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 § 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) 1-3, 5-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger et al. (hereinafter “Metzger”, US Pat No. 2021/0184764) and in view of De Mos (US Pat No. 2019/0036603).
As per claims 1, 14-15, and 18, Metzger disclosed a method, wherein the method comprising the steps of receiving, by a terminal (see fig. 1, 120, 130 & 140) and via a first communication interface (see fig. 1, 124, 134 & 144), information associated with one or more applications (see 1, 125-127, 121-143); receiving, by the terminal and via a second communication interface (see fig. 1, 177 & 178, and 102) different from the first communication interface, a signal from a non-geosynchronous orbit (NGSO) satellite (see 0046); and responsive to the receiving the signal from the NGSO satellite, transmitting, by the terminal and to the NGSO satellite (see 0046), at least part of the information.
Metzger disclose various communication interfaces (see fig. 10, 1050, 1070, 1080), as a second communication interface, couple to various type of antenna elements (see 0046) but not specifically an antenna communication interfaces coupled to a non-tracking antenna. However, such claimed limitation is notoriously well known in the art, De Mos disclosed various communication interfaces couple to both tracking and non-tracking antennas (see 0042, 0062). Therefore, it is obvious for Metzger to adopt such teaching, as taught by De Mos, in order to provide an inexpensive and reliable fixed antenna while allow for high levels of communication bandwidth within a specific coverage area.
As per claim 2, the improved communication system of and Metzger and De Mos further disclosed storing (see fig. 10, 1013), in a memory of the terminal, the information.
As per claim 3, the improved communication system of and Metzger and De Mos further disclosed after the receiving the signal from the NGSO satellite and before the transmitting, establishing, by the terminal, a data link with the NGSO satellite, wherein the transmitting the at least part of the information to the NGSO satellite is via the data link (see fig. 2, 0021-0033 and fig. 3, 0035-0037).
As per claim 5, the improved communication system of and Metzger and De Mos further disclosed listening link (see fig. 2, 0021-0033 and fig. 3, 0035-0037), by the terminal and via the second communication interface, for the signal from the NGSO satellite, wherein the second communication interface comprises an antenna (see fig. 1, 181-183) coupled to the terminal, the antenna comprises multiple apertures (see fig. 4), and the listening comprises scanning through the multiple apertures (see fig. 10, 0131, 0136-0137) .
As per claim 6, the improved communication system of and Metzger and De Mos further disclosed the scanning through the multiple apertures comprises listening for the signal from the NGSO satellite through any aperture of the multiple apertures for a predetermined period link (see fig. 2, 0021-0033 and fig. 3, 0035-0037).
As per claims 7 and 19, the improved communication system of and Metzger and De Mos further disclosed the information is associated with one or more Internet of Things (IoT) applications (see 0017, 0035-0036, 0043, 0072).
As per claims 8 and 17, the improved communication system of and Metzger and De Mos further disclosed the information is associated with one or more sensor monitoring applications (see 0017, 0035-0036, 0038-0039, 0043, 0072).
As per claim 11, the improved communication system of and Metzger and De Mos further disclosed the signal from the NGSO satellite comprises a relayed version of a signal generated by an earth station (see fig. 1, 110) other than the terminal.
As per claim 12, the improved communication system of and Metzger and De Mos further disclosed the information associated with the one or more applications is received from one or more devices, and the one or more devices are connected to a modem of the terminal via the first communication interface (see 0021-0033 and fig. 3, 0035-0037); and wherein the first communication interface comprises an Ethernet LAN interface (see fig. 1, 0019, 0035, 0044, and at least 0051).
As per claim 20, the improved communication system of and Metzger and De Mos further disclosed the second communication interface comprises an antenna coupled to the terminal and the antenna comprises a plurality of antenna panels, and wherein at least a pair of the plurality of antenna panels are configured to bidirectionally communicate with the NGSO satellite (see fig. 1, 181-183, fig. 4).
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) 4, 13, 16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger et al. (hereinafter “Metzger”, US Pat No. 2021/0184764).
As per claim 4, Metzger disclose transmission of signal from the NGSO satellite but not a beacon signal of the NGSO satellite. However, such is notoriously well known in the art that the examiner takes Official Notice of such. Therefore, it is obvious for Metzger to adopt such teaching, well-known, in order to identified transmission reception points.
As per claims 13, 16, and 21, Metzger disclose the second communication interface comprises an antenna coupled to the terminal (see fig. 2, 0021-0033 and fig. 3, 0035-0037) but not specifically that the antenna comprises a plurality of side-faces in a shape of a frustrum. However, such is notoriously well known in the art that the examiner takes Official Notice of such. Therefore, it is obvious for Metzger to adopt such teaching, well-known, in order to allow for a coverage angle of 360° and at the same time the tilted upward direction and vertical orientation of the spatially directed transmission beam can be realized and wherein any of the plurality of side-faces are configured to transmit to or receive from the satellite during a single pass of the satellite orbiting the Earth.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger et al. (hereinafter “Metzger”, US Pat No. 2021/0184764) and in view of Wu et al. (hereinafter ”Wu”, US Pat No. 2018/0376393).
As per claim 10, Metzger disclose such bi-directional transmission between the terminal and the NGSO satellite but not specifically disclose that such an acknowledgement that the at least part of the information has been correctly received by the NGSO satellite and after the receiving the acknowledgement, erasing the at least part of the information from a memory of the terminal. However, Wu disclosed such claimed limitation (see 0106) of an acknowledgement in order to indicate that the corresponding unit or group of FL data was received correctly or incorrectly, and wherein when the information has been correctly received, it’s is clearly and logistically to erase or discard the information to clear the cache or save memory space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s disclosed that, “Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Metzger with a non-tracking antenna given that Metzger’s tracking antenna configuration”. In response to the Applicant, please see rejection above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the Applicant’s disclosed that, “Wu fails to remedy the deficiency of Metzger”. In response to the Applicant, please see rejection above in claim 1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pablo Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-7898. The examiner normal hours are 9:30 -5:00 (Monday-Friday). 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 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 httpr//pair-directauspto.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 USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
November 25, 2025
/PABLO N TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights