DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Karabinis et al. (US 2002/0041575, Karabinis-1 hereafter).
RE claims 1 and 16, Karabinis-1 discloses a method and satellite, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor (Figure 5, satellite 516. Processor and memory are inherent generic components), wherein the processor is configured to implement the method comprising: determining at least one first frequency band available for a land communication system in a current region (Paragraph 48 discloses an area of coverage by a satellite system comprising seven spot beams and the area of coverage overlaps with terrestrial systems. Each spot beam is comprised of nine channels for a total of 63 assignable channels.); and determining at least one second frequency band available for a satellite communication system in the current region, based on the at least one first frequency band (Paragraphs 49-54 further discloses the coordinated assignment and/or reuse plan between spot beams as well as terrestrial systems such that based on the channels allocated to one spot beam may be reused in another spot beam for use by terrestrial networks.)
RE claim 3, Karabinis-1 discloses method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Karabinis-1 further discloses wherein the method is performed by a satellite (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 48-5) , and determining the first frequency band information available for the land communication system in the current region comprises: determining the at least one first frequency band available for the land communication system in the current region, based on the available frequency bands of the land communication system in each region (Paragraphs 48-54 discloses the coordinated assignment and/or reuse plan between spot beams as well as terrestrial systems such that based on the channels allocated to one spot beam may be reused in another spot beam for use by terrestrial networks.).
RE claims 10 and 17, Karabinis-1 discloses a method for adjusting frequency bands, applied to performed by a satellite; and satellite, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor (Figure 5, satellite 516. Processor and memory are inherent generic components), wherein the processor is configured to implement the method comprising: adjusting spectrum resources available when the satellite is in a current region, based on at least one second frequency band available for a satellite communication system in the current region (Paragraph 48: “For example, an area of coverage by a satellite system may comprise seven spot beams, with each spot beam having nine channels. Thus, the system would have sixty three channels that could potentially be assigned, shared and/or reused between the satellite and the respective underlay terrestrial systems or between satellite systems.” Paragraphs 49-54 further disclosing re-use and reallocation between spot beams as well as underlaying terrestrial networks. This is interpreted as re-use and reallocation between both terrestrial networks as well as other satellites)
RE claim 11, Karabinis-1 discloses the method of claim 10 as set forth above. Note that Karabinis-1 further discloses wherein the at least one second frequency band is determined by the satellite, or, the at least one second frequency band is indicated by a frequency band notification message received by the satellite (Paragraph 71: “Finally, one or more satellites can be used to configure the first and second spot beams. In communicating between a first subscriber terminal and a second subscriber terminal and/or other communication device, a network operations controller is preferably used to facilitate assignment, borrowing and/or reuse of frequencies between spot beams, communication areas, and/or terrestrial cells, central portions of spot beams and/or communication areas, subareas associated with spot beams, communication areas and/or terrestrial cells, and/or terrestrial cells within subareas” This appears to be disclosure that satellites may themselves perform allocation of channels within spot beams as well as coordinate with a network operations control to assign/reassign channels such that terre4strial networks within each spot beam may reuse unused channels.).
RE claim 12, Karabinis-1 discloses the method of claim 10 as set forth above. Note that Karabinis-1 further discloses wherein the at least one second frequency band is indicated by a frequency band notification message received by the satellite, and adjusting the spectrum resources available for the satellite comprises: determining that a base station is installed on the satellite, and adjusting the spectrum resources available when the satellite is in the current region based on the at least one second frequency band indicated by the frequency band notification message; or, determining that the base station is installed on the ground, and adjusting the spectrum resources available when the satellite is in the current region based on the second frequency band indicated by the frequency band notification message and indication of the base station (Paragraphs 48-54 as set forth above and Paragraph 71 further disclosing: “Finally, one or more satellites can be used to configure the first and second spot beams. In communicating between a first subscriber terminal and a second subscriber terminal and/or other communication device, a network operations controller is preferably used to facilitate assignment, borrowing and/or reuse of frequencies between spot beams, communication areas, and/or terrestrial cells, central portions of spot beams and/or communication areas, subareas associated with spot beams, communication areas and/or terrestrial cells, and/or terrestrial cells within subareas” This appears to be disclosure that satellites may themselves perform allocation of channels within spot beams as well as coordinate with a network operations control to assign/reassign channels such that terre4strial networks within each spot beam may reuse unused channels.)..
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Karabinis (US 2006/0205367, Karabinis-2 hereafter).
RE claims 6 and 18, Karabinis-2 discloses a method for determining satellite frequency bands; and ground station, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor (Paragraphs 50 and 59-71, “aggregate radiated power spectral density controller (i.e., an aggregate interference controller) which may be included in ATN 235”. Per Paragraph 50, ATN stands for Ancillary Terrestrial Network), wherein the processor is configured to implement the method comprising: performing interference detection on at least one first frequency band available for a land communication system in a current region, to obtain an interference detection result; and determining at least one second frequency band available for a satellite communication system in the current region from the at least one first frequency band based on the interference detection result (Paragraphs 50 and 59-71 disclosing that the aggregate radiated power spectral density controller manages interference and coordinates usage of a portion frequency resources used by a second satellite operator by an Ancillary Terrestrial Network. The controllers residing within the ATN. The controller is required to keep interference levels below a threshold so as to not interfere “with the satellite receiver of the SBC of the second operator by more than, or substantially more than, X % .DELTA.T/T. The aggregate (or total) SBC and ATN communications of the first satellite operator, by the first satellite operator, can thereby be controlled to interfere with the satellite receiver of the SBC of the second satellite operator by no more than, or substantially more than, 6% .DELTA.T/T.”. As such, its is clear the controller is measuring and monitoring interference as resources are allocated to meet this threshold.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karabinis-1 in view of Karabinis-2.
RE claim 2, Karabinis-1 discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Karabinis-1 does not explicitly disclose wherein determining at least one second frequency band available for the satellite communication system in the current region, based on the at least one first frequency band, comprises: determining the at least one second frequency band whose interference value with the at least one first frequency band is less than a predetermined threshold.
However, Karabinis-2 teaches wherein determining at least one second frequency band available for the satellite communication system in the current region, based on the at least one first frequency band, comprises: determining the at least one second frequency band whose interference value with the at least one first frequency band is less than a predetermined threshold (Paragraphs 50 and 59-71 disclosing that the aggregate radiated power spectral density controller manages interference and coordinates usage of a portion frequency resources used by a second satellite operator by an Ancillary Terrestrial Network. The controllers residing within the ATN. The controller is required to keep interference levels below a threshold so as to not interfere “with the satellite receiver of the SBC of the second operator by more than, or substantially more than, X % .DELTA.T/T. The aggregate (or total) SBC and ATN communications of the first satellite operator, by the first satellite operator, can thereby be controlled to interfere with the satellite receiver of the SBC of the second satellite operator by no more than, or substantially more than, 6% .DELTA.T/T.”. As such, it is clear the controller is measuring and monitoring interference as resources are allocated to meet this threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Karabinis-1 with the teachings of Karabinis-2 in order to provide for interference control between satellite and terrestrial networks operating in the same spectrum.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karabinis-1 in view of Ravishankar (US 2019/0239082).
RE claim 4, Karabinis-1 discloses the method of claim 3 as set forth above. Karabinis-1 does not explicitly disclose sending a first notification message to a ground station on a first preset frequency band resource, wherein the first preset frequency band resource is a frequency band resource available for the satellite to send the first notification message in the current region as agreed in a protocol, and the first notification message is used to indicate at least one second frequency band available for the satellite in the current region.
However, Ravishankar teaches sending a first notification message to a ground station on a first preset frequency band resource, wherein the first preset frequency band resource is a frequency band resource available for the satellite to send the first notification message in the current region as agreed in a protocol, and the first notification message is used to indicate at least one second frequency band available for the satellite in the current region (Paragraph 27 teaches: “the satellite base station 220 can also include a Global Resource Manager (GRM) 229 configured to coordinate and prioritize the resource requirements by both terrestrial and satellite networks. GRM 229 communicates with both networks and dynamically allocate resources among them to meet their requirements while minimizing potential interference between the two networks.”, Paragraph 36 teaches: “a satellite base station (or its associated GRM) may instruct a scheduler of a terrestrial base station to utilize specific sets of resource blocks of a frequency spectrum”. The communication and coordination between the GRM and the plurality of satellite and terrestrial networks is a teaching of “notification messages” in order to allocate frequency bands amongst them.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Karabinis-1 with the teachings of Ravishankar since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (notifications/signaling) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karabinis-1 in view of Ravishankar in view of Parikh et al. (US 2019/0124584, Parikh hereafter).
RE claim 5, Karabinis-1 discloses the method of claim 3 as set forth above. Karabinis-1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the method is performed by a ground station or a base station installed on the ground, and the method further comprises: determining that a satellite arrives in the current region, and sending a second notification message to the satellite on a second preset frequency band resource, wherein the second preset frequency band resource is a frequency band resource available for the ground station or the base station to send the second notification message as agreed in a protocol, and the second notification message is used to indicate the at least one second frequency band determined by the ground station or the base station for the satellite.
However, Ravishankar teaches wherein the method is performed by a ground station or a base station installed on the ground, and the method further comprises: sending a second notification message to a satellite on a second preset frequency band resource, wherein the second preset frequency band resource is a frequency band resource available for the ground station or the base station to send the second notification message as agreed in a protocol, and the second notification message is used to indicate the at least one second frequency band determined by the ground station or the base station for the satellite (Paragraph 27 teaches: “the satellite base station 220 can also include a Global Resource Manager (GRM) 229 configured to coordinate and prioritize the resource requirements by both terrestrial and satellite networks. GRM 229 communicates with both networks and dynamically allocate resources among them to meet their requirements while minimizing potential interference between the two networks.”, Paragraph 36 teaches: “a satellite base station (or its associated GRM) may instruct a scheduler of a terrestrial base station to utilize specific sets of resource blocks of a frequency spectrum”. The communication and coordination between the GRM and the plurality of satellite and terrestrial networks is a teaching of “notification messages” in order to allocate frequency bands amongst them.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Karabinis-1 with the teachings of Ravishankar since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (notifications/signaling) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Karabinis-1 in view of Ravishankar does not explicitly disclose determining that a satellite arrives in the current region.
However, Parikh teaches explicitly disclose determining that a satellite arrives in the current region (Paragraph 91-93 teaches an AP configured to track and detect the arrival of satellites that may overlap its coverage area and mitigate interference caused).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Karabinis-1 in view of Ravishankar with the teachings of Parikh in order to manage interference in a system having terrestrial and non-stationary orbit satellite networks.
Claims 7 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karabinis-2 in view of Desgagné et al. (US 5,963,865, Desgagné hereafter).
RE claim 7, Karabinis-2 discloses the method of claim 6 as set forth above. Karabinis-2 does not explicitly discloses wherein determining at least one second frequency band available for a satellite communication system in the current region from the at least one first frequency band based on the interference detection result comprises: determining the at least one second frequency band from the at least one first frequency band according to an order of frequency band interference values from high to low, based on the interference detection result.
However, Desgagné teaches determining the at least one second frequency band from the at least one first frequency band according to an order of frequency band interference values from high to low, based on the interference detection result (Column 7, line 64, through column 8, line 15, teaches performing measurements of loading and interference within each of a plurality of frequencies. A sorted list based on these measurements is generated and the idle frequency with the least interference is selected and assigned).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Karabinis-2 with the teachings of Desgagné in order to select the best available frequency for communication.
RE claim 8, Karabinis-2 in view of Desgagné discloses the method of claim 7 as set forth above. Note that Karabinis-2 further discloses performed by a ground station or a terminal (Paragraphs 50 and 59-71, “aggregate radiated power spectral density controller (i.e., an aggregate interference controller) which may be included in ATN 235”. Per Paragraph 50, ATN stands for Ancillary Terrestrial Network).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karabinis-2 in view of Desgagné, in view of Ravishankar and further in view of Parikh.
RE claim 9, Karabinis-2 in view of Desgagné discloses the method of claim 8 as set forth above. Note that Karabinis-2 further discloses wherein the method is performed by a ground station (Paragraphs 50 and 59-71, “aggregate radiated power spectral density controller (i.e., an aggregate interference controller) which may be included in ATN 235”. Per Paragraph 50, ATN stands for Ancillary Terrestrial Network).
Karabinis-2 in view of Desgagné does not explicitly disclose determining that a satellite arrives in the current region, and sending a third notification message to the satellite on a third preset frequency band resource, wherein the third preset frequency band resource is a frequency band resource available for the ground station to send the third notification message as agreed in a protocol, and the third notification message is used to indicate the at least one second frequency band determined by the ground station for the satellite.
However, Ravishankar teaches sending a third notification message to a satellite on a third preset frequency band resource, wherein the third preset frequency band resource is a frequency band resource available for the ground station to send the third notification message as agreed in a protocol, and the third notification message is used to indicate the at least one second frequency band determined by the ground station for the satellite (Paragraph 27 teaches: “the satellite base station 220 can also include a Global Resource Manager (GRM) 229 configured to coordinate and prioritize the resource requirements by both terrestrial and satellite networks. GRM 229 communicates with both networks and dynamically allocate resources among them to meet their requirements while minimizing potential interference between the two networks.”, Paragraph 36 teaches: “a satellite base station (or its associated GRM) may instruct a scheduler of a terrestrial base station to utilize specific sets of resource blocks of a frequency spectrum”. The communication and coordination between the GRM and the plurality of satellite and terrestrial networks is a teaching of “notification messages” in order to allocate frequency bands amongst them.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Karabinis-2 in view of Desgagné with the teachings of Ravishankar since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique (notifications/signaling) to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Karabinis-2 in view of Desgagné and further in view of Ravishankar does not explicitly disclose determining that a satellite arrives in the current region.
However, Parikh teaches explicitly disclose determining that a satellite arrives in the current region (Paragraph 91-93 teaches an AP configured to track and detect the arrival of satellites that may overlap its coverage area and mitigate interference caused).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Karabinis-2 in view of Desgagné and further in view of Ravishankar with the teachings of Parikh in order to manage interference in a system having terrestrial and non-stationary orbit satellite networks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461