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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 9/10/2025. Claim 24 has been amended. No claims have been added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1-27 are pending and an action is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues,
“Claim 1 recites, inter alia,
A method of operating a satellite communications terminal, the method
comprising:
…
identifying a plurality of communications links available through the
satellite communications terminal comprising a satellite communications link
and one or more further communications links
…
selecting at least two communications links from the available
communications links and establishing or maintaining simultaneous
connections to each selected communications link
In rejecting claim 1, the Office asserts that the above-quoted limitations are met by Zakaria at FIGs. 3-5 and paragraphs 59 and 64. (Office Action, p. 5). Applicant respectfully disagrees. None of the text in the cited paragraphs, nor any other part of Zakaria describes simultaneous connections of the types recited in claim 1. Moreover, FIG. 3 of Zakaria illustrates separate very small aperture terminals (VSAT) communicating with a satellite. There is simply nothing in the cited portions of Zakaria or elsewhere in Zakaria that describes the above-recited limitations of claim 1 relating to establishing or maintaining simultaneous connections. Claim 1 therefore is not anticipated.”
The Examiner disagrees. In response to the emphasized assertion made by the Applicant that the claim limitation of “a plurality of communication links available through the satellite communications terminal” is not taught by the Zakaria reference. The Examiner points to two key elements. The first element is that the VSAT1 and VSAT2 exist as components of a whole, wherein the whole is one unified device having unified set of VSAT components (VSAT1 and VSAT2) having the same radio, antenna and demodulator for forming a plurality of satellite commination links. The second element is that the unified set of VSAT components having the same radio, antenna and demodulator are responsible for performing the actions of establishing or maintaining simultaneous connections.
The first element is disclosed by Zakaria, in paragraph 51, teaches wherein the VSAT1 and VSAT2 exist as components of a whole (Zakaria ¶51 recites “…In some embodiments, VSAT 1, VSAT 2, or both may be a VSAT GW… VSAT 1 and VSAT 2 may utilize the same radio, the same antenna, the same demodulator, or the like, to send and receive at least two information streams…”), wherein the whole is one unified device having unified set of VSAT components (VSAT1 and VSAT2 which may exists as a VSAT GW) having the same radio, antenna and demodulator for performing the second element of forming/establishing and maintaining a plurality of satellite commination links as shown in the Figure 3 of Zakaria below. (Zakaria, ¶51 recites “ In FIG. 3, a satellite link for transporting data traffic is illustrated with a dashed line, and a satellite link for transporting voice traffic is illustrated with a solid line.”) These satellite links are depicted as existing simultaneously and further described as being included in the satellite backhaul 310 which is recited as comprising as “satellite links” (plural). Wherein there is at least a satellite link for transporting data traffic (represented in Fig. 3 by a dashed line) and a satellite link for transporting voice traffic (represented in Fig. 3 by a solid line).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues,
“The Office rejected claim(s) 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as purportedly being anticipated by Buer (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0361861), in view of Miller (U.S. Patent No. 7,110,717). Reconsideration is requested.
The Office asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Buer based on Miller for the benefit of being able to reduce the impact of some manageable degradations to measured link conditions while still achieving acceptable data rates. (Office Action, pp. 20-21).
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Notably, the Office does not cite any portion of either reference as supporting this reasoning. In fact, neither reference says that such a combination would have had the alleged benefit. Moreover, it is not clear from the record that there would have even been a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Buer in the manner alleged in the Office Action. For at least these reasons, the Office's stated basis of the rejection is unsupportable. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections of claim(s) 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner disagrees, the Miller reference teaches overcoming specific environmental elements which map degrade signal quality and (Miller, Fig. 4 – path 132 has specific environmental elements to overcome) and comparing power levels ([Miller, Col. 5, Lines 63-Col. 6, Lines 25] wherein power level is a function of a number of factors, primarily the signal degradation experienced by the return uplink 132 as shown below), then analyzing the power level and determining the power needed to communicate a given power level prior to sending signaling to the terminal for adjusting to the power level for the transmission over path 132, while Buer teaches wherein different performance modes may be utilized during communications such as a higher power performance mode offering higher data rates (Buer, ¶67). Therefore, the benefit of the combination is expressed in the references and would result in the ability to reduce the impact of some management degradations while still achieving acceptable data rates via the satellite communication system.
PNG
media_image2.png
388
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
All of the other claims as inidicated are not allowable based on the rationale applied above and below in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zakaria et al. US 2018/0205639 (hereinafter Zak).
Regarding claim 1, Zak teaches a method of operating a satellite communications terminal, the method comprising:
[See Zak Figs. 3 & 4 ¶50 – Shown below (Also see Fig. 4)- (Operating Satellite communication terminal VSAT1-2 in combination with a traffic classifier 320 and a router (not shown in Fig. 3 but shown in Fig. 4).)
analysing data to be communicated through the satellite communications terminal to identify separate data streams and determine a data stream parameter characterising each data stream;
([Zak, Figs. 3 and 4, ¶39 and ¶50] The traffic classifier 320 analyzes data to be communicated through the VSAT (satellite communications terminal) to identify voice traffic and data traffic (separate data streams))
identifying a plurality of communications links available through the satellite communications terminal comprising a satellite communications link and one or more further communications links;
([Zak, Fig. 3 and 4, ¶50-¶51] Identified communications links are available through the VSAT (VSAT1 and VSAT2) and comprises at least 2 communications links. These identified communications links are available through the VSAT (VSAT1 and VSAT2) between the VSAT (VSAT1 and VSAT2) and the satellite (see the satellite in the satellite backhaul 310/410) and at least one or more further communications links beyond the satellite.)
determining a link parameter characterising each available communications link;
([Zak, Fig. 3 and 4, ¶50-¶51] The communications links of Zak, Figs. 3-4, are the available communication links and are characterized by the parameter a communications link corresponding to the type of traffic the respective links transport. The parameter characterizing each communications link includes at least 1) transporting voice traffic and 2) transporting data traffic.)
PNG
media_image3.png
408
706
media_image3.png
Greyscale
selecting at least two communications links from the available communications links and establishing or maintaining simultaneous connections to each selected communications link; and
([Zak, Figs. 5 (Shown below), ¶59 and ¶64 - Also note Figs. 3-4] the router selects from the available links (the voice or data link via the respective VSAT) for sending the classified traffic and each VSAT (VSAT1 and VSAT2) has established the available communications links each having their respective connections which exist simultaneously as shown in the Figure 3 of Zak (as shown above) to the satellite over the satellite backhaul for transporting separate traffic (separate voice and data traffic).)
PNG
media_image4.png
458
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
transmitting a first data stream through a first selected communications link and transmitting a second data stream through a second selected communications link; ([Zak, Figs. 5 (Shown above), ¶59 and ¶64 - Also note Figs. 3-4] the VSAT (VSAT1 and VSAT2) has established available communications links each having their respective connections which exist simultaneously as shown in the Figure 3 of Zak (as shown above) to the satellite over the satellite backhaul for transporting separate traffic (separate voice and data traffic) which are selected by the router which separates the incoming combined classified voice and data traffic and selects corresponding communications links via a forwarding process wherein the router forwards/(transmits via VSAT1) the traffic classified as voice traffic to its corresponding satellite link and also forwards/(transmits via VSAT2) traffic classified as data traffic to its corresponding satellite link as shown in the Figures 3-5 of Zak.)
wherein the selection of at least two communications links is based on the data stream parameters characterising the first and second data streams and the link parameters characterising the available communications links.
([Zak, ¶48, ¶50-¶51 and ¶57-¶59] Zak teaches wherein the routers selection to forward the incoming combine traffic to either the voice satellite communications link or the data satellite communications link is based on the traffic classification of the separated traffic which as previously indicated by Zak may be voice traffic or data traffic and therefore routed to the corresponding satellite link matching and most appropriate for its traffic classification.)
Regarding claim 3, Zak teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein each further communications link is a satellite communications link.
([Zak, Fig. 3] Zak teaches wherein each further communications link is a satellite communication link (the data/voice links from the satellite to the SAT GW A/B))
Regarding claim 4, Zak teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein each further communications link is a terrestrial communications link.
([Zak, Fig. 3] Zak teaches wherein each further communications link is a satellite communication link (the data/voice links from the SAT GW A/B to the Internet/PSTN))
Regarding claim 5, A method according to claim 1, wherein the data stream parameter characterising each data stream comprises one or more of type of data, required bandwidth, required latency, requirement for encryption and data priority.
([Zak, ¶36 and ¶50] the classification of the traffic is based on the type of traffic (such as voice, which is interpreted to mean that the type of data is voice data as claimed above).)
Regarding claim 8, Zak teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein analysing data to be communicated through the satellite communications terminal to identify separate data streams and to determine a data stream parameter characterising each data stream is performed by a network element with which the satellite communications terminal is in communication.
(The analyzing data to be communicated through the VSAT to identify separate data streams (note that the combined stream is later separated into two streams) and to determine a data stream parameter is performed by a router (not shown in Fig. 3 but shown in Fig. 4) with which the VSAT is in communication.)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laufer et al. US 2017/0012698 (hereinafter Laufer).
Regarding claim 2, Zak teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the selection of the at least two communications links is performed
([Zak, Figs. 5 (Shown below), ¶59 and ¶64 - Also note Figs. 3-4] the router selects from the available links (the voice or data link via the respective VSAT) for sending the classified traffic (separate voice and data traffic).), but it does not teach wherein selection of communication links is based on predicted availability of the available communications links or a predicted value of a link parameter characterising an available communications link.
However, Laufer teaches wherein the selection of communication links is based on the predicted availability of the communication links or a predicted value of a link parameter characterizing an available communications link by disclosing that rerouting (selecting) to other communications links based on the predicted line of sight (LOS) blockage or measurement of signal strength characterizing the available communications links [Laufer, ¶23-¶25 and also see ¶2-¶10]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zak, indicating that the method of a communications system which operates to send traffic over at least two selected communications links, with the teachings of Laufer, indicating that the selection of the communications links is based on a predicted availability of the communications links. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been improved transmission quality and data exchange.
Regarding claim 6, Zak teaches a method according to claim 1 [See the rejection of claim 1 above], link parameters characterizing each available communications link comprises at least the type of traffic transported [Zak, ¶51], but it does not teach that the link parameters comprises one or more of available bandwidth, latency, signal strength, connection point on the ground, network type, whether encrypted and whether the network is shared, private, dedicated, open or closed.
However, Laufer teaches wherein link parameters comprises one or more of available bandwidth, latency, signal strength, connection point on the ground, network type, whether encrypted and whether the network is shared, private, dedicated, open or closed.
([Laufer, ¶23-¶25 and also see ¶2-¶10 and claim 13 of Laufer] the links have an associated link parameter such as a signal strength (RSSI) which Laufer teaches may be repeatedly measured.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zak, indicating that the method of a communications system which operates to send traffic over at least two selected communications links, with the teachings of Laufer, indicating that the selection of the communications links is based on a predicted availability of the communications links. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been improved transmission quality and data exchange.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zak, in view of Laufer teaches a method according to claim 6, wherein determining the link parameters comprises one or more of assessing: current and predicted weather conditions that affect communications links; blockage of at least part of the field of view of the satellite communications terminal; interference affecting communications link performance; predicted movement of the satellite communications terminal; predicted movement of communications satellites; and prior communications link performance.
([Laufer, ¶27 and also see ¶23-¶25 & ¶41 of Laufer] the links have an associated link parameter such as assessing the weather or other objects/LOS blockages causing interference or signal loss.)
The rationale of obviousness and motivation to combine the applied prior art to reject claim 7 is similar to the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 11, Zak teaches the method according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above), but it does not teach comprising determining a transmission indicator for each of first selected communications link and the second selected communications link that is indicative of one or both of: the transmission performance of the communications link; and a transmission comparator that is indicative of correspondence between predicted transmission performance and determined transmission performance of the communications link.
([Laufer, ¶4-¶5 and ¶23-¶29] Laufer teaches wherein the selected communication links have a determined transmission indicator which is described by Laufer as comprising link quality parameters, current or predicted line of sight blockages, interference and reception quality or received signal strength indicators.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Zak, indicating that the method of a communications system which operates to send traffic over at least two selected communications links, with the teachings of Laufer, indicating that the transmission indicator may comprise a transmission performance. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to track communication indicators related to the improvement, maintenance and degradation of transmission quality for real-time monitoring of the transmission equipment and channel.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Das et al. US 2019/0238465 (hereinafter Das)
Regarding claim 9, Zak teaches a method according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above), comprising allocating the first and second data streams to the at least two communications links based upon the link parameters and the data stream parameters in accordance with data allocation protocols determined by a module (the classifier and router allocate the voice traffic and data traffic to the at least two communications links shown as the voice link and the data link from the VSAT based upon the type of traffic (data stream parameters) and the respective link transport categorization (the voice link is categorized and used for voice traffic transport while the data link is categorized and used for data traffic transport) ([Zak, Fig. 3 and 4, ¶50-¶51]), but it does not teach that the determination is by an artificial intelligence module.
However, Das teaches wherein the module utilizes artificial intelligence ([Das, ¶45 and also see ¶39-¶42] Das teaches wherein artificial intelligence (AI) may be utilized to identify and select links to forwarding network traffic based on analysis of network traffic (data stream parameters -as taught by Zak may include type of network traffic), analysis of bandwidth rates and packet drops (link parameters).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zak, indicating a communications system method of allocating first and second data streams to at least two communications links based on link parameters, with the teachings of Das, indicating that the selected links identified for forwarding network traffic may be based on analysis of the network traffic using artificial intelligence. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to improve efficiency in network routing with reduced human network operator input.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buer et al. US 2023/0361861 (hereinafter Buer).
Regarding claim 10, Zak teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein a first selected communications link and a second selected link are utilized to communicate voice and data traffic respectively [See Zak, Fig. 3], but it does not teach operating the links in a first performance mode and a second performance mode,
However, Buer teaches operating the links in a first performance mode and a second performance mode respectively, wherein the second performance mode has a higher throughput than the first performance mode and consumes more power than the first performance mode [Buer, ¶55-¶57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zak, indicating a communications system method of allocating first and second data streams to at least two communications links based on link parameters, with the teachings of Buer, indicating that the links may have different performance modes, wherein the second performance mode may consume more power than the first performance mode. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the improve communication quality and manage power consumption by utilizing high power modes when necessary to maintain communication quality given network conditions and user demands.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zak, in view of Laufer as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wass US 2024/0154914 (hereinafter Wass).
Regarding claim 12, Zak teaches a method according to claim 11, wherein the satellite communications terminal is operating within a satellite communications network [Zak, Fig. 3], but not that the satellite communications terminal communicates the transmission indicators to a network entity operating within the satellite communications network.
However, Wass teaches that the satellite communications terminal communicates the transmission indicators to a network entity operating within the satellite communications network.
([Wass, ¶215] Wass teaches wherein the communications terminal communicates indicators which indicate that the link capacity of the satellite communication link should be either decreased, maintained or increased. These indicators are interpreted as transmission indicators because they indicate a control of the transmission capacity of the satellite communications links)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings Zak, in view of Laufer, indicating a satellite network which determines transmission indicators, with the teachings of Wass, indicating that network transmission indicators may be communicated to another network entity device received by a network entity to track network trends in real-time. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to determine network trends by tracking performance indicators which may be utilized to enable automated altering of network operations or enable network operators to reconfigure the network for improved operation, reducing network resource expenses and improved connectivity.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zak, in view of Laufer and Wass applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wiley et al. US 2008/0052784 (hereinafter Wiley)
Regarding claim 13, Zak, in view of Laufer and Wass teaches a method of operating a satellite communications network, comprising:
performing the method of operating the satellite communications terminal of claim 12; (See the rejection of claim 12)
receiving, by the network entity, the transmission indicators from the satellite communications terminal;
([Wass, Fig. 4, communication exchange element 66, ¶215-¶216] Wass teaches wherein the communications terminal communicates indicators which indicate that the link capacity of the satellite communication link should be either decreased, maintained or increased. These indicators are interpreted as transmission indicators because they indicate a control of the transmission capacity of the satellite communications links. These transmission indicators are received by network entity 8), but it does not teach storing, by the network entity, the transmission indicators.
However, Wiley teaches wherein the network entity may store received transmission indicators [Wiley, ¶11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Zak, in view of Laufer and Wass, indicating a satellite network which determines transmission indicators and the further communicates those transmission indicators to another network entity device, with the teachings of Wiley, indicating that network transmission indicators may be received by a network entity for storage to track network trends. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to determine network trends by tracking performance indicators which may be utilized to enable automated altering of network operations or enable network operators to reconfigure the network for improved operation, reducing network resource expenses and improved connectivity.
Claim 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zak, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ravishankar et al. US 2017/0294957 (hereinafter Ravi)
Regarding claim 26, Zak teaches performing the method of claim 1. (See the rejection of claim 1 above.), but it does not explicitly recite a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code stored therein that, in response to execution by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method.
However, Ravi teaches computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code stored therein that, in response to execution by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method. [Ravi, Fig. 4 and ¶22-¶23 & ¶39 (Processor of VSAT) and memory (computer-readable storage medium) storing software instructions implemented in the processor.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Zak, indicating a satellite network method which network devices select at least two communications links for communicating network traffic, with the teachings of Ravi, indicating that the network devices may comprise a computer-readable storage medium having a computer-readable program code stored therein that, in response to execution by a processor causes the processor to perform the method. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to enable automation of network operations reducing network operating expenses.
Regarding claim 27, Zak teaches a satellite communications terminal comprising: a satellite antenna to perform the method of claim 1 [Zak, Figs. 3-4 VSAT and ¶3 & ¶48]; but it does not explicitly recite a processor; and a memory storing executable instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method.
However, Ravi teaches a processor; and a memory storing executable instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method.
[Ravi, Fig. 4 and ¶22-¶23 & ¶39 (Processor of VSAT) and memory storing software instructions implemented in the processor for performing functions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Zak, indicating a satellite network method which network devices select at least two communications links for communicating network traffic, with the teachings of Ravi, indicating that the network devices may comprise a processor, memory storing executable instructions that when executed cause the processor to perform the method. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to enable automation of network operations reducing network operating expenses.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buer US 2023/0361861 (hereinafter Buer), in view of Miller US 7,110,717 (hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 15, Miller teaches a method of operating a satellite communications terminal having a satellite antenna, the method comprising: [See Miller, Fig. 4 and 5A-5C (shown below)]
controlling the satellite antenna to generate a transmission to communicate with a first communications satellite according to one of at least first and second performance modes, [See Miller, 5C, Col. 7, Lines 5-45] The subscriber terminal (ST) is a terminal that communicates using its antenna as shown in Fig. 4 of Miller to communicate with a first communications satellite, similarly shown in Fig. 4 of Miller, in accordance with its current power mode (wherein the power mode may be adjusted to increase transmission power)
wherein the second performance mode consumes more power than the first performance mode; [Miller, Col. 9, Lines 61-62 and also see Col. 1, Lines 24-33 (a transmission power increase may be performed (indicative of a second performance mode consuming additional power than that of the first performance mode prior to the increase in transmission power) wherein the transmission power may have an associated data rate (interpreted as the claimed throughput))]
wherein the method further comprises determining whether to communicate with the first communications satellite in the first or second performance mode on the basis of one of:
a measured link condition or a predicted link condition for communicating with the first communications satellite; ([See, Miller, Fig. 5C, Col. 7, Lines5-22] The ST determine whether to communicate with the first communications satellite in the first performance mode (Yes-branch, if the power is ok at Step H and has not yet been increased) or second performance mode (No-branch, if the power is not ok at Step H ))
an indication of link congestion comprising a backlog of data to be transmitted to the first communications satellite;
a constraint to maintain average power consumption below a first threshold; and
a constraint to limit the maximum power level.
PNG
media_image5.png
756
488
media_image5.png
Greyscale
But Miller while Miller teaches the transmission from an ST to a satellite and the argument would be made based on the evidence that the transmission is directional (Note: Miller, Fig. 4) which meets the characteristics of the beam transmission, it does not explicitly recite the underlined portions of the claimed features: to generate a first beam to communicate with a first communications satellite; and wherein the second performance mode has a higher throughput than the first performance mode and consumes more power than the first performance mode
However, Buer teaches controlling the satellite antenna to generate a first beam to communicate with a first communications satellite according to one of at least first and second performance modes,
([Buer, ¶26 and ¶34] antenna system 131 of access node transceiver 135 and beam transmission from the access node’s antenna system wherein the transmission power is associated in order to produce a beam of transmitted signal for the communication of data because energy is required to perform the action.)
wherein the second performance mode has a higher throughput than the first performance mode and consumes more power than the first performance mode [Buer, ¶67 lower power (providing a lower data rate) while higher power (providing a higher data rate)].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Miller, indicating a satellite network method of operating a terminal to measure link conditions and adjust performance modes based on the measurements, with the teachings of Buer, indicating that the satellite terminal comprises an antenna which generates directed beams via its antenna and utilizes a performance mode which comprises a second performance mode which has a higher throughput than a first performance mode. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to reduce the impact of some manageable degradations to measured link conditions while still achieving acceptable data rates via the satellite communications system.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Miller, in view of Buer teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein the measured link condition comprises a signal to noise plus interference ratio. [Miller, Col. 1, Lines 22-¶40 (Eb/No)]
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buer, in view of Vasi as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Vasisht et al. US 11,096,188 (hereinafter Vasi).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Miller, in view of Buer teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein measured link condition may be performed (Miller, Col. 1, Lines the Eo/No and also see Quality Estimator 260 of Fig. 3), but it does not teach wherein the measured link condition or predicted link condition comprises an estimated uplink or downlink throughput for communicating with the first communications satellite.
However, Vasi teaches wherein the measured link condition or predicted link condition comprises an estimated uplink or downlink throughput for communicating with the first communications satellite [Vasi, Col. 8, Lines 29-67 and Col. 9, Lines 1-29].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Miller, in view of Buer indicating a satellite network method of operating a terminal to measure link conditions, with the teachings of Vasi, indicating that the measured link conditions comprise estimated data throughput over the between the satellite terminals. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to configure transmission speeds at the terminals according to the measured link conditions prior to transmission in order to improve synchronization and resource utilization.
Regarding claim 18, Miller, in view of Buer and Vasi teaches a method according to claim 17, wherein the satellite communications terminal monitors a volume of requested communications traffic, and the satellite communications terminal switches from the first performance mode to the second performance mode when the volume of requested communications traffic exceeds the capacity of the first performance mode.
(Buer ¶40 and ¶43-¶46] teaches wherein users may request higher data rates resulting in an increased demand/volume which may be in excess of the first performance mode (current lower power mode) which may be modulated in capacity by increasing (switching) the power (second performance mode) to handle the demand based on the on the excessive requested traffic demand.)
Similar rationale applied to the obviousness statement and reasons to combine the applied prior art is similar to that which was expressed in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Miller, in view of Buer teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein the satellite communications terminal switches from the first performance mode to the second performance mode based upon performance mode selection protocols determined by an artificial intelligence module.
([Vasi, Col. 9, Lines 55-Col. 10, Lines 41] Vasi teaches wherein machine learning algorithms may be utilized to select/match transmissions with the appropriate links based on the links’ performance attributes which is a form of switching performance modes since a link having an associated performance attributes of one configured selected/matched transmission with corresponding appropriate links may be lower than another configured selected/matched transmission with corresponding appropriate links).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Miller, in view of Buer indicating a satellite network method of operating a terminal to measure link conditions, with the teachings of Vasi, indicating that machine learning may be used to switch performance modes. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to increase efficiency of resource utilization, communication link prioritization and management of performance modes for optimizing communication.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, in view of Buer as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Scarborough US 2018/0269576 (hereinafter Scar).
Regarding claim 20, Buer teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein the satellite antenna
comprising:
a plurality of feed elements [Buer, Fig. 2 ¶33, ¶49-¶50, ¶102];
wherein the second performance mode comprises operating a larger number of feed elements than the first performance mode.
([Buer, ¶67 (higher power= higher data rate) and ¶86 (highest power = most quantity of configured feeds and amplifiers)] Buer indicates that there are different power modes where the amplifiers and corresponding feeds are increased in relation to the power mode. The first power mode being the lowest power mode with few feeds and amplifiers configured. The second power mode having more feeds and amplifiers configured that are higher power than the first power mode. The third power mode is the highest power mode having more amplifiers and feeds configured than the second power mode or first power mode), but it does not teach wherein the satellite antenna comprises a lens antenna array.
However, Scar teaches wherein the satellite antenna comprises a lens antenna array [See Scar, Figs. 3 and 6a-6b] comprising:
a plurality of lens sets, each lens set [See Scar, Fig. 3, 110 (The plurality of lens sets.), ¶44] including:
a lens [See Scar, Fig. 3, 112a, ¶44]:
plurality of feed elements aligned with the lens and each configured to direct a signal through the lens in different desired directions [Scar, Fig. 2, ¶43-¶44 (the plurality of feed elements 152a-b are aligned with the lens and each configured to direct a signal through the lens in different desired directions as shown with the directional beams in Fig. 2)];
wherein the second performance mode comprises operating a larger number of feed elements per lens than the first performance mode [Scar, ¶12 (Power is only applied to active feeds therefore the more active feeds configured as shown in Fig. 3, then the more power that will be consumed achieving different performance/power modes as indicated similarly in Buer above)].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Miller, in view of Buer indicating a satellite network method of configuring additional feeds and amplifiers for increasing performance at the expense of higher power consumption to achieve higher data rates, with the teachings of Scar, indicating that each lens and its multiple feed elements can form multiple beams by enabling and excited separate feed elements in each lens with independent RF signals. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to enable the multiple beam capability along with reduced parts count and lower power consumption compared with a conventional phased array [Scar, ¶13].
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, in view of Buer as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Wass US 2024/0154914 (hereinafter Wass).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Miller, in view of Buer teaches a method according to claim 22, wherein the satellite communications terminal is operating within a satellite communications network [Miller, Figs. 3-4 and 12], but not that the satellite communications terminal communicates the transmission indicators to a network entity operating within the satellite communications network.
However, Wass teaches that the satellite communications terminal communicates the transmission indicators to a network entity operating within the satellite communications network.
([Wass, ¶215] Wass teaches wherein the communications terminal communicates indicators which indicate that the link capacity of the satellite communication link should be either decreased, maintained or increased. These indicators are interpreted as transmission indicators because they indicate a control of the transmission capacity of the satellite communications links)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings Miller, in view of Buer, indicating a satellite network which determines transmission indicators, with the teachings of Wass, indicating that network transmission indicators may be communicated to another network entity device received by a network entity to track network trends in real-time. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to determine network trends by tracking performance indicators which may be utilized to enable automated altering of network operations or enable network operators to reconfigure the network for improved operation, reducing network resource expenses and improved connectivity.
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, in view of Buer and Wass applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Wiley et al. US 2008/0052784 (hereinafter Wiley)
Regarding claim 24, Miller, in view of Buer and Wass teaches a method of operating a satellite communications network, comprising:
performing the method of operating the satellite communications terminal of claim 23 (or 15) (Note: The claim dependency appears to be a typographical error and further appears that it depend upon claim 23 and not the claim 15 as indicated in the amended claims filed 4/13/2023); (See the rejection of claim 23)
([Wass, Fig. 4, communication exchange element 66, ¶215-¶216] Wass teaches wherein the communications terminal communicates indicators which indicate that the link capacity of the satellite communication link should be either decreased, maintained or increased. These indicators are interpreted as transmission indicators because they indicate a control of the transmission capacity of the satellite communications links. These transmission indicators are received by network entity 8), but it does not teach storing, by the network entity, the transmission indicator.
However, Wiley teaches wherein the network entity may store received transmission indicators [Wiley, ¶11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Miller, in view of Buer and Wass, indicating a satellite network which determines transmission indicators and the further communicates those transmission indicators to another network entity device, with the teachings of Wiley, indicating that network transmission indicators may be received by a network entity for storage to track network trends. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to determine network trends by tracking performance indicators which may be utilized to enable automated altering of network operations or enable network operators to reconfigure the network for improved operation, reducing network resource expenses and improved connectivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 21 and 25 are 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:
The Examiner has conducted an updated search of the available Patent and Non-Patent Literature and was unable to find any prior art which teaches either solely or in combination with another reference the claim features of claims 14, 21 and 25 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 LONNIE V SWEET whose telephone number is (571)270-3622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/LONNIE V SWEET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467