LEO satellites can therefore provide the broadband Internet service to home and enterprises users to improve the cost expenditure to Internet user {Jalali: [0004]}.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuart in view of Krebs and further in view of Karlsson et al.(US Pat. 6,034,634, hereinafter “Karlsson”).
Regarding Claim 18, Stuart and Krebs disclose the satellite system of claim 1, however, Stuart and Krebs fail to disclose where said first user terminal includes an electronically scanned array antenna for communicating with said first and second set of satellites.
Karlsson discloses where said first user terminal includes an electronically scanned array antenna for communicating with said first and second set of satellites {Karlsson: Fig. 4: Col. 3: lns 33-60; Col. 5: lns. 16-26; Fig. 1: Col. 6: lns. 37-43: a user terminal including an antenna array 21 providing electronic scanning for the detection of the LEO satellites}.
Similarly to Stuart, Karlsson shares the same field of endeavor in providing configuration for satellite communication system; As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Karlsson and Stuart before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electronically scanned array antenna as taught by Karlsson to Stuart satellite user terminal, as such, Stuart satellite user terminal can therefore detect the visibility of the satellite via performing a scanning of an incoming satellite to improve the reliability of the hand-off between the ongoing satellite and the incoming satellite {Karlsson: Col. 2: lns. 53-61}.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive.
Stuart discloses a satellite system for global communications {Stuart: Fig. 1: Col. 11: 50-Col. 12: 7: four orbital plans (OR1-OR4), each including 3 satellites operated at low earth orbit (LEO)} comprising:
a first set of satellites in a polar LEO (low Earth orbit) constellation {Stuart: Fig. 1, Col. 11: 50-62: satellite orbital plans OR1-OR4 are polar LEO constellations, configured to be operated at inclination of 80o (See Stuart: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22)};
a second set of satellites in an inclined LEO constellation {Stuart: Fig. 1, Col. 11: 50-62: within satellite orbital plans OR1-OR4, the OR2-OR4 are inclined LEO constellations {Stuart: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22};
a first user terminal for transmitting to, and receiving signals from, said first and second set of satellites {Stuart: Col. 4: 49-64: sending terminal GA sends a message to a receiving terminal GC via polar gateway GB and two satellites located at different polar orbits (OR1 to OR2). Stuart: Figs. 2-7: Col. 12: 8-44: a store-and-forward message from sending terminal GA is transmitted at time T1 to satellite S1/OR1; The message is delivered to the polar gateway GB and then transferred to another satellite S1/OR2 when it is flying by the polar gateway GB at time T2}; and
a Gateway, a base station or a second user terminal for transmitting to, and receiving signals from, said first and second set of satellites {Stuart: Col. 4: 49-64: sending terminal GA sends a message to a receiving terminal GC via a polar gateway GB and two satellites located at different polar orbits (OR1 and OR2). Stuart: Figs. 2-7: Col. 12: 8-44: a store-and-forward message from sending terminal GA is transmitted to satellite S1 of OR1 which is then delivered to the polar gateway GB; the polar gateway GB transfers the message to the satellite S1 of OR2, which finally delivers to receiving terminal GC when the satellite S1 of OR2 is flying by the polar gateway GB at time T2};
said first set and second set of satellites in combination, providing global coverage with no satellites in an equatorial orbit ({Stuart: Fig. 1, Col. 11: 50-62: satellite orbital plans OR1-OR4 are polar LEO constellations, configured to be operated at inclination of 80o (See Stuart: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22); within satellite orbital plans OR1-OR4, the OR2-OR4 are inclined LEO constellations {Stuart: Col. 13: 1-5; Col. 17: Table 4; Col. 24: 17-22};
However, Stuart fails to disclose each of said first and second set of satellites having ISL (inter-satellite link) functionality with respect to satellites in the polar LEO constellation and with satellites in the inclined LEO constellation.
Krebs discloses each of said first and second set of satellites having ISL (inter-satellite link) functionality with respect to satellites in the polar LEO constellation and with satellites in the inclined LEO constellation {Krebs: [0003]; Fig. 1A-3B: [0043]-[0048]: inter-satellite links (ISL) are used to communicate with satellite of the same plane/orbit or with other satellites at different plane/orbits}.
Similarly to Stuart, Krebs shares the same field of endeavor in providing communication services in a polar satellite communication system; As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Krebs and Stuart before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate inter-satellite link configuration as taught by Krebs to Stuart, as such Stuart LEO satellite can therefore exchange communication with other satellites in the same or with different satellite constellation to improve the cost expenditure and simplicity advantage in the design of the satellite communication system {Krebs: [0003]}.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23-24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 23, the applied art does not teach or suggest “plurality of sets of satellites and wherein at least one of said sets of satellites is operable to: transmit and receive signals via a Wide Area Coverage beam; receive a request from the user terminal for high-capacity beam coverage; and respond to receiving the request from the user terminal for high-capacity beam coverage by switching the user terminal to a higher bandwidth, narrow, steerable beam, pointed towards the requesting user terminal.”
In regards to claim 24, the applied art does not teach or suggest “wherein the Gateway is operable to avoid interference with a GEO satellite user terminal by switching the Gateway to an alternate LEO satellite that has an angular separation with a GEO satellite greater than a calculated discrimination angle, as measured at the GEO user terminal.”
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 339 whose telephone number is (571)272-9747. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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). If you would like assistance from a
/ANKUR JAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights