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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
If further efforts are made to clarify and fully define the invention, Applicant is advised to consider referencing specific paragraphs, column and line numbers, and/or figures from the cited prior art. While the citations provided are representative and mapped to individual claim limitations, other portions of the references may also be relevant. Incorporating such disclosures may assist the Applicant in preparing a more complete response to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plane of the platform", however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins et al. (US Pat. 5152482; hereafter referred to as Perkins) in view of Gelon (US 20120205492).
Regarding claim 1:
Perkins discloses (in Figs. 1-4 and 7) a satellite (SAT) (10) comprising a platform (PF) (12), at least one solar panel (PS) (16) for supplying the satellite (SAT) (10) with electrical energy, the solar panel (PS) (16) being fixed along one side of the platform (PF) (12), the satellite (10) comprising an antenna system (Rx+Z, Rx-Z, Tx+Z, Tx-Z) (18, 20, 18’ and 20’) comprising two remote control antennas (Rx+Z, Rx-Z) (18 and 18’) and two remote measurement antennas (Tx+Z, Tx-Z) (20 and 20’), wherein: the two remote control antennas (Rx+Z, Rx-Z) (18 and 18’) are disposed back to back on either side of the platform (12), the two remote measurement antennas (Tx+Z, Tx-Z) (20 and 20’) are disposed back to back, on either side of the platform (12), the antenna system (18, 20, 18’ and 20’) is disposed at one of the two ends of the side of the platform (PF) (12) on which the solar panel (PS) (16) is fixed (See Figs.).
Perkins discloses all the claimed limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1, except that the two remote control antennas and the two remote measurement antennas are spaced one from the other by a distance less than or equal to X, where A corresponds to the wavelength of the remote control or remote measurement signal and the platform (PF) comprises an arm forming an extension of the platform (PF) in the plane of the platform (PF), along an axis (AX) corresponding to the junction between the platform (PF) and the solar panel (PS), the antenna system (Rx+Z, Rx-Z, Tx+Z, Tx-Z) being disposed on the said arm (BR) of the platform (PF).
However, separation distance between antennas is a result effective variable, particularly for reducing signal interference, feedback loops and thereby providing isolation between the antennas to improve the radiation efficiency and antenna diversity.
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to set the spacing between the antennas as distance less than or equal to À in order to adjust isolation between antennas. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Perkins is silent on that the platform (PF) comprises an arm forming an extension of the platform (PF) in the plane of the platform (PF), along an axis (AX) corresponding to the junction between the platform (PF) and the solar panel (PS), the antenna system (Rx+Z, Rx-Z, Tx+Z, Tx-Z) being disposed on the said arm (BR) of the platform (PF).
Gelon discloses (in Figs. 3-4) the platform (PF) (312) comprises an arm (314) forming an extension of the platform (PF) (312) in the plane of the platform (PF) (312), along an axis (AX) (vertically; See Fig. 1) corresponding to the junction between the platform (PF) (312) and the solar panel (PS) (360), the antenna system (Rx+Z, Rx-Z, Tx+Z, Tx-Z) (380) being disposed on the said arm (314) of the platform (PF) (312).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement he platform (PF) comprises an arm forming an extension of the platform (PF) in the plane of the platform (PF), along an axis (AX) corresponding to the junction between the platform (PF) and the solar panel (PS), the antenna system (Rx+Z, Rx-Z, Tx+Z, Tx-Z) being disposed on the said arm (BR) of the platform (PF) as taught by Gelon into the device of Perkins for the benefit of achieving a space deployable satellite desirably compatible with the mass and fairing envelope constraints of launch vehicles such as, for example, Ariane V, Atlas XEPF, Proton, and Sea Launch (Para. 0003, Lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 2:
Perkins discloses (in Fig. 7) the platform (PF) (12) comprises a transponder (TP) (126), the transponder (TP) (126) being adjacent to the antenna system (Rx+Z, Rx-Z, Tx+Z, Tx-Z) (18, 20, 18' and 20').
Regarding claim 3:
Perkins discloses the two remote control antennas (Rx+Z, Rx-Z) (18 and 18') are disposed between the transponder (TP) (126) and the two remote measurement antennas (Tx+Z, Tx-Z) (20 and 20').
Regarding claim 4:
Perkins discloses the transponder (TP) (126) is disposed between the two remote control antennas (Rx+Z, Rx-Z) (18 and 18') and the two remote measurement antennas (Tx+Z, Tx-Z) (20 and 20').
Regarding claim 6:
Perkins discloses the arm (14) of the platform (12) comprises a deployment device (DD), the said
deployment device (DD) being equipped with a low-impact passive system (Col. 7, Lines 27-30).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins and Gelon, and further in view of Masak et al. (US Pat. 4516126; hereafter referred to as Masak).
Regarding claim 7:
Perkins does not explicitly disclose the satellite comprises a first coupler (CPRx) configured for
summing signals coming from the remote control antennas (Rx+Z, Rx-Z), a second coupler (CPTx)
configured for distributing a remote measurement signal to the remote measurement antennas (Tx+Z, Tx-Z), the first coupler (CPRx) and the second coupler (CPTx) being respectively connected between the
remote control antennas (Rx+Z, Rx-Z), and between the remote measurement antennas (Tx+Z, Tx-Z).
Masak discloses (in Figs. 2 and 3) comprising a first coupler (CPRx) (3A) configured for summing
signals coming from the remote control antennas (Rx+Z, Rx-Z) (1A), a second coupler (CPTx) (3B)
configured for distributing a remote measurement signal to the remote measurement antennas (Tx+Z, Tx-
Z) (1B), the first coupler (CPRx) (3A) and the second coupler (CPTx) (3B) being respectively connected
between the remote-control antennas (Rx+Z, Rx-Z) (1A), and between the remote measurement
antennas (Tx+Z, Tx-Z) (1B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date
of the claimed invention to implement the couplers and arranged by Masak into the device of the modified Perkins for the benefit establishing the coherence of respective signals received or transmitted by the plurality of
antennas to provide an antenna system, augmented with beam steering, capable of cancelling multiple
interfering signals with minimum effect on the desired signal and a maximization of the processed key
performance parameters (Col. 1, Lines 29-33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights