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 .
Priority
The claims to priority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/306,875, entitled "MAKING SPACE SAFE FOR HUMANS," filed February 4, 2022, which is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Rhoads et al. ( US 20220161944 A1 hereafter Rhoads) in view of Reid et al. (US 20230055546 A1 Hereafter Reid).
Consider claim 1. Rhoads suggests An interference monitoring and analysis platform comprising: ([0003] FIG. 1 illustrates a system that utilizes a constellation management system (CMS)) a network interface configured to communicate via a network; ([0013] communication system may utilize satellites in the constellation to wirelessly transfer data between user terminals and ground stations that in turn connect to other networks) a memory configured to store operational instructions; and ([0054] … memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMS), erasable programmable ROMs (EPROMs), electrically erasable programmable ROMs (EEPROMs), flash memory, magnetic or optical cards, solid-state memory devices, or other types of physical media suitable for storing electronic instructions.) a processor configured to execute the operational instructions, wherein the operational instructions, when executed, cause the processor to: ([0054] the CMS 160 … computer systems comprising one or more hardware processors) receive, via the network interface, communication conditions data and space system data, ([0068] The CMS 160 may provide various services that include receiving information from external systems, providing information to those external systems, coordinating with those external systems, planning and initiating activities that include satellites 102 in the constellation 114, coordinating with the network management system 150.) wherein the space system data includes space object data corresponding to a plurality of space objects and a plurality of space clients ([0077] An SSA system 320 may be operated by governments, private companies, or other entities. For example, the United States Air Force (USAF) obtains tracking data using various radar and optical tracking resources.) and wherein the communication conditions data includes weather service data indicating atmospheric conditions adverse to space communications; ([0074] ephemeris data 374 may be based on the effects of the various internal effects such as planned maneuvers, external effects such space weather and orbital perturbation models, and so forth.) generate, responsive to the communications condition data and the space systems data, interference prediction data that indicates at least one predicted interference condition corresponding to communications associated with at least one of the plurality of space objects; generate, responsive to the interference prediction data, ([0075] The FDS 302 may determine interference mitigation data 376 that is indicative of potential interactions between a communication payload on a satellite 102 and other objects including other satellites 102 in the constellation 114)
However Rhoads fails to explicitly suggest one or more interference alerts indicating the at least one predicted interference condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of space objects; and send, via the network interface, the one or more interference alerts to one or more of the plurality of space clients.
While in a similar field of endeavor Reid suggests one or more interference alerts ([0088] the navigation message … includes an alert signal that indicates the error condition) indicating the at least one predicted interference condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of space objects; ([0115] utilize the information from this real-time ionospheric mapping and/or other detailed ionospheric maps, and/or can utilize these models to better predict behavior of transmissions through the ionosphere and/or to improve performance and efficiency of their systems.) and send, via the network interface, the one or more interference alerts to ([0115] generate prediction data utilized predict and/or improve upon predictions of future states of the ionosphere [i.e. interference]) one or more of the plurality of space clients. ([0088] The navigation signal transmitter is configured to broadcast the navigation message to at least one client device)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the alert signals of Reid in order to operate satellites to perform routine activities such as station keeping maneuvers, maintenance activities, interference mitigation, and so forth.
Consider claim 2. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 1, and further suggests wherein the communication conditions data further includes radio frequency (RF) interference data indicating space- originating RF interference adverse to space communications. ([0099] the FDS 302 may determine interference mitigation data 376 )
Consider claim 4. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 2, and further suggests wherein at least a portion of the RF interference data is ([0075] The FDS 302 may determine interference mitigation data 376) generated via a plurality of sensors ([0060] The satellite 102 includes one or more sensors 210) corresponding to a subset of the plurality of space objects, ([0061] satellites 102) wherein each of the plurality of sensors is dedicated to detection of space-originating RF interference adverse to space communications, and wherein the at least a portion of the RF interference data is received via downlink communications from the subset of the plurality of space objects. ([0084] The sensor data 356 may comprise data obtained by one or more sensors 210. For example, the sensor data 356 may include position data obtained by the GNSS 256 receiver. In another example, the sensor data 356 may comprise data indicative of objects detected by the radar 262.)
Consider claim 5. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 1, and further suggests wherein the at least one predicted interference condition as at least one of: inter- satellite communication interference, ([0047] intersatellite link (ISL) 190) satellite uplink communication ([0047] Uplinks are designated as UL1, UL2, UL3 and so forth) interference, or satellite downlink ([0047] For example, DL1 is a first downlink) interference. ([0099] For example, the FDS 302 may determine interference mitigation data 376 that, relative to a particular location to provide service on Earth, indicates satellite 102(1734) will be within the radio frequency (RF) volume produced by a transmitter on satellite 102(941))
However Rhoads fails to explicitly suggest the one or more interference alerts classify
While in a similar field of endeavor Reid suggests the one or more interference alerts classify ([0089] The alert signal and/or integrity monitoring data that indicates the error condition … shared with the other LEO satellites 110 and/or one or more ground stations)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the alert signals that indicate interference of Reid in order to operate satellites to perform interference mitigation.
Consider claim 6. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 1, and further suggests, wherein the at least one predicted interference condition corresponds to a future condition. ([0042] predictions of future status, and so forth… the communication system status data 158 may be indicative of future status)
Consider claim 7. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 6, and further suggests, wherein the operational instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: generate, prescriptive actions data that indicates prescriptive actions for mitigating the at least one predicted interference condition prior to the future condition.
([0075] The FDS 302 may determine interference mitigation data 376 that is indicative of potential interactions between a communication payload on a satellite … the FDS 302 may generate interference mitigation data 376 that indicates an RF payload, or at least a portion thereof, of a particular satellite 102 should be deactivated during a specified time interval to avoid interfering with another satellite)
However Rhoads fails to explicitly suggest based on the interference alerts and at least a portion of the space system data,
While in a similar field of endeavor Reid suggests based on the interference alerts and at least a portion of the space system data, ([0088] the navigation message … includes an alert signal that indicates the error condition)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the alert signals that indicate interference of Reid in order to operate satellites with potential interference mitigation data.
Consider claim 8. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 7, and further suggests, wherein the prescriptive actions include at least one of: adjusting a downlink frequency of the at least one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting an uplink frequency of the at least one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting a downlink frequency of at least another one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting an uplink frequency of the at least another one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting a downlink transmission power of the at least one of the plurality of space objects, ([0081] Other systems 394 may provide other data 396 to the CMS 160. In one implementation, the other systems 394 may include terrestrial weather data indicative of observed or forecasted terrestrial weather conditions. Terrestrial weather conditions may affect operations involving the satellites 102. For example, heavy precipitation in the atmosphere between the satellite 102 and a UT 108 may attenuate radio signals along a signal path, producing “rain fade”. This attenuation may affect communication by resulting in reduced throughput, requiring additional transmit power, and so forth.) adjusting a downlink transmission power of the at least another one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting an uplink transmission power of a ground station communicating with the at least one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting an uplink transmission power of a ground station communicating with the at least another one of the plurality of space objects, rerouting an uplink transmission to the at least one of the plurality of space objects via uplink transmission to another space object of the plurality of space objects and inter-satellite communications from the another space object of the plurality of space objects to the at least one of the plurality of space objects, or rerouting a downlink transmission from the at least one of the plurality of space objects via intersatellite transmission to another space object of the plurality of space objects and downlink communications from the another space object of the plurality of space objects. ([0082] In some implementations, the data described herein as provided to the CMS 160 may be provided to the network management system 150. For example, the network management system 150 may use the terrestrial weather data to select which satellites 102 will be used to provide communication service to UTs 108 to minimize attenuation of radio signals along the signal path between a given satellite 102 and UT 108.)
Consider claim 9. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 1, and further suggests, wherein the operational instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: of one of the plurality of space clients; ([0104] Systems within or associated with the CMS 160 may generate event data 402. Event data 402 is indicative of an event or occurrence that is associated with one or more satellites 102 in the constellation 114. An example of event data 402 is shown in FIG. 5C.) and wherein the alerts selection data indicates at least one of: the at least one of the plurality of space objects, an operator associated with the at least one of the plurality of space objects, a spectrum associated the at least one of the plurality of space objects, a future location associated with the at least one of the plurality of space objects, or an orbit type associated with the at least one of the plurality of space objects. ([0094] The actual plan data 392 may be passed to a satellite mission control system 314. The satellite mission control system 314 may perform one or more functions. In one implementation, the satellite mission control system 314 may confirm that the actual plan data 392 would not result in an adverse event associated with the satellite 102. For example, the satellite mission control system 314 may confirm that an operation involving an update to the onboard computer will not be executed while the satellite 102 is passing through the South Atlantic Anomaly that could result in an upset event to the onboard computer. The satellite mission control system 314 may determine control data 398 comprising one or more commands for the satellite 102 to execute to implement the actual plan data 392. The satellite mission control system 314 may send the control data 398 to the appropriate satellite 102. The satellite 102 then executes the one or more commands in the control data 398. For example, a TTC ground station may be used to send the control data 398 to the satellite 102. The TTC system 222 onboard the satellite 102 may receive and process the control data 398.)
However fails to explicitly suggest generate a graphical user interface for display via a client device alerts selection data selected by a user of the client device; and receive, via the graphical user interface, wherein the one or more interference alerts are generated further based on the alerts selection data;
While in a similar field of endeavor Reid suggests generate a graphical user interface for display via a client device and receive, via the graphical user interface, ([0037] A client device 160 can be operable to display, via a display device of the client device some or all of the atmospheric models, precision orbit data, and/or clock data received from the least one satellite 110 for review by a user of the client device 160. ) and receive, via the graphical user interface, wherein the one or more interference alerts are generated further based on the alerts selection data; ([0088] the navigation message … includes an alert signal that indicates the error condition)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the display that indicates alerts of Reid in order to operate satellites to perform interference mitigation.
Consider claim 11. Rhoads suggests A method comprising: ([0003] FIG. 1 illustrates a system that utilizes a constellation management system (CMS)) receiving, via a network interface, communication conditions data ([0013] communication system may utilize satellites in the constellation to wirelessly transfer data between user terminals and ground stations that in turn connect to other networks) and space system data, wherein the space system data includes space object data corresponding to a plurality of space objects ([0068] The CMS 160 may provide various services that include receiving information from external systems, providing information to those external systems, coordinating with those external systems, planning and initiating activities that include satellites 102 in the constellation 114, coordinating with the network management system 150.) and a plurality of space clients ([0077] An SSA system 320 may be operated by governments, private companies, or other entities. For example, the United States Air Force (USAF) obtains tracking data using various radar and optical tracking resources.) and wherein the communication conditions data includes weather service data indicating atmospheric conditions adverse to space communications; ([0074] ephemeris data 374 may be based on the effects of the various internal effects such as planned maneuvers, external effects such space weather and orbital perturbation models, and so forth.) generating, via an interference analysis engine and responsive to the communications condition data and the space systems data, interference prediction data that indicates at least one predicted interference condition corresponding to communications associated with at least one of the plurality of space objects; ([0075] The FDS 302 may determine interference mitigation data 376[i.e. interference analysis engine] that is indicative of potential interactions between a communication payload on a satellite 102 and other objects including other satellites 102 in the constellation 114)
However Rhoads fails to explicitly suggest generating, via an alerts generation engine and responsive to the interference prediction data, one or more interference alerts indicating the at least one predicted interference condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of space objects; and sending, via the network interface, the one or more interference alerts to one or more of the plurality of space clients.
While in a similar field of endeavor Reid suggests generating, via an alerts generation engine and responsive to the interference prediction data, one or more interference alerts ([0088] the navigation message … includes an alert signal that indicates the error condition) indicating the at least one predicted interference condition associated with the at least one of the plurality of space objects; ([0115] utilize the information from this real-time ionospheric mapping and/or other detailed ionospheric maps, and/or can utilize these models to better predict behavior of transmissions through the ionosphere and/or to improve performance and efficiency of their systems.) and sending, via the network interface, the one or more interference alerts ([0115] generate prediction data utilized predict and/or improve upon predictions of future states of the ionosphere [i.e. interference]) to one or more of the plurality of space clients. ([0088] The navigation signal transmitter is configured to broadcast the navigation message to at least one client device)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the alert signals of Reid in order to operate satellites to perform routine activities such as station keeping maneuvers, maintenance activities, interference mitigation, and so forth.
Consider claim 12. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 11, and further suggests, wherein the communication conditions data further includes radio frequency (RF) interference data indicating space-originating RF interference adverse to space communications. ([0099] the FDS 302 may determine interference mitigation data 376)
Consider claim 14. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 12, and further suggests, wherein at least a portion of the RF interference data is ([0075] The FDS 302 may determine interference mitigation data 376) generated via a plurality of sensors ([0060] The satellite 102 includes one or more sensors 210) corresponding to a subset of the plurality of space objects, wherein each of the plurality of sensors is dedicated to detection of space-originating RF interference adverse to space communications, and wherein the at least a portion of the RF interference data is received via downlink communications from the subset of the plurality of space objects. ([0084] The sensor data 356 may comprise data obtained by one or more sensors 210. For example, the sensor data 356 may include position data obtained by the GNSS 256 receiver. In another example, the sensor data 356 may comprise data indicative of objects detected by the radar 262.)
Consider claim 15. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 11, and further suggests, wherein the the at least one predicted interference condition as at least one of: inter-satellite communication interference, ([0047] intersatellite link (ISL) 190) satellite uplink communication interference, ([0047] Uplinks are designated as UL1, UL2, UL3 and so forth) or satellite downlink ([0047] For example, DL1 is a first downlink) interference. ([0099] For example, the FDS 302 may determine interference mitigation data 376 that, relative to a particular location to provide service on Earth, indicates satellite 102(1734) will be within the radio frequency (RF) volume produced by a transmitter on satellite 102(941))
However Rhoads fails to explicitly suggest one or more interference alerts classify
While in a similar field of endeavor Reid suggests one or more interference alerts classify ([0089] The alert signal and/or integrity monitoring data that indicates the error condition … shared with the other LEO satellites 110 and/or one or more ground stations)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the alert signals that indicate interference of Reid in order to operate satellites to perform interference mitigation.
Consider claim 16. Rhoads suggests the limitations of claim 11, and further suggests, wherein the at least one predicted interference condition corresponds to a future condition. ([0042] predictions of future status, and so forth… the communication system status data 158 may be indicative of future status)
Consider claim 17. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 16 and further suggests, further comprising: generating, via a prescriptive action engine and based on the interference alerts and at least a portion of the space system data, prescriptive actions data that indicates prescriptive actions for mitigating the at least one predicted interference condition prior to the future condition. ([0075] The FDS 302 may determine interference mitigation data 376 that is indicative of potential interactions between a communication payload on a satellite … the FDS 302 may generate interference mitigation data 376 that indicates an RF payload, or at least a portion thereof, of a particular satellite 102 should be deactivated during a specified time interval to avoid interfering with another satellite)
However Rhoads fails to explicitly suggest based on the interference alerts and at least a portion of the space system data,
While in a similar field of endeavor Reid suggests based on the interference alerts and at least a portion of the space system data, ([0088] the navigation message … includes an alert signal that indicates the error condition)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the alert signals that indicate interference of Reid in order to operate satellites with potential interference mitigation data.
Consider claim 18. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 17, and further suggests, wherein the prescriptive actions include at least one of: adjusting a downlink frequency of the at least one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting an uplink frequency of the at least one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting a downlink frequency of at least another one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting an uplink frequency of the at least another one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting a downlink transmission power of the at least one of the plurality of space objects, ([0081] Other systems 394 may provide other data 396 to the CMS 160. In one implementation, the other systems 394 may include terrestrial weather data indicative of observed or forecasted terrestrial weather conditions. Terrestrial weather conditions may affect operations involving the satellites 102. For example, heavy precipitation in the atmosphere between the satellite 102 and a UT 108 may attenuate radio signals along a signal path, producing “rain fade”. This attenuation may affect communication by resulting in reduced throughput, requiring additional transmit power, and so forth.) adjusting a downlink transmission power of the at least another one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting an uplink transmission power of a ground station communicating with the at least one of the plurality of space objects, adjusting an uplink transmission power of a ground station communicating with the at least another one of the plurality of space objects, rerouting an uplink transmission to the at least one of the plurality of space objects via uplink transmission to another space object of the plurality of space objects and inter- satellite communications from the another space object of the plurality of space objects to the at least one of the plurality of space objects, or rerouting a downlink transmission from the at least one of the plurality of space objects via intersatellite transmission to another space object of the plurality of space objects and downlink communications from the another space object of the plurality of space objects. ([0082] In some implementations, the data described herein as provided to the CMS 160 may be provided to the network management system 150. For example, the network management system 150 may use the terrestrial weather data to select which satellites 102 will be used to provide communication service to UTs 108 to minimize attenuation of radio signals along the signal path between a given satellite 102 and UT 108.)
Consider claim 19. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 1, and further suggests, further comprising: generating, and receiving, via the graphical user interface, alerts selection data selected by a user of the client device; wherein the one or more interference alerts are generated further based on the alerts selection data; and wherein the alerts selection data indicates at least one of: the at least one of the plurality of space objects, an operator associated with the at least one of the plurality of space objects, a spectrum associated the at least one of the plurality of space objects, a future location associated with the at least one of the plurality of space objects, or an orbit type associated with the at least one of the plurality of space objects.
However fails to explicitly suggest generate a graphical user interface for display via a client device alerts selection data selected by a user of the client device; and receive, via the graphical user interface, wherein the one or more interference alerts are generated further based on the alerts selection data;
While in a similar field of endeavor Reid suggests generate a graphical user interface for display via a client device and receive, via the graphical user interface, ([0037] A client device 160 can be operable to display, via a display device of the client device some or all of the atmospheric models, precision orbit data, and/or clock data received from the least one satellite 110 for review by a user of the client device 160. ) and receive, via the graphical user interface, wherein the one or more interference alerts are generated further based on the alerts selection data; ([0088] the navigation message … includes an alert signal that indicates the error condition)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the display that indicates alerts of Reid in order to operate satellites to perform interference mitigation.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoads in view of Reid in further view of Zavesky et al. ( US 11999512 B2 hereafter Zavesky).
Consider claim 3. Rhoads-Reid suggest the limitations of claim 2,
However fail to explicitly suggest wherein at least a portion of the RF interference data is received from a plurality of radio telescopes.
While in a similar field of endeavor Zavesky suggests wherein at least a portion of the RF interference data is received from a plurality of radio telescopes. (Col 1 line 59-67 (9) telescopes and radio-based observations that utilize skyward observations (i.e., the “overhead”) will increasingly have objects obstructing the view, i.e., physical blocks (i.e., the satellite object itself) and electromagnetic (EM) blocks (RF noise between the communication of multiple satellite- and ground-based actors).)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the radio telescopes of Zavesky in order to operate satellites to perform routine activities such as station keeping maneuvers, maintenance activities, interference mitigation, and so forth.
Consider claim 13. Rhoads-Reid suggest the limitations of claim 12, wherein at least a portion of the RF interference data is received from a plurality of radio telescopes.
While in a similar field of endeavor Zavesky suggests wherein at least a portion of the RF interference data is received from a plurality of radio telescopes (Col 1 line 59-67 (9) telescopes and radio-based observations that utilize skyward observations (i.e., the “overhead”) will increasingly have objects obstructing the view, i.e., physical blocks (i.e., the satellite object itself) and electromagnetic (EM) blocks (RF noise between the communication of multiple satellite- and ground-based actors).)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the radio telescopes of Zavesky in order to operate satellites to perform routine activities such as station keeping maneuvers, maintenance activities, interference mitigation, and so forth.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoads in view of Reid in further view of Zheng et al. (US 20070135051 A1 hereafter Zheng).
Consider claim 10. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 1, and further suggests, wherein the operational instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: receive proposed constellation data corresponding to a proposed constellation of space objects; ([0017] The CMS uses the information ingested to determine a proposed plan.)
However fails to explicitly suggest and generate simulation results, based on the proposed constellation data and the space system data, wherein the simulation results indicate resulting interference conditions associated with the proposed constellation of space objects and indicate prescriptive actions for mitigating the resulting interference conditions.
While in a similar field of endeavor Zheng suggests and generate simulation results, based on the proposed constellation data and the space system data, wherein the simulation results indicate resulting interference conditions associated with the proposed constellation of space objects and indicate prescriptive actions for mitigating the resulting interference conditions. ([0157] In Section 4, simulation results are provided illustrating the performance of the interference cancellation)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the interference reduction of Zheng in order to operate satellites to perform interference mitigation.
Consider claim 20. Rhoads suggests the limitation of claim 11, and further suggests, further comprising: receiving proposed constellation data corresponding to a proposed constellation of space objects; ([0017] The CMS uses the information ingested to determine a proposed plan.)
However fails to explicitly suggest and generating simulation results, via a spectrum simulation engine and based on the proposed constellation data and the space system data, wherein the simulation results indicate resulting interference conditions associated with the proposed constellation of space objects and indicate prescriptive actions for mitigating the resulting interference conditions.
While in a similar field of endeavor Zheng suggests and generating simulation results, via a spectrum simulation engine and based on the proposed constellation data and the space system data, wherein the simulation results indicate resulting interference conditions associated with the proposed constellation of space objects and indicate prescriptive actions for mitigating the resulting interference conditions. ([0157] In Section 4, simulation results are provided illustrating the performance of the interference cancellation)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rhoads into the interference reduction of Zheng in order to operate satellites to perform interference mitigation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN H CASTLE whose telephone number is (571)272-4597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 05:00 PM.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
/FRANKLIN HAYES CASTLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2647
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647