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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/23/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive in view of Lagrotta et al (US 2023/0,403,073) and is moot in view of new grounds of rejection over Thommana et al (US 9,282,500).
Regarding independent claim 1 and 18, applicant argues that the cited prior art, Jeoti et al, Lagrotta et al and Winters et al do not disclose selecting at least one second optimal TX frequency based on at least one of: a fixed time interval; or a triggering event indicative of a condition change associated with the ED environment. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Lagrotta et al teach (selecting the best frequency based on a change in the propagation or signal loss, e.g. due to weather related signal attenuation or weather condition associated with an evaporation/atmospheric duct environment, wherein the radio carrier frequency may be tuned while the radio metrics are monitored, parameters such as bit and frame error rate, SNR provide feedback may be used to optimize the channel performance, when the frequency change results in an adequate threshold performance, the frequency may no longer be tuned, i.e. the frequency is tuned to a second optimal frequency based on a condition change in the atmospheric duct environment that affect the BER or SNR parameters so that the frequency change will result in an adequate threshold performance; paragraphs [0031], [0061]-[0062], [0051, [0002]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lagrotta et al into the communications network of Jeoti et al of in order to re-tune to the most reliable signal frequency with the lowest signal loss for use in the atmospheric/evaporation ducting channel which optimizes the signal to noise ratio and channel performance as suggested by Lagrotta (paras. [0061]-[0062], [0031]). In analogous art, Thommana et al also disclose choosing an optimal frequency and then choosing a second frequency when signal quality, e.g. SNR, of the received signals deteriorate due to the atmospheric conditions of the environment in beyond line of sight communications (col 6, line 60 – col 7, line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Thommana into the communication network of Jeoti and Lagrotta in order to enhance the beyond line of sight communication by changing the current frequency to a second frequency with better signal reception quality to provide continued communication. As a result, given the broadest reasonable interpretation according to MPEP 2111.01, the cited prior art read on the current claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeoti et al (US 2019/0,296,801) in view of Lagrotta et al (US 2023/0,403,073; hereinafter Lagrotta) further in view of Thommana et al (US 9,282,500; hereinafter Thommana).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Jeoti disclose a communications node of a multi-node communications network and method for adaptive communication through an evaporation duct, comprising:
at least one antenna element (408, 1108) (paras. [0031], [0042]; Figs. 4, 11); and
a communications interface (1100; Fig. 11) coupled to the at least one antenna element and configured for transmitting and receiving via the at least one antenna element (1108); paras. [0042], [0044]), the communications interface (1100) including one or more processors (1110, 1114; Fig. 11; ¶ [0044]) configured to:
receive location data and timing data associated with a transmission through an evaporation duct (ED) environment to at least one receiving (Rx) target beyond line of sight of the communications node (receive specific location and timing data, e.g. east coast of Malaysia region of the South China Sea using Marsden square environmental data at the time of experiment for long range wireless communication using evaporation duct to cover non line of sight distances over sea with optimizing antenna height and environmental duct height with respect to time for the experimental result, e.g. experimental result 808; paras. [0035], [0037], [0039]);
the ED environment associated with at least one body of water (an evaporation duct 202 is formed over large water bodies, e.g. the ocean in the Malaysian region; paras. [0029], [0033]); receive climatic data associated with the ED environment (receive environmental data, environmental parameters, and atmospheric conditions such as air temperature, humidity, air pressure and wind speed associated with the evaporation duct environment; paras. [0033], [0035]); model one or more environmental conditions associated with the ED environment based on at least the climatic data (pathloss or fast fading conditions associated with the evaporation duct environment based on environmental climate data; (paras. [0006], [0013], [0033]); and
generate an ED propagation model based on the one or more modelled environmental conditions, the ED propagation model comprising a plurality of transmitting (Tx) frequencies, each Tx frequency associated with at least one of a signal loss or a transmission range (Figs. 6-8; an evaporation duct propagation model for a range of different transmit frequencies based on environmental conditions, e.g. signal propagation pathloss at various receiver antenna heights above sea level; ¶ [0035]); and select, based on the ED propagation model an optimal Tx frequency for use in association with the transmission (for non-line-of-sight transmission, unlike line of sight scenario, selection of an optimal transmit frequency and optimal antenna height above sea level of the transmitter and receiver is required for successful evaporation duct communication; ¶ [0036]). Jeoti do not disclose selecting at least one second optimal TX frequency based on at least one of: a fixed time interval; or a triggering event indicative of a condition change associated with the ED environment. In the same field of endeavor, Lagrotta disclose selecting at least one optimal TX frequency based on at least one of: a fixed time interval; or a triggering event indicative of a condition change associated with the ED environment (selecting the best frequency based on a change in the propagation or signal loss, e.g. due to weather related signal attenuation or weather condition associated with an evaporation/atmospheric duct environment wherein the radio carrier frequency may be tuned while the radio metrics are monitored, parameters such as bit and frame error rate, SNR provide feedback may be used to optimize the channel performance, when the frequency change results in an adequate threshold performance, the frequency may no longer be tuned, i.e. the frequency is tuned to a second optimal frequency based on a condition change in the atmospheric duct environment that affect the BER or SNR parameters so that the frequency change will result in an adequate threshold performance; paras. [0031], [0061]-[0062], [0051, [0002]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lagrotta et al into the communications network of Jeoti et al of in order to re-tune to the most reliable signal frequency with the lowest signal loss for use in the atmospheric/evaporation ducting channel which optimizes the signal to noise ratio and channel performance (Lagrotta; paras. [0061]-[0062], [0031]). In analogous art, Thommana et al also disclose using an optimal frequency and then choosing an alternate second frequency when signal quality deteriorates of the received signals deteriorate due to the atmospheric conditions of the environment in beyond line of sight communications (col 6, line 60 - col 7, line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Thommana into the communication network of Jeoti and Lagrotta in order to enhance the beyond line of sight communication by replacing the current frequency with a second frequency with better signal reception quality to provide continued communication (Thommana, col 6, line 60 - col 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 2, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (1114, 1110) are configured to set the at least one antenna element to transmit at the selected optimal Tx frequency (Jeoti; optimal transmit frequency is set by processing unit to be transmitted via antenna 1108; para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 1, wherein the one or more ED conditions include one or more of: an evaporation duct height; an evaporation duct shape; or a humidity level (Jeoti; evaporation duct height; Fig. 7; paras. [0029], [0033]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana the communications node of claim 1, wherein the climatic data includes one or more of: real time weather/atmospheric data associated with the ED environment; predictive weather/atmospheric data associated with the ED environment; or historical weather/atmospheric data associated with the ED environment (evaporation duct is caused by real time or historical atmospheric conditions such as air temperature, humidity, air pressure and wind speed; Jeoti, ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 1, wherein the climatic data includes one or more of: tide data associated with the ED environment; or wave data associated with the ED environment (sea condition data, e.g. sea surface temperature and average sea level data with respect to receiver antenna height; Jeoti, paras. [0006], [0033], [0037]; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 1, wherein the optimal Tx frequency is chosen to be able to communicate over long distances, i.e. higher communication range, based on availability and capacity (Jeoti, ¶ [0010]). Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana do not disclose the selected optimal Tx frequency corresponds to a maximum communication range. However, the examiner takes official notice that the optimal transmission frequency corresponds to a maximum transmission range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable or the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node and method of claim 1 and 18 respectively, wherein: the at least one body of water (e.g. ocean) is associated with a water surface level (sea surface level) (Jeoti,
¶ [0037]); the at least one antenna element is associated with an antenna height relative to the water surface level; and the one or more processors are configured to select an optimal antenna height of the at least one antenna element for use in association with the transmission based on the ED propagation model (select optimum receiver antenna height above sea level, e.g. 5 meters, based on experiment results of measured pathloss and based on evaporation duct height model at the time of experiment; Jeoti, paras. [0036]-[0037]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 16, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 14, wherein: the at least one antenna element includes at least one antenna array (414, 408; Jeoti, ¶ [0031], Fig. 4) comprising a plurality of antenna elements (1108, 1002; Jeoti, paras. [0039], [0048]), each antenna element corresponding to an antenna height relative to the water surface level (antenna height above sea level; Jeoti, ¶ [0037]); and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit the transmission via the at least one antenna element (414, 1108) corresponding to the selected optimal antenna height (the transceiver circuitry 1100 receives information for transmission from baseband processor 1110 using optimization of transmitter antenna height; Jeoti, paras. [0044], [0036]-[0038]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeoti et al (US 2019/0,296,801) in view of Lagrotta et al (US 2023/0,403,073) in view of Thommana et al (US 9,282,500) further in view of Bowers et al (US 9,549,406; hereinafter Bowers).
Regarding claim 7, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 1, wherein they do not disclose the selected optimal Tx frequency corresponds to a low probability of detection (LPD). In the same field of endeavor, Bowers disclose the selected optimal Tx frequency corresponds to a low probability of detection (LPD) (col 9, lines 16-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to ensure a smaller chance of being sensed by unknown foreign entities that are not located in proximity to the transmitter for increased security and interference reduction purposes.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeoti et al (US 2019/0,296,801) in view of Lagrotta et al (US 2023/0,403,073) in view of Thommana et al (US 9,282,500) in view of Ghosh et al (US 11,343,124; hereinafter Gosh) further in view of Chen et al (CN 112,235,866; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 8 and 19, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node and method of claim 1 and 18 respectively, wherein they do not disclose the one or more processors are configured to select, based on the ED propagation model, the selected optimal Tx frequency by: transmitting, to the Rx target and through the ED environment, at least one channel sounding signal at one or more Tx frequencies selected from the plurality of Tx frequencies; receiving, via the at least one antenna element, signal reception data from the Rx target; and selecting the optimal Tx frequency based on the received signal reception data. In the same field of endeavor, Ghosh disclose the one or more processors are configured to select, based on the ED propagation model, the selected optimal Tx frequency by: transmitting, to the Rx target and through the ED environment, at least one channel sounding signal at one or more Tx frequencies selected from the plurality of Tx frequencies (col 18, lines 19-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide a type of signal that may be used to aid in the determination of the link performance between the respective transceivers or for channel property measurements (col 15, lines 34-36). Jeoti, Lagrotta, Thommana and Ghosh do not disclose receiving, via the at least one antenna element, signal reception data from the Rx target; and selecting the optimal Tx frequency based on the received signal reception data. In the same field of endeavor, Chen disclose receiving, via the at least one antenna element, signal reception data from the Rx target; and selecting the optimal Tx frequency based on the received signal reception data (selecting the best transmission frequency based on the received data; abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the transmit frequency based on the reception data in order to transmit at the proper frequency as a result of the corresponding received information that may have configuration or measurement information that the transmitter can rely on to choose the best frequency.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeoti et al (US 2019/0,296,801) in view of Lagrotta et al (US 2023/0,403,073) in view of Thommana et al (US 9,282,500) further in view of Zhou et al (WO 2020/257,984; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 9, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 1, wherein the triggering event including at least one of: a weather change; a condition change associated with the one or more modelled environmental conditions; a mission priority change associated with the transmission; or signal quality of the transmission meeting a threshold level (signal losses due to noise, weather related signal attenuation or non-linearities; Lagrotta, ¶ [0051]; signal quality of transmission Thommana, col 6, line 60 – col 7, line 3). Jeoti, Thommana and Lagrotta do not explicitly disclose a weather change associated with the received climatic data; a condition change associated with the one or more modelled environmental conditions; a mission priority change associated with the transmission; or signal quality of the transmission meeting a threshold level. In the same field of endeavor, Zhou disclose the triggering event including at least one of: a weather change associated with the received climatic data; a condition change associated with the one or more modelled environmental conditions; a mission priority change associated with the transmission; or signal quality of the transmission meeting a threshold level (page 6, line 39 – page 7, line 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to choose a suitable frequency that is greater than the preset channel quality threshold to ensure the transmission link is successfully established (Zhou, page 7, lines 4-6).
5. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeoti et al (US 2019/0,296,801) in view of Lagrotta et al (US 2023/0,403,073) in view of Thommana et al (US 9,282,500) further in view of Martone et al (US 2018/0,074,165; hereinafter Martone).
Regarding claim 10, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 1, wherein they do not disclose the one or more processors are further configured to select an optimal bandwidth for use in association with the transmission. In the same field of endeavor, Martone disclose the one or more processors are further configured to select an optimal bandwidth for use in association with the transmission (¶ [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an optimal bandwidth in order to get a higher signal to interference plus noise ratio for optimal performance (Martone; ¶ [0009]).
6. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeoti et al (US 2019/0,296,801) in view of Lagrotta et al (US 2023/0,403,073) in view of Thommana et al (US 9,282,500) further in view of Wang et al (US 2024/0,297,724; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 11, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 1, wherein they do not explicitly disclose the communications node is embodied aboard a mobile platform. In the same field of endeavor, Wang disclose the communications node is embodied aboard a mobile platform (¶ [0062], Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide the transceiver node on a mobile platform, e.g. a ship, to permit diverse global coverage scenarios of the location of the transceiver to model the multipath components of the rough ocean surface and the evaporation duct over the sea surface for e.g. maritime communication scenario (Wang; Table 1; para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Jeoti, Lagrotta, Thommana, and Wang disclose the communications node of claim 11, wherein the mobile platform is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Wang; ¶ [0006], [0018]).
Regarding claim 13, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 1, wherein they do not explicitly disclose the communications node is embodied aboard a platform configured to float on the body of water. In the same field of endeavor, Wang disclose the communications node is embodied aboard a platform (e.g. a ship) configured to float on the body of water ((¶ [0062], Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide the transceiver node on a platform, e.g. a ship, configured to float on water to permit diverse global coverage scenarios of the location of the transceiver to model the multipath components of the rough ocean surface and the evaporation duct over the sea surface for e.g. maritime communications scenario (Wang; Table 1; para. [0003]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeoti et al (US 2019/0,296,801) in view of Lagrotta et al (US 2023/0,403,073) in view of Thommana et al (US 9,282,500) further in view of Yu et al (CN 216,903,311; hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claim 15, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 14, wherein: Jeoti disclose the communications node is embodied in a platform (communication node is embodied in fixed platform at transceiving location 402, 404;
¶ [0031]), wherein the antennas must lie within the evaporation duct boundary and arranging the antenna elements vertically relative to the platform to maximize the received signal strength (para. [0039]), where an optimum antenna height is selected to be e.g. 5 meters, based on the measured pathloss using different antenna heights from experiment results 808 (¶ [0037]), and wherein the one or more processors (1114, 1110) are configured to direct the communications node to adjust the at least one antenna element to the optimal antenna height (paras. [0036]-[0038], [0048]). Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana do not explicitly disclose the at least one antenna element adjustably coupled to the platform by articulating the at least one antenna element relative to the platform. In the same field of endeavor, Yu disclose an antenna attached to a moving platform wherein the antenna is adjustably coupled to the platform the antenna by articulating the at least one antenna element relative to the platform (pg. 2, line 1 – pg. 3, line 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to connect the antenna to the platform and to adjust the antenna to the preferred antenna height to receive the highest signal strength and more precise location information.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeoti et al (US 2019/0,296,801) in view of Lagrotta et al (US 2023/0,403,073) in view of Thommana et al (US 9,282,500) further in view of Asada et al (JP 2006,010,483; hereinafter Asada).
Regarding claim 17, Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana disclose the communications node of claim 14, wherein: the communications node is embodied aboard a fixed platform (402; Fig. 4), the fixed platform associated with an antenna altitude relative to the water surface level (antenna height relative to sea surface level; Jeoti, ¶ [0037]); and the one or more processors (1110, 1114) are further configured to direct the fixed platform to change the antenna altitude based on the selected optimal antenna height (Jeoti, paras. [0036]-[0039]). Jeoti, Lagrotta, and Thommana do not explicitly disclose a mobile platform, wherein the mobile platform is associated with a platform altitude relative to the water surface level. In the same field of endeavor, Asada disclose a mobile platform (ship), wherein the mobile platform is associated with a platform altitude relative to the water surface level (the height of the ship on the water surface is the height of the antenna provided on the ship of the GPS receiver; pg. 16, lines 9-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to have the antenna height be included in the platform height so as to determine the best antenna height that will provide the highest signal strength and more precise location information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANA N LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Wesley Kim, can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/LANA N LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648