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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 4/20/2026. Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 11 and 15 have been amended. Claim 4 has been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-3 and 5-27 are pending and an action is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 15-16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller US 7,110,717 (hereinafter Miller), in view of Choi et al. US 2013/0295841 (hereinafter Choi) and ADADA et al. US 2017/0005415 (hereinafter ADADA).
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_image1.png
756
488
media_image1.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, Choi teaches in Fig. 2 wherein the satellite antenna system 117-119 are controlled to generate a first beam to communicate with a first communications satellite according to one of at least first and second performance modes,
([Choi, Figs. 1-2, ¶14, ¶23 and ¶38-¶41] The antenna system is controlled to transmit a first beam (shown as the top transmission link corresponding to SAT1 between the network hub 003 and the satellites 005) to communicate with SAT1 which is the first communications satellite according to the C-band having a lower spectrum and lower data throughput (data rate) with better link robustness than the Ka-band and Ku-band. This lower spectrum, lower data rate and better link robustness in the presence of weather variations is interpreted as a first performance mode as claimed)
wherein the second performance mode has a higher throughput than the first performance mode and consumes more power than the first performance mode ([Choi, Figs. 1-2, ¶14, ¶23 and ¶38-¶41] The second performance mode comprises the higher spectrum with the use of the Ka band and/or Ku-band with the higher data throughput but is more susceptible to weather variations at the expense of more power consumption than the C-band).
Choi also teaches controlling the satellite antenna system to generate a second beam to communicate with a second communications satellite according to the other of the at least first and second performance modes not used to communicate with the first communications satellite.
([Choi, Figs. 1-2, ¶14, ¶23 and ¶38-¶41] The second performance mode comprises the higher spectrum with the use of the Ku band and/or Ka-band with the higher data throughput but is more susceptible to weather variations at the expense of more power consumption than the C-band. This second performance mode is the performance mode used by the satellite antenna system (specifically the second communication link corresponding to SAT 2). Specifically, the antenna system is controlled to transmit a second beam (shown as the second from the top transmission link corresponding to SAT2 between the network hub 003 and the satellites 005) to communicate with SAT2 which is the second communications satellite according to the Ku-band having a higher spectrum and higher data throughput (data rate) with more the attendant problem of a higher probability of link degradation due to weather variations and thus poorer link robustness than the C-band. This higher spectrum and higher data throughput based second performance mode using to transmit a communication beam to the second communications satellite, shown as SAT2, is not used to communicate with the first communication satellite, shown as SAT1.)
PNG
media_image2.png
298
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
274
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Choi, indicating that the satellite terminal comprises an antenna system which generates directed beams via its antenna system and utilizes a performance mode which comprises a second performance mode which has a higher throughput than a first performance mode which is measurable by its corresponding RF parameters. 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;
But the combination of Miller, in view of Choi does not teach wherein the satellite antenna system is a single satellite antenna to generate both the first beam to communicate according to the C-band which corresponds to the first performance mode and the second beam to communicate according to the Ka-band and/or Ku-band which corresponds to the second performance mode.
However, ADADA teaches wherein the satellite antenna system is a single satellite antenna to generate both the first beam to communicate according to the C-band which corresponds to the first performance mode and the second beam to communicate according to the Ka-band and/or Ku-band which corresponds to the second performance mode. [ADADA, Figs. 1-2, 9C-9D, ¶49-¶56, ¶60 (Figs. 9C-9D description) ¶71-¶72 (In operation and use, stabilized antenna system 30 of the present invention has the ability to access both C-band and Ku-band frequencies with a single antenna.)]
PNG
media_image4.png
582
388
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
572
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
296
274
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
304
264
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 Choi, indicating a satellite network method of operating a terminal to measure link conditions and adjust performance modes based on the measurements and transmit data communications via a satellite antenna system to a first satellite using a first performance mode and to a second satellite using a second performance mode not used by the first satellite, with the teachings of ADADA, indicating that the satellite antenna system comprises a single antenna that is used to communicate different communication beams with the first beam having a respective first performance mode corresponding to the C-band and the second beam having a second performance mode corresponding to the Ku-band. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been a multiple-feed antenna that when compared with other approaches to multiple-feed communications, the multiple-feed antenna described herein improves various aspects of communication performance. For example, in comparison with an antenna, such as a frequency selective antenna, that uses a reflective surface to selectively reflect signals in different bands, the multiple-feed antenna described herein, in accordance with some embodiments, does not introduce bandwidth limitations and/or incident angle limitations associated with a frequency selective reflective surface. Further, in comparison with an antenna, such as a frequency selective antenna, in which communication signals pass through a first antenna to reach a second antenna, the multiple-feed antenna described herein, in accordance with some embodiments, does not introduce an insertion loss and/or deterioration of side-lobe performance due to communications passing through an antenna [ADADA, ¶51].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Miller, in view of Choi, ADADA 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)]
Regarding claim 22 Miller, in view of Choi and ADADA teaches a method of claim 15 (See the rejection of claim 15 above),
comprising determining a transmission indicator for the first beam that is indicative of one or both of:
a transmission performance of the first beam; and
a transmission comparator that is indicative of correspondence between predicted transmission performance and determined transmission performance.
([Choi, Figs. 3-4, ¶44-¶45] The device of Choi comprising the ability to perform the determining of a transmission indicator for the first beam that is indicative of a transmission performance of the first beam shown as the Eb/No, Bit Rate and/or Received Signal Level of each of the three spectrums (C-band, Ku-Band and Ka-Band) wherein the C-band of the SAT1 transmission is the first beam.)
The rationale and motivation to combine the applied reference is the same as that which is set forth in the rejection of claim 15.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, in view of Choi and ADADA, 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 Choi and ADADA 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 Choi and ADADA 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 19, the combination of Miller, in view of Choi, ADADA and Vasi 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 Choi and ADADA 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(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, in view of Choi, ADADA and Vasi, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Buer US 2023/0361861 (hereinafter Buer).
Regarding claim 18, Miller, in view of Choi, ADADA and Vasi teaches a method according to claim 17, teaches wherein the satellite switches performance modes (both Choi and ADADA teaches wherein the satellite antenna system is capable of switching between a lower throughput/lower power mode and a higher throughput/higher power mode [See the rejection of claim 15]) ,but it does not teach 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.
However, Buer teaches 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.)
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 Miller, in view of Choi, ADADA and Vasi, indicating a satellite antenna system capable of communicating between a lower throughput/lower power mode and a higher throughput/higher power mode, with the teachings of Buer, indicating that the users may request higher data rates resulting in increased demand/volume which may be in excess of the first performance mode with the lower power mode which may be switched to a second performance mode to handle the demand. The resulting benefit would have been the ability to conserve power and only utilize more power and data throughput resources when demand necessitates the utilization, which results in an overall conservation of communications resources and power.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller, in view of Choi and ADADA as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Scarborough US 2018/0269576 (hereinafter Scar).
Regarding claim 20, Miller, in view of Choi and ADADA teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein the satellite antenna
comprising:
a plurality of feed elements [Choi, Fig. 2, the antennas are feed via a plurality of feeding elements 116-119 of the antenna system];
wherein the second performance mode comprises operating a larger number of feed elements than the first performance mode.
([Choi, Fig. 2 (the higher frequency performance mode of the Ku-band and Ka-bands comprises more feed elements (at least 2 shown as the bottom to feeds of the feeds of 116 into the antenna system 117-119), while the lower frequency performance mode of the C-band only comprises a single feed (shown as the top feed of the feeds 116 into the antenna system 117-119))], 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)].
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 Choi and ADADA 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 Choi and ADADA 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 Choi and ADADA 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 Choi and ADADA, 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 Choi, ADADA 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 Choi, ADADA and Wass teaches a method of operating a satellite communications network, comprising:
performing the method of operating the satellite communications terminal 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 Choi, ADADA 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 1-3, 5-14, 26 and 27 are allowed.
Claims 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, and additionally, the claim limitations of “transmitting a first data stream of the separate data streams to a first satellite of the plurality of satellites through a first communications link of the at least two communications links and simultaneously transmitting a second data stream of the separate data streams to a second satellite of the plurality of satellites through a second communications link of the at least two communications links; wherein the selection of the 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”, in combination with all the other claim limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights