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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8-14 are indefinite because of the following reasons:
In re claim 8, the phrase "One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that when executed via one or more processors perform a computerized method, the media comprising: via one or more processors: determining...” is unclear. Specifically, it's unclear how a manufacture (media) can comprise of functional steps. Examiner recommends applicant to amend the claim language to "One or more non transitory computer- readable media storing instructions that when executed via one or more processors perform a computerized method, the computerized method comprising: determining...”.
In re claim 9, the phrase, “The media of claim 8, further comprising, via the one or more processors, receiving...” is unclear. Specifically, it's unclear how a manufacture (media) can comprise of functional step. Examiner recommends applicant to amend the claim language to "The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein the computerized method further comprising: receiving via the one or more processors ... ". Similar corrections can be made to claims 10-14.
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 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(s) 1, 3-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220312301 A1 (Christopherson et al.)(hereinafter Christopherson) in view of US 20220368411 A1 (Speidel et al.)(hereinafter Speidel).
In re claims 1, 8 and 15, Christopherson discloses a system and an apparatus comprising an antenna ([0058], “Communication interface 425 may include an antenna”); a transponder; a power supply; an orientation and stabilization system; a housing; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that when executed via the one or more processors perform a computerized method ([0061, “The instructions stored by memory/storage 415 cause processor 410 to perform a function or a process described herein”), the method comprising:
determining uplink quality between a user device that communicates directly with an apparatus when the apparatus is in orbit ([0068], “For example, cell-satellite manager 119 may monitor connectivity states (e.g., connected, not connected, intermittent connection, etc.), routing performance, and traffic flow performance (e.g., latency, throughput, error rate, etc.), network state information (e.g., congestion, etc.), and/or end device information (e.g., mobility, signal quality, etc.) in relation to satellite and terrestrial connections, routes, and traffic flows”. [0069], “For example, cell-satellite manager 119 may determine to invoke the changeover procedure when there are connectivity issues, underperforming routes, underperforming traffic flow performance, congestion level, and/or poor end device coverage, signal quality, and so forth based on network and satellite information”), based on one or more communications sent by the user device over an uplink channel (Fig. 3B); when the uplink quality for the uplink channel is determined to be below a threshold, generating a degradation indicator ([0068], “For example, cell-satellite manager 119 may monitor connectivity states (e.g., connected, not connected, intermittent connection, etc.), routing performance, and traffic flow performance (e.g., latency, throughput, error rate, etc.), network state information (e.g., congestion, etc.), and/or end device information (e.g., mobility, signal quality, etc.) in relation to satellite and terrestrial connections, routes, and traffic flows”. [0013], “Also, the cellular device-satellite communications service may improve other performance indicators, such as a key performance indicator (KPI), quality of experience (QoE), a service level agreement (SLA) requirement, user experience, and/or a mean opinion score (MOS), for example”) that includes a unique apparatus identifier and an indication that uplink quality is less than the threshold;
communicating the degradation indicator of the uplink quality to a terrestrial wireless network and subsequently determine the uplink quality between the user device and the apparatus ([0066], “In blocks 520 and 525, cell-satellite manager 119 may determine whether the uplink and/or the downlink is (to be) supported by a terrestrial only connection/route, a satellite connection/route, or both terrestrial and satellite connections/routes based on the analysis of the network information and request. Cell-satellite manager 119 may coordinate the uplink connection and/or the downlink connection that supports user plane traffic flow based on such a determination. For example, cell-satellite manager 119 may transmit control information to access device 107, ground station 129, core device 122, and/or other network devices to establish an end-to-end connection. According to some exemplary embodiments, cell-satellite manager 119 may determine that the uplink and/or the downlink is to be supported by a satellite connection/route when there is a certain level of congestion (e.g., above a threshold congestion value) in the terrestrial network (e.g., access network 105, access device 107 serving end device 130, core network 120, etc.), insufficient or underperforming radio access network coverage pertaining to end device 130 (e.g., signal level between end device 130 and serving access device 107 below a threshold value, etc.), deficiencies in performance metrics associated with application service sessions and access network 105 and/or core network 120, and/or another configurable criterion. According to other exemplary embodiments, cell-satellite manager 119 may determine that the uplink and/or the downlink is to be supported by a satellite connection/route based on load balancing policies and/or rules”).
Christopherson does not explicitly disclose when the uplink quality for the uplink channel is determined to be below a threshold and indication of an apparatus identifier.
Speidel discloses when the uplink quality for the uplink channel is determined to be below a threshold ([0039], “SINR threshold requirements for each CQI are not specified by the 3GPP protocol but they can be estimated based on link models for fading, Doppler spread, etc.”. [0049], “A network might use a regulatory threshold to define the primary area of service for a cell, which may be a higher signal energy level than the protocol limit for usable signal, or service. As such, in FIG. 3, region 305, the area of coverage described by moderate RSSI conditions, could be considered a “threshold contour” where the signal is equal to a regulatory threshold, or primary area of service threshold. This threshold contour could be lower or higher depending on whether neighboring cells are deployed by the same operator or different operators. The cell may have operable coverage as far the bounds of region 307 illustrated in FIG. 3, where the signal energy level reaches the minimum usable by the protocol. Regions 301 and 303 are areas of higher serving signal energy and thus would enjoy better quality of service and be better defended against co-channel interferers”) and an indication of an apparatus identifier (Fig. 2, line 2, “cell identifier”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Christopherson with Speidel to provide a method and system for mitigating uplink degradation when signal quality is below a threshold for a satellite ground communication. The advantage of doing so is to minimize interference and/or work well in the presence of terrestrial base stations that might be using the same protocols, frequency bands, etc.
In re claims 3 and 10, the combination discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the media of claim 8, wherein Christopherson discloses wherein the one or more processors measure the uplink signal quality based on one or more of a Signal to Interference & Noise Ratio (SINR) measurement or a path loss measurement ([0037], “Mapper 215 may include logic that determines whether an uplink communication and/or a downlink communication is supported by a satellite route, a terrestrial route, or a satellite and a terrestrial route. According to an exemplary embodiment, mapper 215 may determine whether the satellite route, the terrestrial route, or both are to be used to support the uplink communication or the downlink communication based on various criteria. For example, criteria may include a congestion level associated with a network (e.g., in access network 105, core network 120, or another network), a channel condition (e.g., Reference Signal Receive Power (RSRP) value, a Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) value, a Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) value, a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) value, a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) value, and/or some other measurable condition) between end device 130 and access device 107, a threshold performance metric associated with an application service (e.g., throughput, latency, and/or another type of metric), resource utilization values, and/or other network information”).
In re claims 4 and 11, the combination discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the media of claim 8, wherein Speidel discloses wherein the one or more processors subsequently determine the uplink quality of the uplink channel based on an additional communication sent from the user device directly to the apparatus ([0090], “During the transition, the orbital base stations would continue to conform to the fractional frequency reuse scheme required by neighboring terrestrial cells. In addition to this fractional frequency reuse scheme for terrestrial cells, the orbital base stations may implement an additional fractional frequency reuse scheme at the dynamic handover line, or handover area, that moves within the cell as the orbital base stations transition coverage”).
In re claims 5 and 12, the combination discloses the apparatus of claim 4 and the media of claim 8, wherein Speidel discloses wherein the one or more processors further: determine that the uplink quality of the uplink channel remains below the threshold based on the additional communication sent from the user device directly to the apparatus; generate another degradation indicator that includes the unique identifier of the apparatus and a timestamp, and that indicates the uplink quality of the uplink channel is below the threshold; and communicate the other degradation indicator to a terrestrial network component to cause implementation of physical resource block blanking to reduce uplink interference (See “In re claim 4”. a person skilled in art can see that the method can be repeated to improve signal quality)
In re claims 6 and 13, the combination discloses the apparatus of claim 4 and the media of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors further: determine that the uplink quality meets or exceeds the threshold based on the other uplink channel communication from the user device; generate a performance indicator that includes the unique identifier of the apparatus and a timestamp, the performance indicator indicating that the uplink quality meets or exceeds the threshold; and communicate the performance indicator to a terrestrial network component (See “In re claim 1”. All features are disclosed).
In re claims 7 and 14, the combination discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the media of claim 8, wherein Speidel discloses wherein the threshold defines a determined value or a determined value range, and wherein a value that is below the threshold is indicative of decreased signal quality, and wherein a value that meets or exceeds the threshold is indicative of increased signal quality ([0069], “Referring to FIG. 5B, in block 540, cell-satellite manager 119 may be determine whether to invoke a changeover procedure. For example, cell-satellite manager 119 may determine to invoke the changeover procedure when there are connectivity issues, underperforming routes, underperforming traffic flow performance, congestion level, and/or poor end device coverage, signal quality, and so forth based on network and satellite information. Otherwise, cell-satellite manager 119 may determine to not invoke the changeover procedure. For example, cell-site manager 119 may determine that connectivity issues, underperforming routes, underperforming traffic flow performance, congestion level, and/or poor end device coverage, signal quality, etc. are below a threshold level with respect to adverse impact on the application service session. As another example, cell-site manager 119 may determine that an amount of time remaining for the application service session does not warrant the changeover despite the threshold level being exceeded”).
In re claim 16, the combination discloses the system of claim 15, wherein Speidel discloses wherein the antenna comprises an uplink antenna and a downlink antenna ([0040], “It is common in implementation for networks to leverage tri-sector macro cell sites, where a tower, or mast, has three antennas pointed in azimuth angles (angle relative to due north) that are separated by 120 degrees. It is also common in implementation to use omnidirectional antennas for small cell sites (micro cells, femto-cells, pico-cells, etc.). Each cell site in a network might be configured to operate based on a set of performance parameters” (a person skilled in art can appreciate a antenna for both uplink and downlink communications)).
In re claim 17, the combination discloses the system of claim 15, wherein Speidel discloses wherein the antenna comprises a command antenna and a communication antenna ([0044], “FIG. 3 illustrates RSSI coverage maps for network cells, one of which is a tri-sector cell and the other of which is an omnidirectional cell. The tri-sector cell has three sectors created by three antennas pointed in some direction. Sector 1, as drawn, has an antenna in pointing direction 309 that results in a coverage area with very high RSSI conditions indicated by lobe 301, a coverage area with high RSSI conditions indicated by lobe 303, a coverage area with moderate RSSI conditions indicated by a region 305, and a coverage area with low, or minimal, RSSI conditions indicated by a region 307. In part, signal strength in FIG. 3 can be conveyed by line thickness, with thicker lines indicating stronger signal energy power. The omnidirectional cell with an omnidirectional transmitter, or antenna, results in a first coverage area 311 having very high RSSI conditions, a second coverage area 313 with high RSSI conditions, a third coverage area 315 with moderate RSSI conditions, and a fourth coverage area 317 with low, or minimal, RSSI conditions” (has various antennas pointing in different directions for communication and command)).
In re claim 18, the combination discloses the system of claim 15, wherein Christopherson discloses the method further comprising one or more of a sun sensor or an earth sensor (implicitly disclosed in the system).
In re claim 19, the combination discloses the system of claim 15, wherein Christopherson discloses the method further comprising a thermal control system (implicitly disclosed).
In re claim 20, the combination discloses the system of claim 15, wherein Christopherson discloses the method further comprising a propulsion system (implicitly disclosed).
Claim(s) 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220312301 A1 (Christopherson et al.)(hereinafter Christopherson) in view of US 20220368411 A1 (Speidel et al.)(hereinafter Speidel) and in further view of US 20240056239 A1 (Zufall)
In re claims 2 and 9, the combination discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and the media of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors receive a communication from the user device over the uplink channel.
Zufall discloses wherein the one or more processors receive a communication from the user device over the uplink channel ([0055], “Therefore, in some embodiments of the 5G PRB blanking, OFDM may be implemented to help prevent uplink signals of a 5G end user mobile device (or other uplink transmitting component) from interfering with downlink signals from a satellite 508 (or other downlink transmitting component)” (communication received over uplink channel from user device and discloses preventing interference from such uplink signals)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Christopherson with Speidel and Zufall to provide a method and system for mitigating uplink degradation when signal quality is below a threshold for a satellite ground communication. The advantage of doing so is to minimize interference and/or work well in the presence of terrestrial base stations that might be using the same protocols, frequency bands, etc.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SWATI JAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri (830 am - 530 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, Pan Yuwen can be reached on 5712727855. 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.
/SWATI JAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649