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
The claim objections and 112 rejections of 7/28/25 have been addressed and are withdrawn
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 6 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. The new limitations regarding the limited “visual field change range” are rejected in light of new reference Sotom.
As applicant notes, the claims recite some structural limitations as well as some operational limitations. The limitation of the limited “visual field change range” is a structural limitation. The satellite has some range of degrees within which it can communicate. The limitations regarding what orbit the satellite is placed in are functional limitations – the structure must be capable of performing said function. In this case, the satellite must be able to be placed in an orbit with an inclination as defined by the visual field change range of the satellite (the inclination must be half of the visual range – e.g. a satellite with an omnidirectional (360) antenna must be able to be placed in an equatorial orbit of 180 deg). In the case of Taylor, it is stated that the orbit may have any inclination. Therefore, a satellite with any visual field change range would be able to be placed in an orbit as defined by Taylor. Further, Sotom teaches a specific, defined range that points in the direction of travel (and in the reverse) and specifically teaches communication lines that change from a positive to a negative direction when passing at the polar regions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3 and 6-7 state “a visual field change range limited to ± the Θi deg”. There is not support for this limitation. The remarks of 10/28/25 point to Para 0028 for support but the quoted line is not found in that paragraph and it does not appear to be relevant to this limitation. The quoted line appears to be in Para 0014. Still, the line only states that the communication visual field is in the range of ± Θi. This does not limit the range to only be within that specific range. A broader range would still read on having communication in a narrower range.
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1-3 and 6-7 states “a visual field change range limited to ± the Θi deg”. What is meant by a visual field change range? What is changing? It could be that the comms device has a range within which it is able to communicate, and so the direction of the communication line can change within that range while still maintaining the link. But, particularly in light of new claims 19-20 it is unclear if that is the correct interpretation. Claims 19-20 state that the satellite can rotate the visual field direction. There does not appear to be structure which can allow the communication device to rotate relative to the satellite. Claim 19 states “rotating a visual field direction to - the Θi deg”. What is being rotated? Doesn’t the communication device always have communication abilities within the +/- Θi range? This makes it seem like it only has the + range at first and then changes to the - range.
For the above reasons claims 19-20 are also unclear.
Claim 7 states “the first communication satellite”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 15 states “a flying object coping device”. What is meant by a coping device?
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al (US 5978653 A) in view of Sotom et al (US 20170324465 A1).
For claim 1, Taylor discloses a communication satellite that flies in a forward direction in an orbit Fig. 1: satellite 12 with orbital plane 31 with an orbital inclination Θi deg with respect to an equatorial plane, Col 4, lines 65-67: “Additionally, it is applicable to orbits having any angle of inclination (e.g., polar, equatorial or other orbital pattern)” the communication satellite comprising:
a communication device Fig. 2: antenna 210 which “can comprise several antennas” (Col 7, line 65), so each antenna is a communication device having a visual field change range limited to ± the Θi deg around a Z axis with respect to a +X axis, the antenna has some communication range, and whatever it is, the satellite can be placed in an orbit which is equivalent to it, therefore the functional limitation is met,
wherein, when passing a right ascension of an ascending node, the communication device is configured to perform communication with a satellite flying on a north side of the equatorial plane in an orbit that is adjacent in a longitude direction of a normal vector of an orbital plane of the orbit with the orbital inclination of the Θi deg adjacent satellites (915) in adjacent orbital planes (1-6) maintain constant communication (930), including when one satellite is north of the equator as the other passes a RAAN (Col 16, line 44 – Col 17, line 5).
Taylor fails to teach what direction the multiple antennas face and therefore fails to teach the limitation “where a direction of the Z axis direction oriented in a plus direction in right-handed coordinates is a geocentric direction and a direction of the +X axis in the right-handed coordinates is the forward direction”. However, Sotom teaches a communication satellite Fig. 5a in which the communication device has a range of +- Θm about the direction of travel.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Taylor by pointing one antenna in the direction of travel as disclosed by Sotom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since “said field of regard 53 allows said optical terminal 51 to maintain its link with the neighbouring satellite, in particular in the polar regions when said neighbouring satellite 10 in the adjacent orbital plane 25 passes from one side of the satellite 10 in question to another” (Para 0046).
For claim 2, Taylor discloses a communication satellite that flies in a forward direction in an orbit Fig. 1: satellite 12 with orbital plane 31 with an orbital inclination Θi deg with respect to an equatorial plane, Col 4, lines 65-67: “Additionally, it is applicable to orbits having any angle of inclination (e.g., polar, equatorial or other orbital pattern)” the communication satellite comprising:
a communication device Fig. 2: antenna 210 which “can comprise several antennas” (Col 7, line 65), so each antenna is a communication device having a visual field change range limited to ± the Θi deg around a Z axis with respect to a -X axis oriented in an opposite direction of a +X axis, the antenna has a communication range, and whatever it is, the satellite can be placed in an orbit which is equivalent to it, therefore the functional limitation is met; as shown in Figs. 1 and 9, each satellite communication device communicates simultaneously with a satellite in a forward and backward direction with respect to the direction of movement (+X); additionally each satellite also communicates with the satellites in the adjacent orbits on the right and left,
wherein, when passing a right ascension of an ascending node, the communication device is configured to perform communication with a satellite flying on a south side of the equatorial plane in an orbit that is adjacent in a longitude direction of a normal vector of an orbital plane of the orbit with the orbital inclination of the Θi deg adjacent satellites (915) in adjacent orbital planes (1-6) maintain constant communication (930), including when one satellite is south of the equator as the other passes a RAAN (Col 16, line 44 – Col 17, line 5).
Taylor fails to teach what direction the multiple antennas face and therefore fails to teach the limitation “where a direction of the Z axis direction oriented in a plus direction in right-handed coordinates is a geocentric direction and a direction of the +X axis in the right-handed coordinates is the forward direction”. However, Sotom teaches a communication satellite Fig. 5a in which the communication device has a range of +- Θm about the direction of travel, and in the reverse direction for satellites which are behind Para 0040.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Taylor by pointing one antenna in the direction of travel and one in the reverse as disclosed by Sotom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since “said field of regard 53 allows said optical terminal 51 to maintain its link with the neighbouring satellite, in particular in the polar regions when said neighbouring satellite 10 in the adjacent orbital plane 25 passes from one side of the satellite 10 in question to another” (Para 0046).
For claim 3, Taylor discloses a communication satellite that flies in a forward direction in an orbit Fig. 1: satellite 12 with orbital plane 31 with an orbital inclination Θi deg with respect to an equatorial plane, Col 4, lines 65-67: “Additionally, it is applicable to orbits having any angle of inclination (e.g., polar, equatorial or other orbital pattern)” the communication satellite comprising:
a first communication device Fig. 2: antenna 210 which “can comprise several antennas” (Col 7, line 65), so each antenna is a communication device having a visual field change range limited to ± the Θi deg around a Z axis with respect to a +X axis the antenna has a communication range, and whatever it is, the satellite can be placed in an orbit which is equivalent to it, therefore the functional limitation is met, and
a second communication device Fig. 2; another of the “several antennas” (Col 7, line 65), wherein
the first communication device is configured to perform communication with a satellite flying on a north side of the equatorial plane in an orbit that is adjacent in a longitude direction of a normal vector of an orbital plane of the orbit with the orbital inclination of the Θi deg adjacent satellites (915) in adjacent orbital planes (1-6) maintain constant communication (930), including when one satellite is north of the equator as the other passes a RAAN (Col 16, line 44 – Col 17, line 5), and
Taylor fails to teach what direction the multiple antennas face and therefore fails to teach the limitation “where a direction of the Z axis direction oriented in a plus direction in right-handed coordinates is a geocentric direction and a direction of the +X axis in the right-handed coordinates is the forward direction”. However, Sotom teaches a communication satellite Fig. 5a in which a communication device has a range of +- Θm about the direction of travel and one with the reverse direction for satellites which are behind Para 0040.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Taylor by pointing one antenna in the direction of travel and one in the reverse as disclosed by Sotom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since “said field of regard 53 allows said optical terminal 51 to maintain its link with the neighbouring satellite, in particular in the polar regions when said neighbouring satellite 10 in the adjacent orbital plane 25 passes from one side of the satellite 10 in question to another” (Para 0046).
As modified, Taylor discloses a second communication device having a second visual field change range limited to the ±Θi deg around the Z axis with respect to a -X axis oriented in an opposite direction of the +X axis, Sotom, Fig. 5a, the second communication device is configured to perform communication with a satellite flying on a south side of the equatorial plane with rear facing antenna.
For claim 4, Taylor discloses the communication satellite according to claim 1, comprising:
a second communication device configured to communicate with a communication satellite flying in front on a same orbital plane Fig. 9: links 920 for connecting to a satellite in front in the same orbit; and
a third communication device configured to communicate with a communication satellite flying behind on the same orbital plane Fig. 9: links 920 for connecting to a satellite behind in the same orbit.
For claim 5, Taylor discloses a satellite constellation, comprising:
eight or more communication satellites that fly on a same orbital plane Col 4, lines 47-48: “Each orbital plane holds eleven communication satellites 12” and form an annular communication network, wherein
each of the communication satellites includes:
a second communication device configured to communicate with a communication satellite flying in front on the same orbital plane Fig. 9: constant annular communication links 920, and
a third communication device to communicate with a communication satellite flying behind on the same orbital plane Fig. 9: constant annular communication links 920, and
at least one of the eight or more communication satellites is a communication satellite according to claim 1 see claim 1.
For claim 6, Taylor discloses an inter-satellite communication method, comprising:
forming, with respect to an orbital plane of a first communication satellite Fig. 1: orbital plane 31 of satellite 12, an orbital plane of a second communication satellite orbital plane 32 with satellite 12 with a different normal vector in a longitude direction different orbital plane and therefore different normal vector, and
causing, when the first communication satellite passes a first right ascension of a first ascending node Fig. 9 shows all positions of satellites from 0-360 degrees mean anomaly, therefore including the right ascension of the ascending node (RAAN), the second communication satellite to fly on a north side of the equator and continue communication between different orbital planes for one revolution or more adjacent satellites (915) in adjacent orbital planes (1-6) maintain constant communication (at least partially through links 930), including when one satellite is north of the equator as the other passes a RAAN (Col 16, line 44 – Col 17, line 5), wherein
the first communication satellite is a communication satellite that flies in a first forward direction in a first orbit with a first orbital inclination of Θi1 deg with respect to an equatorial plane Col 4, lines 65-67: “Additionally, it is applicable to orbits having any angle of inclination (e.g., polar, equatorial or other orbital pattern)” and includes a first communication device Fig. 2: antenna 210 which “can comprise several antennas” (Col 7, line 65), so each antenna is a communication device having a first visual field change range limited to ± the Θi1 deg around a first Z axis with respect to a first +X axis the antenna has some communication range, and whatever it is, the satellite can be placed in an orbit which is equivalent to it, therefore the functional limitation is met, ,
when passing the first right ascension of the first ascending node, the first communication satellite performs communication with a satellite flying on a north side of the equatorial plane in an orbit that is adjacent in a longitude direction of a normal vector of an orbital plane of the first orbit with the first orbital inclination of the Θi1 deg adjacent satellites (915) in adjacent orbital planes (1-6) maintain constant communication (930), including when one satellite is north of the equator as the other passes a RAAN (Col 16, line 44 – Col 17, line 5),
the second communication satellite is a communication satellite that flies in a second forward direction in a second orbit with a second orbital inclination of Θi2 deg with respect to the equatorial plane Col 4, lines 65-67: “Additionally, it is applicable to orbits having any angle of inclination (e.g., polar, equatorial or other orbital pattern)” and includes a communication device Fig. 2: antenna 210 which “can comprise several antennas” (Col 7, line 65), so each antenna is a communication device having a second visual field change range limited to ± the Θi2 deg around a second Z axis with respect to a second -X axis oriented in an opposite direction of a second +X axis the antenna has a communication range, and whatever it is, the satellite can be placed in an orbit which is equivalent to it, therefore the functional limitation is met; as shown in Figs. 1 and 9, each satellite communication device communicates simultaneously with a satellite in a forward and backward direction with respect to the direction of movement (+X); additionally each satellite also communicates with the satellites in the adjacent orbits on the right and left,
when passing a second right ascension of a second ascending node, the second communication satellite performs communication with a satellite flying on a south side of the equatorial plane in an orbit that is adjacent in the longitude direction of the normal vector of an orbital plane of the orbit with the second orbital inclination of the Θi2 deg adjacent satellites (915) in adjacent orbital planes (1-6) maintain constant communication (930), including when one satellite is south of the equator as the other passes a RAAN (Col 16, line 44 – Col 17, line 5).
Taylor fails to teach what direction the multiple antennas face and therefore fails to teach the limitation “where a direction of the Z axis direction oriented in a plus direction in right-handed coordinates is a geocentric direction and a direction of the +X axis in the right-handed coordinates is the forward direction”. However, Sotom teaches a communication satellite Fig. 5a in which the communication device has a range of +- Θm about the direction of travel and in the reverse direction for satellites which are behind Para 0040.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Taylor by pointing one antenna in the direction of travel and one in the reverse as disclosed by Sotom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since “said field of regard 53 allows said optical terminal 51 to maintain its link with the neighbouring satellite, in particular in the polar regions when said neighbouring satellite 10 in the adjacent orbital plane 25 passes from one side of the satellite 10 in question to another” (Para 0046).
For claim 7, Taylor discloses the satellite constellation according to claim 5, further comprising a plurality of orbital planes Fig. 9 , wherein
each of the plurality of orbital planes includes the eight or more communication satellites that form a corresponding annular communication network Col 4, lines 47-48: “Each orbital plane holds eleven communication satellites 12”,
communication is performed between the first communication satellite and a second communication satellite such that the plurality of annular communication networks are connected via communications between adjacent orbits Fig. 9,
the first communication satellite is a communication satellite that flies in a first forward direction in a first orbit with a first orbital inclination of Θi1 deg with respect to an equatorial plane and includes a first communication device having a first visual field change range limited to + the Θi1 deg around a first Z axis with respect to a first +X axis, where a direction of the first Z axis oriented in a plus direction in right-handed coordinates is a first geocentric direction and a direction of the first +X axis in the right-handed coordinates is the first forward direction as in claim 1 (this claim depends from claim 5, in which at least one of the satellites is a satellite as in claim 1),
when passing a first right ascension of the first ascending node, the first communication satellite performs communication with a satellite flying on a north side of the equatorial plane in an orbit that is adjacent in a longitude direction of a normal vector of an orbital plane of the first orbit with the first orbital inclination of the Θi1 deg as in claim 1,
the second communication satellite is a communication satellite that flies in a second forward direction in a second orbit with a second orbital inclination of Θi2 deg with respect to the equatorial plane and includes a communication device having a second visual field change range limited to +- the Θi2 deg around a second Z axis with respect to a second -X axis oriented in an opposite direction of a second +X axis, where a direction of the second Z axis oriented in a plus direction in right-handed coordinates is a second geocentric direction and a direction of the second +X axis in the right-handed coordinates is the second forward direction as in claim 1, and
when passing a second right ascension of a second ascending node the second communication satellite performs communication with a satellite flying on a south side of the equatorial plane in an orbit that is adjacent in a longitude direction of a normal vector of an orbital plane of the orbit with the second orbital inclination of the Θi2 deg as in claim 1.
For claim 8, Taylor discloses the intersatellite communication method according to claim 6, wherein
eight or more communication satellites that fly on a same orbital plane and form an annular communication network Col 4, lines 47-48: “Each orbital plane holds eleven communication satellites 12”,
each of the communication satellites includes:
a third communication device configured to communicate with a communication satellite flying in front on the same orbital plane Fig. 9: links 920 for connecting to a satellite in front in the same orbit, and
a fourth communication device configured to communicate with a communication satellite flying behind on the same orbital plane Fig. 9: links 920 for connecting to a satellite behind in the same orbit,
communications between all orbital planes continue while a satellite makes one revolution or more in an orbit Fig. 9: consistent comms.
For claim 9, Taylor discloses the inter-satellite communication method according to claim 6, further comprising:
distributing eight or more orbital planes Col 4, lines 45-50: “six orbital planes… However, this is not essential and more or fewer satellites, or more or fewer orbital planes, can be used” having different normal vectors in the longitude direction different orbital planes and therefore they have different normal vectors and are distributed as in Fig. 1, and
forming a communication network in which communication circuits are connected around the earth in a full circle with respect to the longitude direction Fig. 9: constant communication via 920/930.
For claim 10, Taylor discloses a satellite constellation, wherein
a plurality of the communication satellites according to claim 3 fly on a same orbital plane and form an annular communication network Fig. 9,
a plurality of annular communication networks formed in a flying direction between a plurality of orbital planes having different normal vectors in a longitude direction are connected via a plurality of communication circuits in the longitude direction around the earth in a full circle thus forming a mesh communication network Fig. 9.
For claim 11, Taylor discloses the communication satellite according to claim 1, wherein the communication device is an optical communication device Col 7, lines 61-62: “Crosslink antenna unit 210 can be a radio frequency (RF) device or a laser device”.
For claim 12, Taylor discloses the communication satellite according to claim 4, wherein communication devices on the same orbital plane are optical communication devices Col 7, lines 61-62: “Crosslink antenna unit 210 can be a radio frequency (RF) device or a laser device”.
For claim 13, Taylor discloses an artificial satellite comprising a monitoring device Col 10, lines 28-29: “missions performed by mission critical subsystems are optical monitoring of the earth or communications relaying” and communication devices to communicate with front and rear satellites on a same orbital plane, wherein the artificial satellite transmits monitoring information over the mesh communication network formed by the satellite constellation according to claim 10 see claim 10, which includes the satellite according to claim 3 with said comms devices.
Taylor fails to disclose that the monitoring device is infrared. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by using infrared instead of optical for the monitoring feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide thermal data of the area being monitored.
For claim 14, Taylor discloses an artificial satellite comprising at least either of an optical monitoring device Col 10, lines 28-29: “missions performed by mission critical subsystems are optical monitoring of the earth or communications relaying” and a radio wave monitoring device and communication devices to communicate with front and rear communication satellites on a same orbital plane, wherein the artificial satellite transmits monitoring information over the mesh communication network formed by the satellite constellation according to claim 10 see claim 10, which includes the satellite according to claim 3 with said comms devices.
For claim 15, Taylor discloses an artificial satellite comprising:
an air-to-ground communication device to communicate with a flying object coping device deployed on land, in sea or air, or on ground Col 4, lines 26-28: “at least one satellite of the cluster of satellites communicates with at least one ground device over a downlink”; Fig. 1: earth terminals 24 with links 15; and
communication devices to communicate with front and rear satellites on a same orbital plane see claims 10/3, wherein
the artificial satellite transmits monitoring information over the mesh communication network formed by the satellite constellation according to claim 10 crosslinks 21/23.
For claim 16, Taylor discloses a ground facility to transmit control signals to communication satellites constituting the satellite constellation according to claim 10 and to send and receive information Fig. 1: earth terminals 24 with control center 22.
For claim 17, Taylor discloses the communication satellite according to claim 2, comprising:
a second communication device configured to communicate with a communication satellite flying in front on a same orbital plane Fig. 9: links 920 for connecting to a satellite in front in the same orbit; and
a third communication device configured to communicate with a communication satellite flying behind on the same orbital plane Fig. 9: links 920 for connecting to a satellite in front in the same orbit.
For claim 18, Taylor discloses the communication satellite according to claim 3, comprising:
a third communication device to communicate with a communication satellite flying in front on a same orbital plane Fig. 9: links 920 for connecting to a satellite in front in the same orbit; and
a fourth communication device to communicate with a communication satellite flying behind on the same orbital plane Fig. 9: links 920 for connecting to a satellite in front in the same orbit; Col 13, lines 30-34: “Each satellite supports in-plane forward and aft links for communicating with each of its intra-planar neighbors. In addition, each satellite has two additional cross-links for communicating with satellites in adjacent planes”.
For claim 19, Taylor discloses the communication satellite according to claim 1, wherein
the communication satellite is a first communication satellite Fig. 1, 9,
the satellite flying on the north side is a second communication satellite Fig. 1, 9, and
the first communication satellite communicates with the second communication satellite by rotating a visual field direction to - the Θi deg over the right ascension of a descending node in light of the 112, this is interpreted as the direction of the communication link is able to rotate within ± the Θi deg from the + to the – side; this is provided as modified by Sotom, “said field of regard 53 allows said optical terminal 51 to maintain its link with the neighbouring satellite, in particular in the polar regions when said neighbouring satellite 10 in the adjacent orbital plane 25 passes from one side of the satellite 10 in question to another” (Para 0046).
For claim 20, Taylor discloses the communication satellite according to claim 19, wherein the first communication satellite is configured to rotate the visual field direction while maintaining flying in the forward direction in the orbit with the orbital inclination of the Θi deg with respect to the equatorial plane in light of the 112, this is interpreted as the direction of the communication link is able to rotate within ± the Θi deg range; this is provided as modified by Sotom, “said field of regard 53 allows said optical terminal 51 to maintain its link with the neighbouring satellite, in particular in the polar regions when said neighbouring satellite 10 in the adjacent orbital plane 25 passes from one side of the satellite 10 in question to another” (Para 0046).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642