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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) because of the following informalities:
In ¶48, line 6, "UVAs" should be replaced by --UAVs--.
In ¶48, line 10, "UVAs" should be replaced by --UAVs--.
In ¶61, line 3, "mor" should be replaced by --more--.
In ¶61, line 8, "USs" should be replaced by --UEs--.
In ¶88, line 2, "proving" should be replaced by --providing--.
In ¶197, line 1, "overtime" should be replaced by --over time--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-23 is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, "(NTN )" should be replaced by --(NTN)--. Claims 3-4 and 6-9 are dependent on claim 1.
In claim 10, line 4, "(NTN )" should be replaced by --(NTN)--. Claims 3-4 and 6-9 are dependent on claim 1. Claims 11-19 are dependent on claim 10.
In claim 17, line 1 "T(original) he" should be replaced by --(original) The--.
In claim 20, line 2, "(NTN )" should be replaced by --(NTN)--. Claims 3-4 and 6-9 are dependent on claim 1. Claims 21-23 are dependent on claim 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Determan (US 2017/0019814 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Determan discloses a method, comprising:
determining beam configurations corresponding to a sequence of locations along an orbit of a satellite by a controller at the satellite in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (¶77, “For inclined satellite orbits (e.g., Walker constellations) the east to west orientation of the major axes of the satellite beams may be maintained by yaw steering of the satellites, or otherwise rotating the antenna so as to rotate the beam pattern during each orbit”; Claim 10, "A satellite comprising: an antenna; a transponder coupled to the antenna; and a satellite controller configured to control the transponder so that the antenna forms a beam pattern comprising a set of beams in a footprint of the satellite"); and applying, by the controller, the beam configurations at each of the sequence of locations successively to control an antenna array to transmit respective beams to cover a target service area while the satellite is flying along the orbit, wherein the controller determines the beam configurations in a way that a variation of beam footprints of the beams is minimized to realize a constant beam footprint corresponding to the target service area (¶70, “a plurality of NGSO satellites are typically deployed to form an NGSO satellite constellation, with each of the NGSO satellites providing coverage for a corresponding path across the Earth's surface. For example, the NGSO satellite 620(2) is depicted as directing beam 621(1) towards a first coverage area 622(1) on the Earth's surface, and the NGSO satellite 620(1) is depicted as directing beam 621(2) towards a second coverage area 622(2) on the Earth's surface” where a beam is meant to cover a specific area where there will be little to no variation in maintaining coverage i.e., the location and size; Claim 10, "A satellite comprising: an antenna; a transponder coupled to the antenna; and a satellite controller configured to control the transponder so that the antenna forms a beam pattern comprising a set of beams in a footprint of the satellite"; ¶75, “The beams are oriented so that the contour of each beam on the ground (e.g. the 3 dB down contour) has its long axis (major axis) oriented east to west, and its short axis (minor axis) oriented north to south” where the variation is minimized in that the long axis is maintained in an east-west direction).
In regard to claim 13, Determan further discloses determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on an interference to a neighboring cell of the target service area, wherein, when the interference to the neighboring cell is greater than a threshold, the controller determines to shrink the beam footprint size (¶72, “As discussed above, the interference, at any point on the Earth's surface visible from the geostationary orbit, produced by emissions from all the space stations of a non-geostationary-satellite system must not exceed the limits described in the ITU Radio Regulations Article 22. Exceeding these limits could interfere with the operation of geostationary-satellite (GSO) Earth stations. NGSO satellites must reduce power or cease transmitting over areas of the Earth's surface where these limits would be exceeded”).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP TR 38.821.
In regard to claim 24, 3GPP TR 38.821 discloses:
measuring, by a user equipment (UE), a reference signal transmitted via a
beam from a satellite to obtain measurement results (p. 98, section 7.3.2.2.2, 1st bullet; p. 99, 1st row of table) [where p. 99, 1st row, 1st column makes it clear that the UE measures the reference signal/performs channel estimation];
determining an elevation angle of the satellite (p. 98, section 7.3.2.2.2, 5th bullet; p. 100, 2nd row of table) [where p. 100, second row, 2nd column makes it clear that the UE determines the elevation angle]; and
transmitting assistance information to the satellite, the assistance information including the measurement results and the elevation angle (p. 94, Fig. 7.3.2.1.1-1, UE transmitting Measurement report to Source gNB, where Source gNB makes Network decision on handover; p. 123, ¶3 under the figure) [where Source gNB is the current serving satellite (and Target gNB is the satellite that will become the serving satellite after handover); where the serving satellite makes the handover decision (p. 94); where the handover decision is based on a measurement-based trigger and an elevation angle (p. 98), which are based on the channel estimation and the elevation angle (p. 98-100), both of which are determined by the UE (p. 99-100), these measurements are included in the Measurement report; and where p. 98, section 7.3.2.2.2, 5th bullet states that an elevation angle based handover trigger may be combined with another trigger, e.g., the measurement-based trigger from the 1st bullet].
In regard to claim 25, 3GPP TR 38.821 discloses the assistance information further includes at least one of:
a required service time for a service provided by the satellite (p. 98, section 7.3.2.2.2, 3rd bullet; p. 99, 3rd row of table) [where a beam is required to provide service to a cell for a particular time period, after which the next beam takes over, corresponding to mandatory handover to the new beam],
a UE preference indicating a list of cell identifiers (IDs) the UE prefers to utilize, and
an indication whether the UE continues to use a current beam serving the UE.
In regard to claim 26, 3GPP TR 38.821 discloses when a steering angle of a serving beam from the satellite reaches a predefined threshold, deprioritizing or excluding the serving beam for cell reselection, and performing cell reselection to camp on a neighbor cell of another beam transmitted by another satellite (p. 98, section 7.3.2.2.2, 5th bullet; p. 100, 2nd row of table).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US 2017/0019814 A1) in view of Kumar (US 2020/0137714 A1).
Determan further discloses determining a beam configuration.
Determan fails to disclose wherein the determination of the beam configurations is based on a beambook including a list of beam configurations each corresponding to a beam configuration reference.
Kumar teaches:
Wherein the determination of the beam configurations is based on a beambook including a list of beam configurations each corresponding to a beam configuration reference (¶6, “In some aspects, the beam support information comprises at least one of: a number of beams supported at each cell of the plurality of cells, information to identify each beam of the number of beams supported at the each cell, beam width information of the each beam, or Positioning reference Signals (PRS) codebook information which encapsulates the beams which are enabled along various elevation and azimuth angles”).
Determan discloses a satellite forming beams and pointing them in order to cover an area and the use of ephemeris data for UE communication, but it does not disclose the satellite using a beambook/codebook, more specifically a beambook with steering angles. Kumar discloses a codebook (tantamount to a beambook) with angles that can service certain areas that Determan can use to steer its beam. The use of the codebook would expedite the beamforming as there would be premade configurations of where to point the beam based on what area needs to be served and the satellites location (ephemeris). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Determan with Kumar so that its beamforming would be faster and/or more efficient.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US 2017/0019814 A1) in view of Marupaduga (US 10,321,334 B1).
Determan fails to disclose determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on a number of users equipment (UEs) in an area affected by adjusting the beam footprint, wherein, when a number of connected-mode UE in the area is greater than a threshold, the controller determines not to adjust the beam footprint.
Marupaduga teaches:
Determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on a number of user equipment (UEs) in an area affected by adjusting the beam footprint, wherein, when a number of connected-mode UE in the area is greater than a threshold, the controller determines not to adjust the beam footprint (Column 14 Lines 51-53, "In some aspects, the beamforming determiner 445 may determine that one or more network footprints should be adjusted at predetermined times"; Column 14 Lines 59-67, "In some aspects, times for adjusting one or more network footprints may be predetermined based on historical patterns of UE network performance and/or the historical number of active UEs within an area of the wireless telecommunications network. For example, if during the day, certain areas have an increase in UEs during typical business hours and a decrease of UEs after business hours, a predetermined adjustment time may be based on this historical increase or decrease of UEs in the area"; Column 15 Lines 3-11, "For example, a sporting event scheduled for a Sunday afternoon may attract a larger number of people than would normally be located within a given area of a wireless telecommunications network, and as such, there may be an increase in the number of UEs in the area of the sporting event at the time of the event. Thus, the wireless telecommunications carrier may input predetermined times to adjust the network signal in the wireless telecommunications network" where the threshold of a large number of people guarantees maintaining the beam at that time).
Determan and Marupaduga are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses footprints for users and maintaining a constant footprint but does not disclose a footprint based on the number of users. If there are a lot of users in a particular area it would be advantageous to maintain or improve the beam for that area so that the users don’t lose service. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Determan with Marupaduga so make sure a beam is not changed when a lot of users are depending on said beam.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US 2017/0019814 A1) in view of Ijaz (US 2025/0088256 A1).
Determan fails to disclose determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on a signal quality measured by a UE served by a current beam of the satellite, wherein when the signal quality is below a threshold and the UE is in an area affected by the adjusting the beam footprint, the controller initiates a handover to another beam or cell for the UE and shrinks the beam footprint, and when the signal quality is below a threshold and the UE is not in the area affected by the adjusting the beam footprint, the controller determines to shrink the beam footprint.
Ijaz teaches:
Determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on a signal quality measured by a UE served by a current beam of the satellite, wherein when the signal quality is below a threshold and the UE is in an area affected by the adjusting the beam footprint, the controller initiates a handover to another beam or cell for the UE and shrinks the beam footprint, and when the signal quality is below a threshold and the UE is not in the area affected by the adjusting the beam footprint, the controller determines to shrink the beam footprint (¶63, “In more detail, the UE 3 performs measurements on candidate beams for beam selection and initiates beam switching only if the quality of a reference signal in the current beam is below a certain threshold and the UE 3 has determined that it is within (or it is approaching) a coverage region of another beam based on the resource set being measured. The UE 3 indicates the strongest beam (i.e. the best candidate for switching) to the base station 6, based on the measurements performed on reference signals transmitted via that beam (and any other beams in the candidate set) where this action can be performed by a satellite”).
Determan and Ijaz are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses footprints for users but does not disclose adjusting the beam based on signal quality or whether or not users would be affected by switching. Clearly if there is low signal quality the user is not having a favorable experience so to provide good service it is reasonable to change the beam. Additionally, if a beam is going to be adjusted/closed, checking if a user would be affected would help to provide a good experience. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Determan with Ijaz so that Determan can adjust its beams to facility high quality service and confirming that in adjusting its beams a user is not left without service.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US 2017/0019814 A1) in view of Pezeshki (US 2020/0329395 A1).
Determan fails to disclose determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on a preference of a UE, wherein when the UE is in an area affected by adjusting the beam footprint and prefers using a current beam of the satellite, the controller determines not to adjust the beam footprint.
Pezeshki discloses:
Determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on a preference of a UE, wherein when the UE is in an area affected by adjusting the beam footprint and prefers using a current beam of the satellite, the controller determines not to adjust the beam footprint (¶45, "The base station may select beams from the UE beam preferences, or the base station may ignore the UE beam preferences and select different beams to transmit. If the indication of beam preferences includes non-preferred beams, then the base station may remove the non-preferred beams from the set of active beams").
Determan and Pezeshki are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses footprints for users but does not disclose adjusting the beam based on user preference. As communication systems are a service in order to provide a positive user experience it would be beneficial to considered the users preference as they may have a specific experience/situation that the standard service has not anticipated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Determan with Pezeshki so that Determan can adjust its beams in accordance with user preference so that Determan can provide a positive user experience.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US 2017/0019814 A1) in view of Yao (US 2021/0119695 A1).
Determan fails to disclose determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on how many beams being used to serve a UE in an area affected by adjusting the beam footprint, wherein when a current beam of the satellite is the only beam to serve the UE, the controller determines not to shrink the beam footprint.
Yao teaches:
Determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on how many beams being used to serve a UE in an area affected by adjusting the beam footprint, wherein when a current beam of the satellite is the only beam to serve the UE, the controller determines not to shrink the beam footprint (¶22, “At step 304 , if no access signal is detected in response to the WBs 214 broadcast, the base station 100 returns to step 300 where it continues to monitor. When a UE or UEs, not belonging to any of the active cells (ACs) within the group, is detected by the eNodeB (or gNB) associated with a WB 214 , step 304 , one or more IABs 212 b are formed by the satellite 120, via the beamforming coefficients and the beam boresight uplinked from the base station 100 , to cover all the IACs within the cluster of the cells covered by that WB to locate the UE(s) to a specific cell”).
Determan and Yao are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses footprints for users but does not specify adjusting the beam so that a user is not left without service. If a beam has to be switched/adjusted for any reason it is beneficial to make sure that this switch does not leave a user without service, as this is a vital part of providing good service. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Determan with Yao to make sure that when a beam needs to be adjusted/switched it does not leave a user without service, to facilitate providing good service.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US 2017/0019814 A1) in view of Go (WO 2020/204675 A1).
Determan fails to disclose determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on a network preference, the network preference including one of a preference based on a user service subscription, a preference based on a service priority, and a type of a service.
Go teaches:
Determining whether to apply one of the beam configurations to adjust a beam footprint based on a network preference, the network preference including one of a preference based on a user service subscription, a preference based on a service priority, and a type of a service (Page 21 lines 8-10, "In addition, a specific/separate UE capability reporting operation may be performed on whether two or more candidate UL beams can be defined/configured. The two or more candidate UL beams may be defined/set in a form of priority such as first preference, second preference, and third preference"; Page 21 lines 14-17, "As an example, the above embodiment can be applied in a special situation in which a beam indication by UL beam preference of a base station is not absolute. Specifically, based on the above embodiment, the UE may determine a UE preference UL beam by itself (and/or as part of a UE-assisted/aided/triggered beam management operation)" where the UE, base station and beam management operation are parts of the network).
Determan and Go are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses footprints for users but does not specify adjusting the beam in accordance with a network preference. When a satellite uses the network preferences it can facilitate superior reliability of the signal and a more efficient use of resources. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Determan with Go so that Determan can use the network preferences for a more efficient use of resources and facilitate an improved reliability for the signal.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US 2017/0019814 A1) in view of Ramachandra (US 2024/0244499 A1).
Determan fails to disclose transmitting a command to a connected-mode UE in the target service area when a steering angle of a current beam of the satellite reaches a predefined angle, the command including: a conditional handover configuration command, a handover command, or a release message that includes one of a time when a service of the current beam is to stop, an inactive timer for the UE to go into a sleep state, and a set of satellite ephemeris information of one or more satellites.
Ramachandra teaches:
Transmitting a command to a connected-mode UE in the target service area when a steering angle of a current beam of the satellite reaches a predefined angle, the command including: a conditional handover configuration command (¶3, “An RRC_CONNECTED UE in LTE (also called EUTRA) can be configured by the network to perform measurements and, upon triggering measurement reports the network may send a handover command to the UE (where the handover command is conveyed by a mobilityControlInfo IE”; ¶86, “In some examples the request includes CU configuring certain event configuration to the DU. Upon fulfilling the event condition, the DU sends the mobility state report to the CU. The event may comprise one or more of the following…”; ¶89, “When a UE changes direction with by certain amount (e.g. estimated angle) or changes from one direction to another direction within a set of predefined directions, for example ±x, ±y, ±z, ±v, etc.”; ¶79, “A non-terrestrial network (NTN) comprises communications satellites and network nodes. The network nodes may be terrestrial or satellite based. For example, the network node may be a satellite gateway or a satellite based base station, e.g. gNB.” where a satellite can be a distributed unit or a centralized unit and the handoff command based on a UE beam angle is tantamount to the satellite beam angle in relation to the UE ), a handover command, or a release message that includes one of a time when a service of the current beam is to stop, an inactive timer for the UE to go into a sleep state, and a set of satellite ephemeris information of one or more satellites.
Determan and Ramachandra are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses footprints for users and handoff control but does not disclose handoff commands based on angles. If a user is moving relative to a satellite in such a way where it would lose service it would be beneficial to have a handoff command such that the beams can be adjusted and the user can maintain service. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Determan with Ramachandra to issue a handoff command based on the users position relative to the satellite so that the user can maintain service.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US 2017/0019814 A1) in view of Ramachandra (US 2024/0244499 A1) further in view of Yun (US 2020/0178135 A1) further in view of Proctor (US 2001/0031648 A1).
Determan further discloses broadcasting a set of satellite ephemeris information of one or more satellites (¶48, “The time and frequency information may be used to synchronize the various components of the gateway 200 with each other and/or with the satellite 300 . The local time, frequency, and position references 251 may also provide position information (e.g., ephemeris data) of the satellite 300 to the various components of the gateway 200” where it could also provide the same information to a UE).
Determan fails to disclose broadcasting system information to an idle-mode or inactive-mode UE in the target service area when a steering angle of a current beam of the satellite reaches a predefined angle, the system information including one of a time when a service of the current beam is to stop, an inactive timer for the UE to go into a sleep state.
Ramachandra teaches:
Broadcasting a signal when the satellite reaches a predefined angle (¶3, “An RRC_CONNECTED UE in LTE (also called EUTRA) can be configured by the network to perform measurements and, upon triggering measurement reports the network may send a handover command to the UE (where the handover command is conveyed by a mobilityControlInfo IE”; ¶86, “In some examples the request includes CU configuring certain event configuration to the DU. Upon fulfilling the event condition, the DU sends the mobility state report to the CU. The event may comprise one or more of the following…”; ¶89, “When a UE changes direction with by certain amount (e.g. estimated angle) or changes from one direction to another direction within a set of predefined directions, for example ±x, ±y, ±z, ±v, etc.”; ¶79, “A non-terrestrial network (NTN) comprises communications satellites and network nodes. The network nodes may be terrestrial or satellite based. For example, the network node may be a satellite gateway or a satellite based base station, e.g. gNB.” where a satellite can be a distributed unit or a centralized unit and the UE beam angle is tantamount to the satellite beam angle in relation to the UE ).
Determan and Ramachandra are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses communication with UE but does not specify that it is based on an angle. If the satellite is physically incapable of transmitting a signal to a UE, i.e. the angle is too steep, it would be beneficial to only transmit when it is physically able in order to be operationally efficient. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Determan with Ramachandra to improve the efficiency of the satellite by it only transmitting to its signal can be received.
Yun teaches:
Broadcasting system information to an idle-mode or inactive-mode UE in the target service area, the system information including one of a time when a service of the current beam is to stop (¶84, “The base station (e.g., the base station 511) may inform the existing terminals (including connected terminals, idle terminals, and inactive terminals) of a time point of changing the satellite, a time (e.g., system frame number (SFN), coordinated universal time (UTC), or GPS time) required to change the satellite, a time point of resuming the service, or an estimated time (e.g., SFN, UTC, or GPS time) required to resume the service by using system information or a dedicated signal” where with the start time and timing of changing the satellites it can also provide stop time).
Determan and Yun are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses communication with UE but does not specify idle UE, and it does not specifically disclose providing start/stop times. Providing the start/stop times to an idle UE can be beneficial in that it can determine when the UE checks for a new signal, which would make it power efficient. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Determan with Yun to provide timing information to an idle UE so that it can be power efficient.
Proctor teaches:
Broadcasting an inactive timer for the UE to go into a sleep state (¶55, "In the idle or active mode, a timer can be set upon the occurrence of a specified event and a rescan initiated when the timer has expired").
Determan and Proctor are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses communication with UE but does not specify an idle timer. An idle timer is useful for optimizing the use of various resources, so that a UE does not waste power looking for a satellite that isn’t there. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Determan with Proctor so that Determan can use a timer to optimize the performance of the UE.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Rune (US 2025/0350354 A1), which teaches a particular communication satellite cell footprint defined by size, shape, and border location (¶123-124).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, and 20-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance/Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance/allowable subject matter:
The references cited, alone or in combination, do not teach or make obvious the following limitation(s):
quoted from claim 1, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"based on the beam steering angle, determining the respective beam configuration based on the beambook that includes a list of beam steering angles each associated with a beam configuration, wherein each beam configuration on the list of beam configurations includes a set of beamforming parameters for antenna elements of an antenna array, the set of beamforming parameters including at least one of an on/off indication, an amplitude and a phase, or an amplitude and a delay for respective antenna elements, and wherein the initial beam configuration is selected to control a beamwidth of the beam so that a beam footprint corresponding to the target service area is within a threshold size; and applying the initial beam configuration to control an antenna array to transmit a beam to cover a target service area".
quoted from claim 20, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"determining, for a satellite in a non-terrestrial network (NTN ), a beam book including a list of beam configurations corresponding to a sequence of locations along an orbit of the satellite, each beam configuration corresponding to a beam configuration reference, the beam configurations at each of the sequence of locations, when applied, causing an antenna array of the satellite to successively transmit respective beams to cover a target service area while the satellite is flying along the orbit".
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 9-25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 10-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues "Determan's beam configuration does not teach/result in minimizing footprint variations.". However, ¶77 shows that Determan minimizes footprint variations with respect to footprint orientation. See also Fig. 7 and ¶76. While applicant refers to footprint size, shape, and border location, it is noted that there is no limitation in the claim requiring the minimizing footprint variations with respect to footprint size, shape, and border location. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Determan does not teach a constant beam footprint. However, in ¶77 Determan discloses "the east to west orientation of the major axes of the satellite beams may be maintained", i.e., be kept constant. Thus, the beam footprint is constant in orientation.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 9-25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, and 20-23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) of these claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 9-25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 24-26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
New prior art rejection(s) have been added. Thus, this action is non-final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights