DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on has been entered.
13.04 Reopen Prosecution - After Notice of Allowance
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claim 47-59 and 61 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below: After consideration of the IDS and further search, the examiner found the reference US 20180183529 A1 (Coutts et al., hereinafter Coutts) that reads on the claims in combination with the references previously cited.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 64-69 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/25/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 47, 54 and 61 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 47 recites in lines 1-2, “satellite terminal antenna, or Antenna Under the Test (AUT).
The examiner believes that the claim limitation should read, “a satellite terminal antenna, or Antenna Under Test (AUT)…”.
Claim 61 is objected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 47 from above.
Claim 47 recites in line 5, “measuring an RF radiation pattern for the AUT…”
The examiner believes that the claim limitation should read, “measuring an radio frequency (RF) radiation pattern of the AUT…”.
Claim 47 recites in lines 9-10, “…the remaining aircraft of the at least two aircraft are positioned around the first aircraft to measure a signal strength…”.
Claim 61 is objected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 47 from above.
The examiner believes that the claim limitation should read, “…the remaining aircraft of the at least two aircraft is positioned around the first aircraft to measure a signal strength…”
Claim 61 recites in lines 5-6, “…receiving RF measurements from and/or transmit RF signals to the AUT,…”
The examiner believes that the claim limitation should read, “…receiving RF measurements and transmitting RF signals from and to the AUT …”.
Claim 54 is incomplete, it should be reviewed and corrected.
The above seem to be inadvertent errors.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 47-58 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unmanned aerial system antenna measurement and diagnosis (Garcia-Fernandez et al., hereinafter Garcia-Fernandez) in view of Experimental Evaluation of Cellular Networks for UAV Operations and Services (Marques et al., hereinafter Marques) in view of US 20180183529 A1 (Coutts et al., hereinafter Coutts).
Regarding claim 47, Garcia-Fernandez discloses a method for evaluating satellite terminal antenna, or Antenna Under the Test (AUT), performance, the method (Fig. 4 and page 2225, section 2.2) comprising:
measuring an RF radiation pattern for the AUT using at least one aircraft (page 2224, section 1, last two lines in column 1, “‘Signal levels recorded at each position of the UAV flight path are then geo-referred and latter post-processed (e.g., converting spatial coordinates in polar ones) in order to obtain the radiation pattern of the antenna under test (AUT)’”);
processing data associated with the measured RF radiation pattern to obtain reference data for the AUT testing (page 2225, section 2.2, “Measurements post-processing …NF measurements need to be processed in order to calculate the AUT radiation pattern as well as to obtain antenna diagnostics information…”, where any measurements collected are considered as reference.); and
testing the AUT using at least two aircraft, wherein a first aircraft of the at least two aircraft is configured to mimic a satellite and the remaining aircraft of the at least two aircraft are positioned around the first aircraft to measure a signal strength of the AUT (page 2224, section 1, last two lines in column 1, “‘Signal levels…”) and thereby estimate at least one of tracking accuracy and pointing accuracy, using the reference data, of the AUT in relation to the first aircraft (Figs 4-5, “In-situ NF measurements”, where tracking accuracy is unclear, since a degree of “accuracy” s not recited. Is it a certain threshold, angle, or another quantifier/qualifier. Where the amplitude or signal strength of the main lobe as well as the pointing/direction angle read on “accuracy”).
Marques further discloses wherein said testing the AUT using at least two aircraft, wherein a first aircraft of the at least two aircraft is configured to mimic a satellite (section II.B, last 4 lines of the column to the right, “measuring key performance indicators (KPIs) for different heights.” Corresponding to mimicking a satellite or constellation) and estimate at least one of tracking accuracy and pointing accuracy, using the reference data, of the AUT in relation to the first aircraft (Section 2.2, complemented with scalar calibration techniques” to configure the payload that includes antenna radiation patterns for measuring that includes a main beam direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Marques’ teachings wherein said testing the AUT using at least two aircraft, wherein a first aircraft of the at least two aircraft is configured to mimic a satellite (section II.B, last 4 lines of the column to the right, “measuring key performance indicators (KPIs) for different heights.” Corresponding to mimicking a satellite or constellation) and estimate at least one of tracking accuracy and pointing accuracy, using the reference data, of the AUT in relation to the first aircraft with the unmanned aerial system for antenna measurement disclosed by Garcia-Fernandez because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the different UAVs are capable of imitating satellites when used at different heights and trajectories.
In related art concerning characterizing antenna patterns, Coutts discloses wherein the remaining aircraft of the at least two aircraft are positioned around the first aircraft to measure a signal strength of the AUT (Figs. 1-5, “520” orbit around “100” and “510”; at least pars. [0002], [0026]-[0031], Coutts discloses architectures that simulates orbiting and stationary satellites positioned at different altitudes that collect information of an AUT that can be stationary or moving).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Coutts’ teachings about a more dynamic satellite-like architecture with the unmanned aerial system for antenna measurement disclosed by Garcia-Fernandez and Marques because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the arranged of UAVs is a design consideration available to the inventor that can be modified to specific architectures that might use a variety of configurations to simulate satellite constellations that might include layers of LEO, MEO and GEO satellites.
Regarding claim 61, Garcia-Fernandez discloses a control unit that is configured to:
measure an RF radiation pattern for the AUT using at least one aircraft (page 2224, section 1, last two lines in column 1, “‘Signal levels recorded at each position of the UAV flight path are then geo-referred and latter post-processed (e.g., converting spatial coordinates in polar ones) in order to obtain the radiation pattern of the antenna under test (AUT)’”);
process data associated with the measured RF radiation pattern to obtain reference data for the AUT testing (page 2225, section 2.2, “Measurements post-processing …NF measurements need to be processed in order to calculate the AUT radiation pattern as well as to obtain antenna diagnostics information…”, where any measurements collected are considered as reference.); and
test the AUT using at least two aircraft, wherein a first aircraft of the at least two aircraft is configured to mimic a satellite and the remaining aircraft of the at least two aircraft are positioned around the first aircraft to measure a signal strength of the AUT (page 2224, section 1, last two lines in column 1, “‘Signal levels…”) and thereby estimate at least one of tracking accuracy and pointing accuracy, using the reference data, of the AUT in relation to the first aircraft (Figs 4-5, “In-situ NF measurements”, where tracking accuracy is unclear, since a degree of “accuracy” s not recited. Is it a certain threshold, angle, or another quantifier/qualifier. Where the amplitude or signal strength of the main lobe as well as the pointing/direction angle read on “accuracy”).
Marques discloses a system (Fig. 2 ) for evaluating satellite terminal antenna, or Antenna Under the Test (AUT), performance (Fig. 2, “Serving Cell” corresponding to AUT; page 2, col. 2, last paragraph, “aims to…evaluate the quality of the coverage, including measuring radio network key performance indicators (KPIs)…”), the system comprising:
a control unit (page 3, Section III. A, “respective control platform”) and
at least two aircraft (Fig. 2, “UAV”) in communication with the control unit (page 3, Section III.A), each aircraft comprising a radio frequency (RF) payload for use in receiving RF measurements from and/or transmit RF signals to the AUT (page 3, Section III. A, “single mobile radio probe (UXProbe) design to collect the most relevant radio and network KPIs.”), wherein the payload of the at least one aircraft of the at least two aircraft is configured to receive the RF measurements and the transmit RF signals to the AUT simultaneously (page 3, Section III. A, “single mobile radio probe (UXProbe) design to collect the most relevant radio and network KPIs.” The control commands/information is received by the UAVs while transmitting signals to the AUT);
wherein the control unit is configured to:
Marques discloses the control unit adapted to apply a set of phases in relation to the received RF measurements from said one or more aircraft, wherein the set of phases comprise a Site Survey and System Calibration phase an Antenna radiation pattern measurement phase, a data processing and analysis phase, and an AUT testing phase (page 3, Section III, “MEASURING PLATFORM AND TEST BEDS”, where calibration comprises the steps/phases of collection of KPIs in a specified site, processing and analysis, among others).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Marques’ teachings wherein said testing the AUT using at least two aircraft, wherein a first aircraft of the at least two aircraft is configured to mimic a satellite (section II.B, last 4 lines of the column to the right, “measuring key performance indicators (KPIs) for different heights.” Corresponding to mimicking a satellite or constellation) and estimate at least one of tracking accuracy and pointing accuracy, using the reference data, of the AUT in relation to the first aircraft with the unmanned aerial system for antenna measurement disclosed by Garcia-Fernandez because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the different UAVs are capable of imitating satellites when used at different heights and trajectories.
In related art concerning characterizing antenna patterns, Coutts discloses wherein the remaining aircraft of the at least two aircraft are positioned around the first aircraft to measure a signal strength of the AUT (Figs. 1-5, “520” orbit around “100” and “510”; at least pars. [0002], [0026]-[0031], Coutts discloses architectures that simulates orbiting and stationary satellites positioned at different altitudes that collect information of an AUT that can be stationary or moving).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Coutts’ teachings about a more dynamic satellite-like architecture with the unmanned aerial system for antenna measurement disclosed by Garcia-Fernandez and Marques because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the arranged of UAVs is a design consideration available to the inventor that can be modified to specific architectures that might use a variety of configurations to simulate satellite constellations that might include layers of LEO, MEO and GEO satellites.
Regarding claim 48, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 47. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses performing a survey for a test site of the AUT (Figs 4-5, “In-situ NF measurements”) and calibrating a payload of at least one aircraft (UAV) based on the survey (page 2225, section 2.2, “complemented with scalar calibration techniques”, [27]), wherein said performing a survey for a test site of the AUT and calibrating a payload of said at least one aircraft based on the survey further comprises:
defining an area of interest for the survey; planning one or more flight paths for said at least one aircraft in the defined area, wherein the defined area is assessed and the payload of said at least one aircraft is calibrated to ensure valid evaluation by a control unit (Section 2.1, “The flight path of the UAV is created using waypoints, taking as input a pre-defined AUT measurement grid: a cylinder, a cylindrical arc, or a plane. It must be indicated that the UAV heading point towards the AUT in the case of cylindrical grids (as in in cylindrical measurement ranges), whereas the heading is perpendicular to the AUT aperture plane in the case of planar grids.” heading point towards the AUT corresponds to calibrating).
Regarding claim 49, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 48. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein said one or more flight paths are planned dynamically (Section 2.1, “The flight path of the UAV is created using waypoints”; Fig. 2, “pilot orders”).
Regarding claim 50, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim
48. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein said one or more flight paths are planned to utilize sensor technology and/or predictive algorithms to avoid observable objects on said one or more flight paths (Section 2.1, Accurate positioning subsystem (Fig. 1, text in blue colour), consisting of laser rangefinder and a real-time kinematic (RTK) system”; Fig. 2, “rangefinder”).
Regarding claim 51, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 48. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein said planning one or more flight paths for said at least one aircraft in the defined area further comprising:
selecting a portion of the area of interest for flight path planning to obtain further RF measurements flight path planning to obtain further RF measurements (Section 2.1, “The flight path of the UAV is created using waypoints, taking as input a pre-defined AUT measurement grid: a cylinder, a cylindrical arc, or a plane.”; this limitation is not clear, it seems like measurements can be taken at a later time using one of the pre-set or pre-programed paths).
Regarding claim 52, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 51. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein the flight path planning is performed for emitter localization or during emitter geolocation (Section 2.1, “The flight path of the UAV is created using waypoints, taking as input a pre-defined AUT measurement grid: a cylinder, a cylindrical arc, or a plane.” Pre-set or pre-programed paths).
Regarding claim 53, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 47. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein said measuring an RF radiation pattern for the AUT using said at least one aircraft further comprising:
localizing a main beam centre based on a beam localization algorithm; defining a coordinate system corresponding to the main bream centre (page 2225, Section 2.1, “It must be indicated that the UAV heading points towards the AUT in the case of cylindrical grids (as in cylindrical measurement ranges), whereas the heading is perpendicular to AUT aperture plane in the case of planar grids.” Where points towards the AUT corresponds to localizing a main beam center, and where cylindrical an planar grids are coordinate systems); and
measuring the RF radiation pattern based on the coordinate system using said at least one aircraft taking one or more flight paths (Figures 9-10 and Section 3.2, “for each tested grid, the amplitude of the measured NF is depicted in Figs. 9-11, where the axes are centered at the AUT position”).
Regarding claim 54, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 51. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein the AUT is a pattern varying antenna, that tracks multiple beams of the pattern varying antenna using one or more aircrafts comprising.
Regarding claim 55, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 47. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein said processing data associated with the measured RF radiation pattern to obtain reference data for the AUT testing further comprises:
supplying a reference for the AUT testing based on said data associated with the measured RF radiation pattern, wherein the reference defines placement of one or more sensors as part of a payload on the at least one aircraft (Fig. 5; page 2225, section 2.1, “Accurate positioning subsystem (Fig. 1, text in blue color), consisting of a laser rangefinder and a real-time kinematic (RTK) system. The latter has two elements: one RTK beacon on board the UAV and the other RTK beacon at a fixed position in the ground”, where RTK provides a reference signal).
Regarding claim 56, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 55. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein said one or more sensors are placed dynamically based on an estimated pointing angle of the AUT (Fig. 5; page 2225, section 2.1, “Accurate positioning subsystem (Fig. 1, text in blue colour), consisting of a laser rangefinder and a real-time kinematic (RTK) system. The latter has two elements: one RTK beacon on board the UAV and the other RTK beacon at a fixed position in the ground”, where RTK provides a reference signal. UAVs inherently comprise sensors that measure their orientation and angle of “attack” during flight; thus, since the UAV payload is pre-programed to make measurements about the radiation patterns of the AUT, the UAV would track the AUT; therefore, the position of the sensor (only one sensor is required) at a location and angle directed/pointing at the AUT).
Regarding claim 57, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 55. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein said one or more sensors are placed statically based on a position around a direction of a target satellite (Fig. 5; page 2225, section 2.1, “Accurate positioning subsystem (Fig. 1, text in blue colour), consisting of a laser rangefinder and a real-time kinematic (RTK) system. The latter has two elements: one RTK beacon on board the UAV and the other RTK beacon at a fixed position in the ground”, where RTK provides a reference signal. UAVs inherently comprise sensors that measure their orientation and angle of “attack” during flight; thus, since the UAV payload is pre-programed to make measurements about the radiation patterns of the AUT, the UAV would track the AUT; therefore, the position of the sensor (only one sensor is required) at a fixed location and angle directed/pointing at the AUT or any other device, including a target satellite).
Regarding claim 58, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 47.
Garcia-Fernandez does not specifically disclose applying one or more algorithms to estimate a main beam direction of the AUT based on said data processed prior to the AUT testing.
Marques discloses applying one or more algorithms to estimate a main beam direction of the AUT based on said data processed prior to the AUT testing (Section 2.2, complemented with scalar calibration techniques" to configure the payload that includes antenna radiation patterns for measuring that includes a main beam direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Marques' teachings about applying one or more algorithms to estimate a main beam direction of the AUT based on said data processed prior to the AUT testing with the unmanned aerial system for antenna measurement disclosed by Garcia-Fernandez and Coutts because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the different UAVs are capable of imitating satellites when used at different heights and certain trajectories. Algorithms are used by one of ordinary skill in the art to allocate payloads for satellites and UAVs imitating the satellites.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia-Fernandez in view of Marques and Coutts, and further in view of “Precise 6D RTK Positioning System for UAV-based Near-Field Antenna Measurements” (Henkel et al., hereinafter Henkel).
Regarding claim 59, Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts disclose all the limitations of claim 58.
Garcia-Fernandez and Marques do not specifically disclose wherein said one or more algorithms comprise Kalman filter for estimating the main beam direction, wherein the Kalman filter is used in combination with sensor fusion to improve the main beam direction estimation.
In related art, Henkel discloses wherein said one or more algorithms comprise Kalman filter for estimating the main beam direction, wherein the Kalman filter is used in combination with sensor fusion to improve the main beam direction estimation (Section III, last two paragraphs, “The sate update obtained with a standard Kalman filter [9] and is given by… (17)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Henkel’s teachings wherein said one or more algorithms comprise Kalman filter for estimating the main beam direction, wherein the Kalman filter is used in combination with sensor fusion to improve the main beam direction estimation with the unmanned aerial system for antenna measurement disclosed by Garcia-Fernandez, Marques and Coutts because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kalman filters provide optimal precise directional estimations based on linear measurements for real-time measurements; therefore, being more effective for complex systems such as UAVs systems.
Note: The examiner has quoted the PCT written Opinion dated 05/01/2023 in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220171077 A1 relates to simultaneous tracking and navigation using LEO Sat signals.
US 20190331800 A1 relates to system and testing the accuracy of the automatic posting means of a signal tracking antenna.
US 20210124352 A1 relates to systems and methods for navigation aerial vehicles using DRL.
US 20200207488 A1 relates to non-destructive inspection using UAVs.
US 20190007127 A1 relates to constellation optimization facility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelica Perez whose telephone number is 571-272-7885 or email address angelica.perez@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and for After Final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either the PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through the Private PAIR only. For more information about the pair system, see http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). Information regarding Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system can be found at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2600's customer service number is 703-306-0377.
/Angelica M. Perez/
Primary Examiner AU 2649
Prosecution Insights