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 .
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Claims 64-69 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 54 and 61 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 54, line 3 recites, “comprising:;” the examiner believes that one of the punctuation marks should be deleted (preferably the semicolon).
The examiner believes that claim 61, line 10 is missing a comma between the words, …Calibration phase” and “an Antenna radiation…”
The above seem to be inadvertent errors.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations, in claim 1, are:
“system for evaluating…” seems to refer to “antenna evaluation system 100” which include “AUT”, “control unit” and UAVs” or known equivalents.
“control unit configured to operate …” and “control unit adapted to…” seems to refer to laptop and known equivalents, as shown in Fig. 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 47-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unmanned aerial system antenna measurement and diagnosis (Garcia-Fernandez et al., hereinafter Garcia-Fernandez).
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:
performing a survey for a test site of the AUT (Figs 4-5, “In-situ NF measurements”) and calibrate a payload of at least one aircraft (UAV) based on the survey (page 2225, section 2.2, “complemented with scalar calibration techniques”, [27]);
measuring an RF radiation pattern for the AUT using said 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)processed); processing data associated with the measured RF radiation pattern for the AUT testing (page 2225, section 2.2, “Measurements post-processing”); and
testing the AUT by said at least two aircraft mimicking a satellite and/or tracking a main beam direction of the AUT to provide the AUT tracking performance (Figs 4-5, “In-situ NF measurements”).
Regarding claim 48, Garcia-Fernandez discloses all the limitations of claim 47. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein said performing survey for a test site of the AUT and calibrate a payload of at least one aircraft based on the survey further comprising:
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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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:;
localizing a main beam centre based on a beam localization algorithm; defining a coordinate system corresponding to the main bream centre (Figs. 9-10, where 360 degree radiation pattern is determined, including side lobes); and
measuring the RF radiation pattern based on the coordinate system using said at least one aircraft taking one or more flight paths (Figs. 9-10, where 360 degree radiation pattern is determined, including side lobes).
Regarding claim 55, Garcia-Fernandez discloses all the limitations of claim
47. Garcia-Fernandez further discloses wherein said processing data associated with the measured RF radiation pattern for the AUT testing further comprising: supplying a reference for the AUT testing based on said data associated with the measured RF radiation pattern, wherein the reference defines the placement of one or more sensors a part of the payload on said at least one aircraft (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).
Regarding claim 56, Garcia-Fernandez discloses all the limitations of claim
55.
Garcia-Fernandez 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 discloses 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).
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 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia-Fernandez in view of Experimental Evaluation of Cellular Networks for UAV Operations and Services (Marques et al., hereinafter Marques).
Regarding claim 58, Garcia-Fernandez discloses all the limitations of claim
47.
Garcia-Fernandez does not specifically disclose wherein said testing the AUT by said at least two aircraft mimicking a satellite and/or tracking a main bream direction of the AUT to provide the AUT tracking performance further comprising:
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 wherein said testing the AUT by said at least two aircraft mimicking 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/or tracking a main bream direction of the AUT to provide the AUT tracking performance further comprising:
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 wherein said testing the AUT by said at least two aircraft mimicking a satellite and/or tracking a main bream direction of the AUT to provide the AUT tracking performance further comprising: 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 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 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 and Marques 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 and Marques 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.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Experimental Evaluation of Cellular Networks for UAV Operations and Services (Marques et al., hereinafter Marques) in view of Garcia-Fernandez.
Regarding claim 61, 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 one or more aircraft (Fig. 2, “UAV”) in communication with the control unit (page 3, Section III.A), each aircraft comprises 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 at least one aircraft of said one or more 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.”, where as the control commands/information is received by the UAVs while transmitting signals to the AUT);
and
the control unit is configured to operate said one or more aircraft in relation to the set of applied phases by mimicking a satellite and/or tracking a main bream direction of the AUT for providing the AUT tracking performance (page 3, Section IV.A, “At CESA all measurements were taken with 3 UAVs flying at the same time, each flying at a different height (25m, 50m and 120m) and multiple measurements were taken simultaneously, for different times of day.” That suggest tracking of the UAVs at different points, times and heights, where the UAVs mimic satellite paths).
Although 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).
Garcia-Fernandez 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 (Figs 4-5, “In-situ NF measurements”) and System Calibration phase (page 2225, section 2.2, “complemented with scalar calibration techniques”, [27]) an Antenna radiation pattern measurement phase (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), a data processing (page 2225, section 2.2, “Measurements post-processing”) and analysis phase, and an AUT testing phase.
(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)processed); processing data associated with the measured RF radiation pattern for the AUT testing (page 2225, section 2.2, “Measurements post-processing”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Garcia-Fernandez’s 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 with the experimental evaluation of cellular networks for UAV disclosed by Marques because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that evaluation of antenna under test performance comprise a number of steps that include site survey, measurements, calibration, analysis, evaluation, among others.
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