DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted March 9, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant describes Anchala as teaching a satellite communication station that “[processes] interference measurements detected at a satellite communication station… [and] such information is [not] generated by the aerospace access point itself” (Remarks, p. 2).” In response, Examiner respectfully notes that Anchala teaches both (i.e. either) processing measurements at the satellite communication station and processing measurements received from a satellite ([0037]). This information sent from the satellite is an indication of degradation because it indicates, for instance, interference. Applicant also argues that there is no unique identifier generated by the aerospace access point. This argument is moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2025/0219717 A1 (hereinafter “Anchala”), alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0204863 (hereinafter “Sohi”), and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0242935 (hereinafter “Sakhnini”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8: Anchala teaches a computerized method comprising:
receiving a degradation indicator for an uplink channel between a user device and an aerospace access point, the degradation indicator including a unique identifier for the aerospace access point (see, e.g., figures 1, [0022]-[0033]; [0037]-[0042]; information is received corresponding to the uplink channel between station 150 and satellite 160);
identifying a base station by querying a database using the unique identifier for the aerospace access point in the degradation indicator (see, e.g., figures 3, [0022]-[0033]; [0037]-[0042]; the information is used to query a database);
generating computer-readable instructions for the base station, the computer-readable instructions instructing the base station to automatically blank one or more physical resource blocks on the uplink channel between another user device and the base station (see, e.g., [0015], [0022]; base stations are instructed to blank resource blocks corresponding to interfering UEs); and
communicating the computer-readable instructions to the base station, wherein the computer-readable instructions cause the base station to automatically blank the one or more physical resource blocks on the uplink channel between the other user device and the base station (see, e.g., [0015], [0022]; base stations blank resource blocks).
Anchala teaches wherein channel information is with respect to a channel between a satellite communication station 150 and a satellite 160, but does not explicitly state wherein the station 150 is a “user device” To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Anchala, it is nevertheless taught by Sohi (see, e.g., figures 1, 5, 8, [0007], [0027], [0080], [0116]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to interference mitigation techniques such as blanking resource blocks). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Sohi, such as the device and/or mitigation functionality, within the system of Anchala, in order to improve resource utilization.
Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi teaches wherein the degradation indicator is generated by the aerospace access point (see, e.g., Anchala [0037]), and further wherein the indicator includes an identifier for the aerospace access point (see, e.g., Sohi [0070]; note the band used by the satellite is identified; note also both Anchala and Sohi mapping the satellite to base stations or cells). Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi does not explicitly state wherein the degradation indicator generated by the aerospace access point includes a unique identifier. Nevertheless, this feature is taught in Sakhnini (see, e.g., [0152]-[0158]; note the inclusion of a satellite ID). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Sakhnini, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi, in order to identify the satellite.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the medium of claim 8.
Regarding claim 2: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches based on the degradation indicator, determining that a signal quality of the uplink channel between the user device and the aerospace access point does not meet a threshold (see, e.g., Anchala [0013], [0015], [0029], [0037], [0045]; and/or Sohi [0073], [0075], [0119]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches determining, by a terrestrial component and based on the degradation indicator, to reduce uplink interference by blanking the one or more physical resource blocks (see, e.g., Anchala [0015], [0022]; base stations blank resource blocks).
Regarding claim 4: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches determining a predetermined quantity of physical resource blocks to blank, wherein the computer-readable instructions are generated to specify the predetermined quantity of physical resource blocks to be blanked by the base station (see, e.g., Anchala [0026], [0036], [0041], [0043]; and/or Sohi [0121]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches wherein the degradation indicator includes a value for the signal quality of the uplink channel between the user device and the aerospace access point (see, e.g., Anchala [0022], [0029]; and/or Sohi [0121]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches dynamically determining a quantity of physical resource blocks to blank, the quantity of physical resource blocks being dynamically determined as specifically corresponding to the value of the signal quality, wherein the computer-readable instructions are generated to specify the quantity of physical resource blocks to be blanked by the base station (see, e.g., Anchala [0022], [0029]; and/or Sohi [0121]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 16: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches referencing a database that stores travel trajectories of the aerospace access point, the travel trajectories determining a plurality of coverage areas of the aerospace access point at specific, corresponding dates and times; and based on a current date and time, identifying the base station as having a geographic location that is associated with a particular coverage area of the aerospace access point (see, e.g., Anchala [0024], [0042]; and/or Sohi [0122]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 7 is applicable to the medium and system of claims 9 and 16, respectively.
Regarding claim 10: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches subsequently receiving an additional degradation indicator for the uplink channel between the user device and the aerospace access point (see, e.g., Anchala [0015], [0016], [0029], [0061], [0062]; and/or Sohi [0122]-[0125]; note feedback is iterative and/or dynamic in nature). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches determining that the uplink channel does not meet a threshold based on the additional degradation indicator (see, e.g., Anchala [0013], [0015], [0029], [0037], [0045]; and/or Sohi [0073], [0075], [0119]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches generating additional computer-readable instructions instructing the at least one base station to automatically blank one or more additional physical resource blocks on the uplink channel between the other user device and the at least one base station, the one or more additional physical resource blocks corresponding to the radio frequencies that at least partially overlap with the radio frequencies of the uplink channel between the user device and the aerospace access point (see, e.g., Anchala [0015], [0016], [0029], [0061], [0062]; and/or Sohi [0122]-[0125]; note feedback is iterative and/or dynamic in nature). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches communicating the additional computer-readable instructions to the at least one base station, wherein the additional computer-readable instructions cause the at least one base station to automatically blank the one or more additional physical resource blocks on the uplink channel between the other user device and the at least one base station (see, e.g., Anchala [0015], [0016], [0029], [0061], [0062]; and/or Sohi [0122]-[0125]; note feedback is iterative and/or dynamic in nature). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches determining that noise on the uplink channel at least meets a threshold based on the additional degradation indicator (see, e.g., Anchala [0013], [0015], [0029], [0037], [0045]; and/or Sohi [0073], [0075], [0119]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches generating additional computer-readable instructions instructing the at least one base station to automatically blank fewer physical resource blocks on the uplink channel between the other user device and the at least one base station; and communicating the additional computer-readable instructions to the at least one base station, wherein the additional computer-readable instructions cause the at least one base station to automatically blank fewer physical resource blocks on the uplink channel between the other user device and the at least one base station (see, e.g., Anchala [0015], [0016], [0029], [0061], [0062]; and/or Sohi [0122]-[0125]; note feedback is iterative and/or dynamic in nature). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches wherein the base station comprises a plurality of terrestrial access points providing service to a plurality of user devices (see, e.g., Anchala figures 1, 3; and/or Sohi figures 1, 5, 8). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches a telecommunications core network component that acts as an interface between the aerospace network and the telecommunications network (see, e.g., Anchala figures 1, 3; and/or Sohi figures 1). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches a telecommunications network that interfaces with an aerospace network having one or more devices configured to act as aerospace access points to one or more user devices (see, e.g., Anchala figures 1, 3; and/or Sohi figures 1, 5, 8). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20: Anchala alternatively modified by Sohi and Sakhnini further teaches wherein the server is communicatively coupled to the database that stores the trajectory for the aerospace access point, the trajectory corresponding to a plurality of coverage areas of the aerospace access point at specific, corresponding dates and times (see, e.g., Anchala figures 1, 3; and/or Sohi figures 1). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 16 is applicable to claim 20.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights