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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ communication filed on 10/30/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the revised rejection below in view of the amendments argued.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Becker et al. (US 2020/0007227 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Becker teaches the limitations "A service satellite running status diagnosis method, comprising: (see abstract);
detecting, by a device, attribute information of a service beam, wherein the attribute information comprises one or more of a carrier power, a bandwidth, a carrier-to-noise ratio, and a frequency, and the service beam is a beam transmitted by a service satellite; and (see fig,. 6 (604) and par. 0020 “link measurement data that indicates signal quality (e.g., signal strength, signal-to-noise ratio, carrier-to-interference ratio, carrier-to-interference-plus-noise ratio, packet error and/or loss data, etc.)” and 0042 “…receiving link measurement data that indicates signal quality at multiple locations within multiple coverage areas of multiple spot beams of a geostationary satellite.”);
in response to determining that the attribute information of the service beam is abnormal: generating, by the device, an evaluation report of the service beam, wherein the evaluation report comprises abnormality information of the service beam; and (see fig. 6 (608) and par. 0043 “…detect a beam drift trigger according to the link measurement data. The beam drift trigger can indicate a present drifting of a coverage area illuminated by a spot beam of the satellite.”);
sending, by the device, the evaluation report to a satellite controller, wherein a plurality of evaluation reports from a plurality of devices are used by the satellite controller to generate a diagnosis report of the service beam, and (see fig. 6 (616) and par. 0045 “..the ground processing node in response to detecting the beam drift trigger at stage 608, an update to a beam assignment map that at least partially counteracts the signal quality degradation by reassigning each of the set of ground terminals from a respective presently assigned spot beam to a respective reassigned spot beam of the multiple spot beams of the satellite.” (i.e. the ground processing node is equated to the “satellite controller”);
the diagnosis report is used by a ground monitoring station to confirm a running status of the service satellite" (see fig. 6 (620) and par. 0046 “…the method 600 further include communicating one or more reassignment messages via the satellite at stage 620. In some embodiments, the reassignment message(s) instruct the set of ground terminals to update their communications settings according to the updated beam assignment map while maintaining stateful connectivity with the satellite;”);
and the running status of the service satellite includes an abnormal running status (see abstract, “ a ground processing node in the geostationary satellite network can monitor spot beam coverage area location and can detect a beam drift trigger indicating present drifting of one or more coverage areas. Ground terminals can be identified as serviced by spot beams associated with the drifting coverage area(s) and as experiencing a signal quality impact from the drifting. The ground terminal node can compute an update to a beam assignment map having a reassignment of the identified user terminals from their presently servicing spot beams to another of the spot beams in a manner that seeks to address at least some of the signal quality impact identified as associated with the drifting.” Here the ground terminal is monitoring drifting of satellite coverage area (i.e. abnormal status) and remedies it. Par. 0015 further shows the signal quality is measured to determine this abnormal status. Lastly, par. 0020 states “Embodiments described herein include a novel approach to maintaining quality of service to ground terminals in context of coverage area 120 drift by detecting degradation of signal quality resulting from such drift and dynamically reassigning ground terminals to spot beams 130 in a manner that counteracts the degradation.” In other words, the degrading signal quality is equated to the abnormal status).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 2 Becker teaches the limitations "The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of evaluation reports are used to describe some or all of abnormal information of a same service beam" (see par. 0043 “…the beam drift trigger can indicate that one or more beams has drifted by at least a threshold distance, that present drifting of one or more beams is predicted to exceed a threshold amount within some near-term timeframe, that drifting of one or more beams has increased by a certain amount over a timeframe (e.g., based on integration of recent historical data, etc.), etc. Further, the beam drift trigger can be detected independently for each of multiple reflectors, when the physical satellite architecture allows for independent deflection of reflectors, or the like. In some embodiments, the receiving at stage 604 includes receiving first link measurement data at a first time and receiving second link measurement data at a second time subsequent to the first time.” Here abnormalities (i.e. drift) are described on the same beam).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 5 Becker teaches the limitations "The method according to claim 1, wherein if a target parameter in the attribute information of the service beam is less than a reference threshold and a difference between the target parameter and the reference threshold is not less than a first threshold, the attribute information of the service beam is abnormal, wherein the target parameter comprises the carrier-to-noise ratio or the carrier power, and wherein the reference threshold is a manually set value or a historical target parameter" (see par. 0020 “signal-to-noise ratio, carrier-to-interference ratio” and par. 0032 and 0043 “the beam drift trigger can indicate that one or more beams has drifted by at least a threshold distance, that present drifting of one or more beams is predicted to exceed a threshold amount within some near-term timeframe, that drifting of one or more beams has increased by a certain amount over a timeframe (e.g., based on integration of recent historical data.”). Here, reference threshold is threshold distance, and first threshold is “threshold amount.”
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 6 Becker teaches the limitations "The method according to claim 5, wherein sending, by the device, the evaluation report to the satellite controller comprises: in response to determining that a quantity of evaluation reports of the service beam reaches a second threshold, sending, by the device, the evaluation report of the service beam to the satellite controller" (see par. 0032 “…a threshold number of samples indicating a position outside of nominal, etc.) between the first location and the second location. In some embodiments, the beam tracking structure 530 outputs the beam drift trigger 535 only when other criteria are also met. For example, embodiments of the beam tracking structure 530 can monitor for beam drift pattern profiles, such as periodic fluctuations, and can determine not to generate the beam drift trigger 535 when such drift pattern profiles are detected.”).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 9 Becker teaches the limitations "The method according to claim 7, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining, by the satellite controller by using a communication link, a second evaluation report that is of the service beam and that is sent by the service satellite, wherein the second evaluation report is a report that is generated by the service satellite based on a transmission status of the service beam and that is used to represent the running status of the service satellite" (see fig. 6 and par. 0046 “communicating one or more reassignment messages via the satellite at stage 620. In some embodiments, the reassignment message(s) instruct the set of ground terminals to update their communications settings according to the updated beam assignment map while maintaining stateful connectivity with the satellite.” Here, the one or more reassignment messages are equated to the first and second evaluation reports.
Regarding Claim 10 Becker teaches the limitations "The method according to claim 9, wherein after obtaining, by the satellite controller by using the communication link, the second evaluation report that is of the service beam and that is sent by the service satellite, the method further comprises: sending, by the satellite controller, the second evaluation report of the service beam to the ground monitoring station" (see par. 0046 sent to “ground terminals”).
Regarding Claim 11 Becker teaches the limitations "The method according to claim 7, wherein generating, by the satellite controller, the diagnosis report of the service beam based on the plurality of evaluation reports of the service beam comprises:
filtering, by the satellite controller, data in the plurality of evaluation reports of the service beam based on an external factor to obtain a target evaluation report; and generating, by the satellite controller, the diagnosis report of the service beam based on the target evaluation report" (see par. 0044 “In some embodiments, the identifying at stage 612 can further include identifying characteristics of the ground terminals, such as identifying location data (e.g., geolocation data, etc.), magnitude of service degradation (e.g., or present signal quality, etc.), and/or any other suitable characteristics. In some embodiments, the set of ground terminals is further identified according to the same or different characteristics. For example, the set of ground terminals can be identified as those experiencing a threshold amount of service degradation and also located within a particular geographic region and also presently consuming bandwidth.” Here, the update is “filtered” by outside factor which is the identifying characteristics of the ground terminal).
Regarding Claim 13 Becker teaches the limitations "The method according to claim 7, wherein the satellite controller and the service satellite are a same satellite" (see par. 0004 “Messages can be communicated from the ground processing node to the identified ground terminals (e.g., via the satellite and one or more gateway terminals) directing the ground terminals to adjust according to the updated beam assignment map” where the messages are received at satellite and serviced by satellite.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker as applied to their respective parent claims above, and further in view of Muakkit et al. (US 9,853,754 B1).
Regarding Claim 3 Becker teaches the limitations "The method according to claim 2, wherein the attribute information comprises the carrier power, and (see par. 0037 “ reassignment can account for power control considerations. For example, reassignment computations can seek to improve spectral efficiency by maximizing bits per hertz in a manner that optimizes power levels across beams (e.g., maintains power control at a desired, non-maximum level).” Must know carrier power to maintain it at a desired level).
However, Becker does not explicitly disclose the limitation “wherein detecting, by the device, the attribute information of the service beam comprises: detecting, by the device, an amplitude of the service beam; and calculating, by the device, the carrier power of the service beam based on the amplitude of the service beam.”
In the same field of endeavor Muakkit discloses a system for satellite downlink signal performance monitoring where the system may monitor any certain satellite carrier for any abnormality and report back to a user. The (see abstract, fig. 1, 10b, col. 3 lines 19-28 and col. 12 lines 31-37 and col. 22 lines 1-5 “The characteristics of the downlink signal may comprise at least one of a bandwidth, a polarization, a center frequency, an amplitude, a power spectral density, or a harmonic component.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine power from amplitude of the downlink signal as taught by Muakkit in the system of Becker, in order to improve communication reliability from satellites (see col. 1 lines 30-40).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 4 Becker further teaches “the link measurement data 515 can include a set of data points, each having an associated location that indicates the location (e.g., a two-dimensional or three-dimensional location in map coordinates or any other suitable coordinates) of the user terminal 570 from which that data was received, and having an associated signal quality value that indicates a present signal quality for that user terminal 570 (e.g., measured as an instantaneous value, as a statistical average over a time window, or in any other suitable manner)” (see par. 0033) but does not explicitly disclose the limitations "The method according to claim 3, wherein the carrier power is an average carrier power or an instantaneous carrier power.” Muakkit teaches “ if a downlink varies significantly from average values of such characteristics as center frequency, signal strength, bandwidth, a transfer function of an uplink signal to a downlink signal, a power spectral density, harmonic components, and the like.” (see col. 3 lines 19-28 and col. 12 lines 31-37). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine average power as taught by Muakkit in the system of Becker, in order to improve communication reliability from satellites (see col. 1 lines 30-40).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Davarian et al. (EP 1137198 A2).
Regarding Claim 12 Becker teaches the limitations "The method according to claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the external factor comprises a weather factor, and the target evaluation report is the first evaluation report obtained in non-inclement weather.”
In the same field of endeavor Davarian discloses a satellite communication system for downlink communication resource control more particularly, to controlling the amount of power for various beams of a satellite in response to weather conditions. (see abstract, fig. 1, 2 and par. 0001 and 0026 “The power table 28 is an allocation of the various powers of the various beams. The power table 28 provides increased power to the specific beams whose cells are experiencing atmospheric attenuation. Likewise, the power table 28 provides decreased power to formerly weather-hampered beams.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set a target report as a report with non-hampered weather as taught by Davarian in the system of Becker, in order to improve link availability and reduce power (see par. 0002 of Davarian).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker as applied to their respective parent claims above, and further in view of Greenidge et al. (US 2022/0014265 A1).
Regarding Claim 20 Becker teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the newly added limitation “wherein the satellite controller is a satellite different from the service satellite, or the satellite controller is a satellite cluster including a plurality of satellites.”
In the same field of endeavor Greenridge teaches a fractionated satellite constellation, where satellite controllers can be included in auxiliary satellites and satellite clusters for exchanging information for service satellite to perform a process (see abstract, fig. 12 and par. , 0037, 0152 and 0157).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a satellite controller in a second satellite or a cluster as taught by Greenidge in the system of Becker, in order to “…expand the capabilities of the specialized satellites to network with additional functionalities provided by other specialized satellites, providing access for a user device to additional equipment and/or communication links that may be incompatible with communications supported by the user device.” (see par. 0005).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BILODEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-3192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am-4:00pm Eastern Standard Time.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David Bilodeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights