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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments and Remarks, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 32 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
To be more specific, Applicant argues that the prior cited references of Stevenson, Rajkoita and Stratigos fail to disclose the newly recited element of “determining, by the gateway device and based at least in part on a natural condition associated with a location of the gateway device, a channel for transmitting or receiving the signals”. Examiner notes that these elements are taught by newly applied portions of the Rittman reference, as discussed infra. Therefore, Applicant’s Arguments have been considered and are not persuasive.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2018/0110030 A1) in view of Rajkotia, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2014/0269304 A1) and Rittman, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0124037 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 18 and 20, Stevenson discloses a method, comprising, an apparatus, comprising and a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor (paragraphs 0075, 0078) on a gateway device, cause the gateway device to perform a method comprising
communicating, by a gateway device,/a first network interface to communicate/communicate on a first digital computer network and communicating/, a second network interface to communicate/communicate by the gateway device, on a near vertical incident skywave area network using ionospheric refracted signals, wherein the ionospheric refracted signals encode digital content of signals transmitted or received form the gateway device. (The system of Stevenson discloses a gateway device [fig. 3, Base Radios/BR, 101, or Endpoint Radios, ER, 102 may either be considered a gateway, as they both forward on other transmissions; see also 0066-0069- BR/ER forward transmissions from other BR/ERs; 0063 – ER is itself a gateway for sensor/IoT type devices] that provides communication for IoT type devices [paragraph 0038]. The gateway device/BR/ER communicates with other devices using multiple communication routes/channels and spectrum [paragraph 0054] including a first digital computer network, such as ground wave transmission of digital data and near Vertical Incidence Sky-Wave area network [paragraph 0054]. The gateway device/BR/ER continuously monitor the utilized channel and dynamically switch to the best channels based on channel conditions [paragraphs 0037, 0065, 0077. 0081, 0084] and further may also select the utilized route [paragraph 0079, 0081 – optimum route selected, noting route includes first digital computer network/ground waves or NVIS route).
Determining by the gateway device, a channel for transmitting or receiving the signals (The gateway device/BR/ER continuously monitor the utilized channel and dynamically switch to the best channels based on channel conditions [paragraphs 0037, 0065, 0077. 0081, 0084].)
a processor coupled to the first network interface and second network interface and configured to execute one or more processes and a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor, the process, when executed, configured to select/ selecting, by the gateway device, the signals based on a channel and multi-domain multiplexing. (The gateway device/BR/ER continuously monitor the utilized channel and dynamically switch to the best channels based on channel conditions [paragraphs 0037, 0065, 0077. 0081, 0084] and further may also select the utilized route [paragraph 0079, 0081 – optimum route selected, noting route includes first digital computer network/ground waves or NVIS route).
Stevenson fails to explicitly disclose modulating between the first digital computer network and the near vertical incident skywave area network based on multi-domain multiplexing. In the same field of endeavor, Rajkotia discloses modulating between the first digital computer network and the near vertical incident skywave area network based on multi-domain multiplexing.
That is, although Stevenson discloses selecting/multiplexing the optimum route between the first digital computer network and the near vertical incident skywave area network based on multi-domain multiplexing, it is not clear if it teaches “modulating” between the two network/route types as it is unclear if the network/route selection is only performed at initial configuration or if the system continuously monitors and chooses between the two network/route types.
The system of Rajkotia discloses a gateway that may continuously re-evaluate the suitability of one or more possible connection types for data transmission (paragraphs 0036-0039, in particular 0039; 0016-0017).
Therefore, since Rajkotia discloses periodic evaluation of utilized network type, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the periodic re-evaluation of Rajkotia with the system of Stevenson by performing the selection of the optimum route periodically, including by additional additional routing types such as wired and or cellular routing types, as taught also by Rajkotia, to determine if the optimum route type has changed so the different route types, such as digital computer network, the near vertical incident skywave area network and an additional wired LAN or wireless network can be selected from. The motive to combine is to allow the gateway to select the best possible network type.
Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia fails to disclose the determination of a channel for transmitting or receiving could be based at least in part on a natural condition associated with the location of the gateway device. In the same field of endeavor Rittman discloses the determination of a channel for transmitting or receiving could be based at least in part on a natural condition associated with the location of the gateway device. (Rittman discloses that natural conditions of the location of the transmitter, such as weather, terrain, day/night cycles, etc. could be used to predict and choose the best frequency for transmission [paragraphs 0033-0034].)
Therefore, since Rittman discloses using location based natural conditions for channel selection, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the channel selection of Rittman with the system of Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia by making the channel selection Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia at the gateway device further rely on natural conditions associated with the location of the gateway device, such as weather, terrain, day/night, etc. The motive to combine is to pick optimal channels for NVIS propagation which change frequently based on atmospheric conditions.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia and Rittman fails to disclose adjusting an antenna angle of an antenna for the near vertical incident skywave area network based on one or more communication factors. In the same field of endeavor, Rittman discloses adjusting an antenna angle of an antenna for the near vertical incident skywave area network based on one or more communication factors. (Rittman discloses that the angle of the NVIS antenna may be adjusted based on communication factors, such as terrain or weather at the location of the gateway and or remote device [paragraph 0033 – angle adjusted based on location terrain and weather; paragraph 0035 – GPS used to identify unit location and compare to ionospheric map data used in determining; see also fig. 4, GPS coordinates an input to the AI engine].)
Therefore, since Rittman discloses using communication factors/location data as an input into an AI algorithm used to adjust antenna angle for NVIS, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the angle determinations of Rittman with the system of Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia and Rittman by selecting the NVIS antenna angle based on communication factors/location data of the gateway and remote devices. The motive to combine is to select the optimum angle using all available data to improve throughput and reliability.
Regarding claim 3, Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia, Rittman and Rittman discloses the one or more communication factors are selected from a group consisting of: a location of the gateway device and a location of a remote device to which communication is intended. (See the combination in claim 2, supra)
Regarding claim 5, Stevenson discloses the gateway device is one of either a stationary base station or a mobile gateway (paragraphs 0005, 0052-0053 – units are fixed in location and used for monitoring; it is also noted that any system would meet as mobile or fixed covers all possibilities for mobility of a device)
Regarding claim 7, Stevenson discloses the near vertical incident skywave area network is to communicate with a remote gateway device (as discussed in claim 1, supra, either the BR or the ER may be considered a gateway device [Fig. 3, Base Radios/BR, 101, or Endpoint Radios, ER, 102 may either be considered a gateway, as they both forward on other transmissions; see also 0066-0069- BR/ER forward transmissions from other BR/ERs; 0063 – ER is itself a gateway for sensor/IoT type devices]. Choosing the ER [fig. 1, element 102] as the gateway device it communicates with a remote gateway device [i.e. BR] [fig. 1, element 101] using NVIS [fig. 1, element 106] and the BR/Remote gateway device is also configured to communicate with a remote digital computer network [fig. 1, “110” and internet] [i.e. internet or cellular backhaul] and to modulate between the NVIS and the remote digital computer network [paragraph 0059, 0072].)
Regarding claim 9, Stevenson discloses the first digital computer network is a wireless network (As discussed in 1, supra, the first digital computer network is a direct ground wave wireless network [paragraph 0079, 0081].) Regarding claim 12, Stevenson discloses modulating signals on the near vertical incident skywave area network comprises multiplexing with combination of two or more of time divisions, frequency divisions, space divisions. (The NVIS transmission of Stevenson occurs at the same time via multiple BR/ER devices separated in space and is therefore space multiplexed [fig. 1- transmissions 106 separated in space]. It is also time and frequency multiplexed as the transmissions may happen at different time and may halt for other transmissions on the same frequencies [paragraph 0014 – transmission halted/time multiplex for primary user and frequency division used to change to a different channel].)
Regarding claim 13, Stevenson discloses handshaking on the near vertical incident skywave area network for channel selection and scheduling. (Stevenson discloses that the ER/BRs engage in handshaking/channel sweeping to negotiate common channels for use [paragraphs 0080-0088] and also for scheduling, as backup channels are scheduled for use when a primary user appears [0056, 0087].)
Regarding claim 14, Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia and Rittman fails to disclose fails to disclose the dynamic channel selection is based on sun position, global positioning of the gateway device; and local weather. In the same field of endeavor, Rittman discloses the dynamic channel selection is based on sun position, global positioning of the gateway device; and local weather. (Rittman discloses that the frequency of transmission of the NVIS antenna may be adjusted using predictive AI/machine learning based on communication factors, such as terrain or weather at the location of the gateway and or remote device determined via GPS and sun position [i.e. day or night indicating sun position] [paragraph 0033 – angle adjusted based on location terrain and weather and if it is day or night; paragraph 0035 – GPS used to identify unit location and compare to ionospheric map data used in determining; see also fig. 4, GPS coordinates an input to the AI engine].)
Therefore, since Rittman discloses using communication factors/location data as an input into an AI algorithm used to adjust transmission frequency for NVIS, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the angle determinations of Rittman with the system of Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia and Rittman by selecting the NVIS frequency by using predictive AI/ML based on weather, the location data of the gateway and remote devices determined by GPS and sun position/day/night. The motive to combine is to select the optimum angle using all available data to improve throughput and reliability.
Regarding claim 15, Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia and Rittman fails to disclose f dynamic channel selection comprises: using machine learning for predictive channel selection. In the same field of endeavor, Rittman discloses the dynamic channel selection comprises: using machine learning for predictive channel selection. (Rittman discloses that the frequency of transmission of the NVIS antenna may be adjusted using predictive AI/machine learning based on communication factors, such as terrain or weather at the location of the gateway and or remote device determined via GPS and sun position [i.e. day or night indicating sun position] [paragraph 0033 – angle adjusted based on location terrain and weather and if it is day or night; paragraph 0035 – GPS used to identify unit location and compare to ionospheric map data used in determining; see also fig. 4, GPS coordinates an input to the AI engine].)
Therefore, since Rittman discloses using communication factors/location data as an input into an AI algorithm used to adjust transmission frequency for NVIS, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the angle determinations of Rittman with the system of Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia and Rittman by selecting the NVIS frequency by using predictive AI/ML based on weather, the location data of the gateway and remote devices determined by GPS and sun position/day/night. The motive to combine is to select the optimum angle using all available data to improve throughput and reliability.
Regarding claim 17, Stevenson discloses encrypting communications on the near vertical incident skywave area network. (Key of the ER/BRs used for connection establishment is encrypted [0029-0030, 0088, 0092].)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2018/0110030 A1), Rajkotia, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2014/0269304 A1) and Rittman, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0124037 A1) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Witvlet, et al. (B. Witvlet, NEAR VERTICAL INCIDENCE SKYWAVE, The propagation mechanism, the impact of antenna, backscatter and solar flares, pages 1-10, 16 August 2022)
Regarding claim 4, Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia, Rittman and Rittman fails to disclose the one or more communication factors are selected from a group consisting of strength of a received radio frequency signal. In the same field of endeavor, Witvlet discloses the one or more communication factors are selected from a group consisting of strength of a received radio frequency signal.
That is Rittman strongly suggests that the angle can be adjusted based on channel conditions at the receiver as it inputs “RF Related Data” into the AI algorithm. However, it is not explicitly clear in this regard.
The system of Witvlet discloses adjustments to the transmitter elevation antenna angle directly impact received signal strength (pages 6-7, section 3.2.1) and thereby optimization of elevation angle is a necessary part of achieving the best signal strength and SNR (page 8, section 3.3).
Therefore, since Witvlet discloses optimization of antenna elevation angle based on received signal strength/SNR, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further include as inputs to the AI/ML algorithm controlling antenna angle/elevation so that the algorithim can observe improvements in receive signal strength based on angle/elevation changes of the antenna to choose the optimum antenna angle to receive best signal strength/signal to noise. The motive to combine is to allow the variation of antenna angle/elevation for optimal channel quality.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2018/0110030 A1), Rajkotia, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2014/0269304 A1) and Rittman, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0124037 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Stratigos, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2014/0153674 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Stevenson as previously modified by Rajkotia and Rittman fails to disclose communicating on the near vertical incident skywave area network comprises operating in accordance with media access control layer functionality. In the same field of endeavor, Stratigos discloses communicating on the near vertical incident skywave area network comprises operating in accordance with media access control layer functionality [paragraph 0062-0063 – data transmission using NVIS; transmission may use a MAC protocol for scheduling [0068].)
Therefore, since Stratigos discloses the use of MAC for NVIS scheduling, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the MAC scheduling of Stevenson with the system of Stevenson as previously modified by Rajkotia and Rittman by using MAC signaling for scheduling in NVIS. The motive to combine is to use a lower layer protocol to reduce complexity.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2018/0110030 A1), Rajkotia, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2014/0269304 A1) and Rittman, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0124037 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Johnson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2005/0273330 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia and Rittman fails to disclose compressing data to be sent on the near vertical incident skywave area network; and decompressing data received on the near vertical incident skywave area network. In the same field of endeavor, Johnson discloses compressing data to be sent on the near vertical incident skywave area network; and decompressing data received on the near vertical incident skywave area network (Johnson discloses a NVIS network [paragraph 0097] where voice communications are qualitatively and quantitatively compressed using voice recognition and voice to text, subsequent compression, decompression and text to voice [paragraph 0390-0399; 374-387, 0408]. Note that the compression is both qualitative [i.e. voice to text decreases subjective quality by introducing errors, removing intonation of the speaker, etc] and quantitively [i.e. a size reduction is achieved through dictionary/acronym encoding, etc.].)
Therefore, since Johnson discloses compression, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the compression of Johnson with the system of Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia and Rittman by compression and decompressing transmissions on the NVIS, such as voice messages, using qualitative and quantitative voice recognition followed by compression. The motive to combine is to minimize message size to allow for rapid transmission on the low speed NVIS channel.
Regarding claim 11, Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia, Rittman and Johnson disclose compressing and decompressing are based on using qualitative and quantitative compression. (See calim 10, supra.)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2018/0110030 A1), Rajkotia, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2014/0269304 A1) and Rittman, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0124037 A1) as applied to claim 14 and further in view of Sutoyo, et al. (Sutoyo, Syarif Kasim Riau, Dony Hendra, Syarif Kasim Riau, et al, Data Analysis Of Near Vertical Incidence Skywave (NVIS) Propagation In Pekanbaru International Conference on Education Technology (URICET), pages 1-7, 2021).
Regarding claim 16, Stevenson as previously modified by Rajkotia, Rittman and Rittman fails to disclose fails to disclose dynamic channel selection is based on determining a critical frequency and selecting a specific frequency based on the critical frequency. In the same field of endeavor another portion of Rittman discloses dynamic channel selection is based on determining a critical frequency and selecting a specific frequency based on the critical frequency (paragraph 0042 – frequency selected is just below the atmospheric critical frequency).
Therefore, since Rittman further discloses that frequency selection may be based on atmospheric critical frequency, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the critical frequency selection of Rittman with the system of Stevenson as previously modified by Rajkotia, Rittman and Rittman by having the AI/ML further consider the critical frequency in selecting the NVIS frequency and choosing a frequency just below the critical frequency. The motive to combine is to choose an optimal frequency that is likely to be properly reflected in the ionosphere by calculating the critical frequency of ionic reflection.
Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia, Rittman and Rittman fails to disclose dynamic channel selection is based on determining a critical frequency and a minimum frequency and selecting a specific frequency between the critical frequency and the minimum frequency. In the same field of endeavor, Sutoyo discloses dynamic channel selection is based on determining a critical frequency and a minimum frequency and selecting a specific frequency between the critical frequency and the minimum frequency. (Sutoyo discloses that the optimal operating frequency is below the critical frequency/F0F2 and above the lowest useable frequency/LUF [pages 86-87, section III].)
Therefore, since Sutoyo discloses selecting an operating frequency between the critical frequency and the minimum/lowest useable frequency, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the frequency selection of Sutoyo with the system of Stevenson as modified by Rajkotia, Rittman and Rittman by selecting an operating frequency that is above the minim/lowest useable frequency and below the critical frequency, which is the highest reflected frequency. The motive to combine is to select a frequency that will actually be reflected by the ionosphere for good performance.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights