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 Amendment
The amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 13, 14-26 are pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues “First, Kumar is about "Positioning Reference Signals (PRS)". It uses angle-based codebooks to help a UE figure out where it is (positioning). In the broadest reading, Kumar mentions codebooks with angles, it uses them for Positioning Reference Signals (PRS) (i.e., helping a device find its own location), not for the claimed forward-link beam management logic. In particular, Kumar describes "beam support information" including, among other things, beam locations, beam identifiers, possibly azimuth/elevation values, and CSI codebook information. But Kumar still operates in the same measurement-driven NR framework, where UEs and base stations use codebook indices for beam operations. Kumar does not teach using a geometry-derived steering angle-computed from satellite position and service-area geometry-as a lookup key into a steering-angle-indexed table of configurations, nor does Kumar teach a beambook constructed to maintain a constant beam footprint in an NTN context.” In Determan, the satellites communicate with UE devices and are non geosynchronized, this means that for this invention to function (i.e. communication between satellite and UE) the UE has to be given the ephemeris data (Paragraph 0032, “an example of a satellite communication system 100 which includes a plurality of satellites (although only one satellite 300 is shown for clarity of illustration) in non-geosynchronous orbits (NGSO), for example, low-earth orbits (LEO), a gateway 200 in communication with the satellite 300, a plurality of user terminals (UTs) 400 and 401 in communication with the satellite 300, and a plurality of user equipment (UE) 500 and 501 in communication with the UTs 400 and 401, respectively. Each UE 500 or 501 may be a user device such as a mobile device”; Paragraph 0003, “Conventional satellite-based communication systems include gateways and one or more satellites to relay communication signals between the gateways and one or more user terminals. A gateway is an Earth station having an antenna for transmitting signals to, and receiving signals from, communication satellites. A gateway provides communication links, using satellites, for connecting a user terminal to other user terminals or users of other communication systems”; Paragraph 0049, “the gateway controller 250 may also be coupled to a network control center (NCC) and/or a satellite control center (SCC). For example, the gateway controller 250 may allow the SCC to communicate directly with the satellite 300, for example, to retrieve ephemeris data from the satellite 300”). Determan discloses directing a beam, and therefore controlling its angle, to cover an area, (Paragraph 0070, “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”). Paragraph 0077 of Determan also discusses how the beam is steered to maintain its orientation and therefore coverage of an area. With the above the Examiner interprets this information as Determan using information based on the satellite’s location for its beam operations. Determan does not disclose an angle in a beam book.
Kumar discusses beams that support communication with certain cells based in part on the angles in the satellite’s orbit that are able to transmit to that cell. The system knows which beams (and their angles) that can support an area based off the codebook (Paragraph 0006, “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”) as the beam that is chosen for communication is based on what is physically possible, that requires knowledge of which satellites (location) are available to transmit. This is information that is provided in Determan ephemeris data.
Together, the Examiner understands Determan as disclosing a satellite to UE communication system that requires the use of an ephemeris which details the satellite’s location. The satellite directs and therefore controls the angle of its beam to cover an area, where covering an area includes maintaining location and size. Determan can then add the teachings of Kumar which disclose a codebook which details what angles that are possible for a satellite to service an area, along with other beam details. Determan can use the codebook of Kumar to make its own satellite operation more efficient through the use of premade beam configurations that cover an area (i.e. tantamount to a beambook). With the codebook, the constellation of Determan can select which satellite to use, which beam pattern and the necessary angle to maintain coverage instead of having to recalculate or generating a new beam solution from scratch.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues “Second, Determan and Lee do not fill the gap. At most, Determann describes adjusting satellite yaw so that beams remain roughly east-west oriented. This is materially different from Applicants' explicit geometry-driven steering-angle calculation for a defined service area of a particular size. Lee describes NR-style codebooks for precoding/beamforming in which a base10 station and UE use codebook indices (PMI, etc.) for beam selection based on channel measurements. The entries in those codebooks are not disclosed as a list of steering angles each associated with a configuration; rather, the index itself is the selection parameter, and any underlying angles (if present) are design parameters, not the runtime key.” Similar to the arguments above, Determan discloses directing a beam to cover an area meaning it is changing its angle and steering the yaw to maintain the orientation of the beam so that the beam is servicing the same amount of area at the same location. As stated above, Kumar covers the limitation of a beambook with angle for steering a beam to cover an area.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues “Third, there is no suggestion in Lee or Kumar to abandon their CSI-feedback-driven codebook selection mechanisms and instead use geometry-based steering-angle indices to look up configurations for earth-fixed footprint maintenance in an NTN. Simply recognizing that both terrestrial NR and satellite systems can use beams is not, by itself, a sufficient reason under §103 to combine the references in the highly specific way that yields Applicants' claimed method. For at least the reasons above, claim 1, as amended, is patentable over the cited references. Allowance for claim 1 is respectfully requested.” As the beam of Determan is already being controlled to cover an area the inclusion of a codebook would expedite the beam selection process in Determan. Lee and Kumar would not have to give up how they operate.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues “There is no teaching of ""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." The Office Action cites paragraph 0077, 0075 as teaching the element (Office Action, page 5, paragraph 1). Applicants respectfully disagree. Claim 10 recites a variation of beam footprints of the beams being minimized. Determan relies on yaw steering (rotation) solely to maintain the
orientation (East-West alignment) of the beam footprint. In particular, Determan discloses forming one beam pattern per satellite (16 beams covering the footprint); and using yaw steering and power control, but does not describe a per-orbit sequence of distinct beamforming configurations mapped to orbital locations for a particular target service area. Rotating a beam pattern does not compensate for the distortion (stretching) of the footprint size caused by the changing elevation angle of the satellite relative to the target ("flashlight effect"). In the broadest reading, Determan discloses beam orientation (major/minor axes), not controlling the location and size of a footprint for a specific target service area as the satellite moves. Determan fails to teach minimizing a variation of beam footprints of beams. Determan/s rotating a static beam shape (even if it stretches and varies in size as the satellite moves) does NOT teach a variation of beam footprints of the beams is minimized. For at least the reasons above, claim 10, as amended, is patentable over the cited references. Allowance for claim 10 is respectfully requested.” As per paragraph 0070 of Determan (Paragraph 0070, “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”) Determan discloses directing a beam to cover an area. The Examiner understand this as, if a beam is meant to cover a specific area, in this case 622(1) it will maintain its location and size as those variables help to define an area. As the location, size and orientation (Paragraph 0077) of an area are all maintained there is little to no variation in the beam footprint of that area.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues in section ‘Dependent claims 6, 7, 9, and 13’ that are allowable due to their independent claims being allowable but the independent claims remain rejected.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues “The combination of references does not form a valid 103 rejection for the reasons below. There is no teaching of "the beam book is determined so that variation of beam footprints is minimized to realize a constant beam footprint." The Office Action admits that "Determan does not disclose a beambook." (Office Action, page 13, paragraph 1). The Office Action relies on Lee as teaching this element. (Office Action, page 13, paragraph 2). Applicants respectfully disagree.
First, Lee's codebook does NOT teach the beambook, which is "corresponding to a sequence of locations along an orbit of the satellite." Lee's codebook is a /NRBS-UEin (vector/matrixquantization), not tied to satellite orbits, nor to earth-fixed service areas. There's no teaching in Lee to use codebook entries as orbit-indexed, service-area-specific beam configurations, or to associate them with time/satellite location/steering angle references as your claim requires. Simply saying "Determann has beams; Lee has a codebook; therefore Determann+Lee teaches a beambook for satellite orbits" as recited in claim 10 is impermissible hindsight. Second, The element of "variation of beam footprints is minimized to realize a constant beam footprint" is completely missing. In particular, Determann is not about earth-fixed service areas or constant footprints, and Lee is about reducing quantization error in a codebook, not about constraining beam footprints in the geographic sense. Determan, fails to teach the underlying logic of minimizing footprint variation (size/distortion) as recited in claim 10. Therefore, Determan, fails to teach the underlying logic of minimizing
footprint variation (size/distortion) as noted in Claim 10; Determan only teaches orientation maintenance. Lee is cited merely for the "codebook" storage mechanism. Adding a storage mechanism (Lee) to a system that only rotates beams (Determan) does not result in a system that minimizes footprint variation to realize a constant footprint. The inventive concept of what is stored in the book is missing from the prior art combination. For at least the reasons above, claim 20, as amended, is patentable over the cited references. Allowance for claim 20 is respectfully requested.” As per the citations from Determan (Paragraph 0070, “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”; Paragraph 0049, “Although not shown in FIG. 2 for simplicity, the gateway controller 250 may also be coupled to a network control center (NCC) and/or a satellite control center (SCC). For example, the gateway controller 250 may allow the SCC to communicate directly with the satellite 300, for example, to retrieve ephemeris data from the satellite 300”) and similar to the arguments made above, Determan discloses directing a beam to cover an area and the use of ephemeris data. The Examiner understand this as, if a beam is meant to cover a specific area, in this case 622(1) it will maintain its location and size as those variables help to define an area. Paragraph 0077 also discusses how the beam is steered to maintain its orientation and therefore coverage of an area. As the location and size and orientation of an area are all maintained there is little to no variation in the beam footprint of that area.
Lee discloses a BS that can be a satellite that is transmitting to a UE and sending codebook information that indicates the details of communication. Lee also discloses the use of beam management for communication (Paragraph 0035, "A BS herein may refer to an entity for performing resource allocation for a UE and may be at least one of a gNode B, eNode B, Node B (or xNode B, where x represents any letter including ‘g’ and ‘e’), a radio access unit, a BS controller, a satellite”; Paragraph 0066, “The BS may transmit, to the UE, AE update start time information, duration information of the updating operation, and identification information for a codebook to be used for a period during which the AE updating is performed”; Paragraph 0042, "Services considered for the beyond-5G communication system may include enhanced mobile broad band (eMBB), massive machine type communication (mMTC), and ultra-reliability low latency communication (URLLC). Beam management or support for various frequency bands is required to satisfy various services. In this case, there may be a different channel condition for each frequency band or beam"). Start time and duration are aspects of beam management. The BS (satellite) is communicating with the UE that has a location and the start time and duration would be dependent on the location (i.e., a satellite won’t transmit when there is no receiver). The codebook regards communicating with the UE, which for a satellite would be through the use of beams and the timing of the beams so that the beam actually interacts with a specific target, as such, the Examiner interprets the codebook of Lee as tantamount to a beambook. When Determan incorporates the codebook of Lee, the codebook would be following the same procedures of minimizing the footprint variations but simply in a predefined manner as to increase the beamforming efficiency. However, portions of the OA will be rewritten with Kumar to condense the use of references.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues in section ‘Dependent Claims 2, 3, 4, 11, and 22’ that the dependent claims 8, 12, 14-19, 21, 23 are allowable because their respective independent claims are allowable but the independent claims remain rejected.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 18 number 13-page 20 number 20, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 24-26 under 35 U.S.C 103 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 in view of Lee (US 20230413109).
Additionally, the remarks appear to state that claim 13 was cancelled but 13 is still in the claims document. The Examiner wasn’t sure if that was a typo or not. Claims 12, 14, and 15 are also stated to be amended but they appear in their original form in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Determan (US20170019814A1).
Regarding 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 ) (Paragraph 0077, “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 (Paragraph 0070, “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"; Paragraph 0075, “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).
Regarding claim 13 Determan further discloses (The Examiner is unsure if this claim getting cancelled was a typo so it is getting examined)
The method of claim 10, further comprising: 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 (Paragraph 0072, “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”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US20170019814A1) in view of Kumar (US 20200137714 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Determan discloses
A method, comprising: determining an initial beam configuration by a controller at a satellite in a non-terrestrial network (NTN ) (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" where one of the beams can be the initial beam); determining a beam steering angle based on a location and size of the target service area and a current location of the satellite (Paragraph 0070, “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 the satellite is changing the direction of the beam to maintain coverage of an area; Paragraph 0049, “Although not shown in FIG. 2 for simplicity, the gateway controller 250 may also be coupled to a network control center (NCC) and/or a satellite control center (SCC). For example, the gateway controller 250 may allow the SCC to communicate directly with the satellite 300, for example, to retrieve ephemeris data from the satellite 300. The gateway controller 250 may also receive processed information (e.g., from the SCC and/or the NCC) that allows the gateway controller 250 to properly aim the antennas 205 (e.g., at the satellite 300), to schedule beam transmissions, to coordinate handovers, and to perform various other well-known functions” where the gateway distributes information between the satellite and the UE); and applying the initial beam configuration to control an antenna array to transmit a beam to cover a target service area (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"). Determan does not disclose beam configuration based on a beambook including a list of beam configurations each corresponding to a beam configuration reference; and 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.
Kumar discloses
Beam configuration based on a beambook including a list of beam configurations each corresponding to a beam configuration reference (Paragraph 0006, “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”); and 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 (Paragraph 0006, “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.
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Determan and Kumar discloses
The method of claim 1. Determan discloses wherein information is derived by the controller (Paragraph 0010, “In an implementation, a satellite comprises: 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”) based on a set of beam configurations received from a gateway station, a ground station, or a telemetry, tracking and command (TT&C) system (Paragraph 0003, “A gateway is an Earth station having an antenna for transmitting signals to, and receiving signals from, communication satellites. A gateway provides communication links, using satellites, for connecting a user terminal to other user terminals or users of other communication systems”). Determan does not disclose a beambook or information for a beambook being received for beamforming.
Kumar discloses
A beambook or information for a beambook being received for beamforming (Paragraph 0006, “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 servicing an area, communicating with user terminals which in turn communicate with UE, and the use of a gateway, but it does not disclose the use of beambook or sending beambook information. If the gateway of Determan could receive relevant beam information on the cells/area that needs to be serviced it would make beamforming more efficient as a beam solution won’t need to be recreated from scratch. 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 they satellite can use a codebook the beamforming can be more efficient and/or faster.
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Determan and Kumar discloses
The method of claim 1. Determan discloses and information received from a gateway station, a ground station, or a TT&C system. Determan does not disclose wherein the beambook is received.
Kumar discloses
Wherein the beambook is received (Paragraph 0006, “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 servicing an area, communicating with user terminals which in turn communicate with UE, and the use of a gateway, but it does not disclose the use of beambook or sending beambook information. If the gateway of Determan could receive relevant beam information on the cells/area that needs to be serviced it would make beamforming more efficient as a beam solution won’t need to be recreated from scratch. 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 they satellite can use a codebook the beamforming can be more efficient and/or faster.
.
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Determan and Kumar discloses
The method of claim 1. Determan further discloses wherein the target service area (Claim 10, "A satellite comprising: an antenna…the antenna forms a beam pattern comprising a set of beams in a footprint of the satellite") is one of: one or more service areas served by a control beam, and a scheduled area served by a data beam (Paragraph 0049, "allows the gateway controller 250 to properly aim the antennas 205 (e.g., at the satellite 300), to schedule beam transmissions, to coordinate handovers, and to perform various other well-known functions" where the scheduled transmission would be for one of the footprints/service areas).
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Determan and Kumar discloses
The method of claim 6. Determan further discloses wherein the target service area (Claim 10, "A satellite comprising: an antenna…the antenna forms a beam pattern comprising a set of beams in a footprint of the satellite") is determined based on one of: a scheduling policy of a base station (Paragraph 0049, "allows the gateway controller 250 to properly aim the antennas 205 (e.g., at the satellite 300), to schedule beam transmissions, to coordinate handovers, and to perform various other well-known functions" where a gateway is tantamount to a base station); a subscription address of a user for fixed service; at least one UE position of a UE which requests for data transmission; an amount of data waiting for transmission indicated in a buffer status report; and a user service subscription level.
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Determan and Kumar discloses
The method of claim 1. Determan further discloses wherein the applying includes: applying the initial beam configuration to control the antenna array to transmit the beam to cover the target service area when one of the following conditions is satisfied: when the satellite reaches a predefined minimum elevation angle viewed from a reference point of the target service area (Paragraph 0070, “As used herein, the footprint of a satellite is the surface area (on Earth) within which all UTs can communicate with the satellite (above a minimum elevation angle) where one of the beams can be the initial beam); when a steering angle of the beam reaches a predefined steering angle, in which the beam is pointing to a reference point of the service area; when a data transmission to a scheduled UE in the target service area is needed; and when a control signal to the service area is needed.
Regarding claim 11 Determan discloses
The method of claim 10 and determining a beam configuration. Determan does not 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 discloses
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 (Paragraph 0006, “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.
Regarding claim 20 Determan discloses
A method, comprising: determining, for a satellite in a non-terrestrial network (NTN ), 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 (Paragraph 0070, “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; Paragraph 0077, “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"), wherein the beam is determined 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 (Paragraph 0070, “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; Paragraph 0077, “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” where the variation is minimized in that the long axis is maintained in an east-west direction). Determan does not disclose a beambook.
Kumar discloses
A beam book (Paragraph 0006, “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.
Regarding claim 22 the combination of Determan and Kumar discloses
The method of claim 20. Determan does not disclose wherein each beam configuration on the list of beam configurations is represented by a beam configuration index that is associated with a beam configuration in a set of beam configurations.
Kumar discloses
Wherein each beam configuration on the list of beam configurations is represented by a beam configuration index that is associated with a beam configuration in a set of beam configurations (Paragraph 0006, “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” where Positioning reference Signals codebooks have indexes).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US20170019814A1) in view of Kumar (US 20200137714 A1) further in view of Noerpel (US 9853716 B2).
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Determan and Kumar discloses
The method of claim 1. Determan discloses further comprising: connecting to a gateway or a ground station when the satellite reaches a predefined minimum elevation angle viewed from the gateway or the ground station (Paragraph 0070, “As used herein, the footprint of a satellite is the surface area (on Earth) within which all UTs can communicate with the satellite (above a minimum elevation angle)” where a UT could be replaced with a gateway/base station). Determan in view of Kumar does not disclose wherein the gateway or ground station information is contained in a stored configuration at the satellite; and receiving configuration update from the gateway or the ground station when connecting to the gateway or the ground station.
Noerpel discloses
Wherein the gateway or ground station information is contained in a stored configuration at the satellite (Column 7 Lines 24-29, "The example platform 202 includes antennas 206 in addition to hardware 207 (e.g., receiver, switch, transmitter, modem, router, filter, amplifier, frequency translator computing device, processor, memory/buffer, etc.) to facilitate the relay of communications between user devices 208 and a gateway 210" where the platform is a satellite; Column 7 Lines 40-46, "The example hardware 207 may include a switch and/or processor that is configured to retransmit communications received from one cell back to the same cell or another cell. For instance, a switch may be configured to receive communication data from at least one of the gateway 210 and the user terminals 208 and determine a destination cell within a coverage area for the communication data" where a switch for routing needs memory to work); and receiving configuration update from the gateway or the ground station when connecting to the gateway or the ground station (Column 9 Lines 20-22, "For example, the system configuration manager 212 may transmit software updates while the platform 202 is operational in the sky").
Determan and Noerpel are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications.
Determan discloses a satellite that connects at a minimum elevation threshold but it does not disclose if the satellite has gateway/base station information stored. The satellite having the base station information stored would help facilitate connecting to the correct base station in the event that the satellite has access to multiple base stations at one time. 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 Noerpel by adding the satellite storing the base station information so that it can make the proper connections.
Determan also does not disclose updates upon making a connection. In the event that the satellite needs to connect to a different base station (or some other change) for whatever reason, an update would help to facilitate that change. 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 Noerpel so that the satellite can receive updates and change its operation in response to a changing situation/environment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US20170019814A1) in view of Marupaduga (US 10321334 B1).
Regarding claim 12 Determan discloses
The method of claim 10. Determan does not disclose further comprising: 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 discloses
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 (US20170019814A1) in view of Ijaz (US 20250088256 A1).
Regarding claim 14 Determan discloses
The method of claim 10. Determan does not disclose further comprising: 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 discloses
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 (Paragraph 0063, “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 (US20170019814A1) in view of Pezeshki (US 20200329395 A1).
Regarding claim 15 Determan discloses
The method of claim 10. Determan does not disclose further comprising: 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 (Paragraph 0045, "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 (US20170019814A1) in view of Yao (US20210119695A1).
Regarding claim 16 Determan discloses
The method of claim 10. Determan does not disclose further comprising: 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 discloses
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 (Paragraph 0022, “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 (US20170019814A1) in view of Go (WO 2020204675 A1) [cited from attached pdf].
Regarding claim 17 Determan discloses
The method of claim 10. Determan does not disclose further comprising: 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 discloses
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 (US20170019814A1) in view of Ramachandra (US 20240244499 A1).
Regarding claim 18 Determan discloses
The method of claim 10. Determan does not disclose further comprising: 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 discloses
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 (Paragraph 0003, “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”; Paragraph 0086, “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…”; Paragraph 0089, “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”; Paragraph 0079, “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 (US20170019814A1) in view of Ramachandra (US 20240244499 A1) further in view of Yun (US 20200178135 A1) further in view of Proctor (US 20010031648 A1).
Regarding claim 19 Determan discloses
The method of claim 10. Determan also discloses broadcasting a set of satellite ephemeris information of one or more satellites (Paragraph 0048, “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 does not disclose further comprising: 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 discloses
Broadcasting a signal when the satellite reaches a predefined angle ((Paragraph 0003, “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”; Paragraph 0086, “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…”; Paragraph 0089, “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”; Paragraph 0079, “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 discloses
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 (Paragraph 0084, “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 discloses
Broadcasting an inactive timer for the UE to go into a sleep state (Paragraph 0055, "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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US20170019814A1) in view of Kumar (US 20200137714 A1) further in view of Yun (US 20200178135 A1).
Regarding claim 21 the combination of Determan and Kumar discloses
The method of claim 20. Determan discloses wherein the beam configuration reference is one of a time point, a satellite location, a range of satellite locations, a beam steering angle of a beam transmitted from the satellite, a range of beam steering angles of the beams transmitted from the satellite (Paragraph 0037, "The antenna controller 216 may control various aspects of the antennas 205 (e.g., beamforming, beam steering, gain settings, frequency tuning, and the like)"; Paragraph 0048, " the gateway controller 250 includes local time, frequency, and position references 251" where to operate the satellite would also have this information; Paragraph 0077, "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." where to operate during orbit the location range and beam steering range is known and can be transmitted). Determan in view of Kumar does not disclose a range of time.
Yun discloses
A range of time (Paragraph 0084, “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”).
Determan and Yun are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses beam configurations but does not disclose start/stop times or time intervals. Providing the start/stop times, (e.g. to an UE or a satellite) can be beneficial in that it can determine when the UE checks for a new signal, or when the satellite transmits. A device transmitting at the proper time or checking for a signal at the proper time 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 interval information of a transmission so that the relevant devices can be power efficient.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US20170019814A1) in view of Kumar (US 20200137714 A1) further in view of Kim (WO 2022119002 A1) [cited from attached pdf].
Regarding claim 23 the combination of Determan and Kumar discloses
The method of claim 20. Determan in view of Kumar does not disclose wherein each beam configuration on the list of beam configurations includes a set of parameters each corresponding to an antenna element of the antenna array, each parameter including one of: an on/off indication corresponding to the respective antenna element, an amplitude and a phase corresponding to the respective antenna element, and an amplitude and a delay corresponding to the respective antenna element.
Kim discloses
Wherein each beam configuration on the list of beam configurations includes a set of parameters each corresponding to an antenna element of the antenna array, each parameter including one of: an on/off indication corresponding to the respective antenna element (Page 26 Lines 14-18, "In consideration of the above, when communication is performed in a terahertz band, holographic beamforming (HBF) may be applied. For example, the HBF may use a pin diode or a varactor as a simpler electronic device than a conventional antenna used for multi input multi output (MIMO) or beamforming. Specifically, in order to adjust the beam direction based on the HBF, the antenna may use on/off characteristics of a PIN diode"), an amplitude and a phase corresponding to the respective antenna element, and an amplitude and a delay corresponding to the respective antenna element.
Determan and Kim are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses beam configurations but does not disclose adjusting the antenna in that they are turned on and/or off. It would be advantageous for a satellite to be able to turn individual antenna on or off in an antenna array in that it would grant improved flexibility in its beamforming and could mitigate some potential interference in creating nulls in its signal. 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 Kim to add the ability for individual antenna to be turned on and off to give the system more flexible beamforming and an ability to create nulls to mitigate interference.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US20170019814A1) in view of Lee (US 20230413109 A1).
Regarding claim 24 Determan discloses
A method, comprising: determining an elevation angle of the satellite (Paragraph 0074, “FIG. 6B illustrates terminology associated with a footprint of an NGSO satellite 650 . The footprint 652 of the NGSO satellite 650 forms a circle on the surface of the Earth defined by an Earth-central angle (shown in FIG. 6B as λ) dictated by the minimum elevation angle (shown in FIG. 6B as ε) of the Earth station 654 serving the NGSO satellite 650 ”). Determan does not disclose measuring, by a user equipment (UE), a reference signal transmitted via a beam from a satellite to obtain measurement results; and transmitting assistance information to the satellite, the assistance information including the measurement results and the elevation angle.
Lee discloses
Measuring, by a user equipment (UE), a reference signal transmitted via a beam from a satellite to obtain measurement results; and transmitting assistance information to the satellite, the assistance information including the measurement results (Paragraph 0035, "A BS herein may refer to an entity for performing resource allocation for a UE and may be at least one of a gNode B, eNode B, Node B … a radio access unit, a BS controller, a satellite, an airborne vehicle or a node in a network. A UE may include a mobile station (MS), a vehicle, a satellite"; Paragraph 0043, "when the BS transmits a reference signal (RS) to the UE, the UE may estimate a channel state based on the received RS to obtain channel Ĥ, and obtain a relation of Ĥ=UDV.sup.H in a method such as eigen value decomposition (EVD) or a singular value decomposition. The channel Ĥ may be obtained when a value of V is known from the obtained relation, so the UE transmits, to the BS, a precoding matrix indicator (PMI), an index of the most similar codebook to the value of V in the codebook-based CSI feedback" where the PMI helps with beamforming).
Determan discloses beam configurations and a satellite using an elevation angle but does not disclose getting measurements, like the elevation angle, from the ground. A elevation measurement from the ground would be advantageous as a means of confirming orbital positions to ensure beamforming accuracy. Additionally, the satellite receiving PMI data allows it to adapt to sudden channel changes helping it to modify its transmissions to avoid interference and adverse conditions. 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 Lee such that Determan can perform data confirmation and adapt its transmissions to mitigate adverse conditions.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US20170019814A1) in view of Lee (US 20230413109 A1) further in view of Go (WO 2020204675 A1).
Regarding claim 25 the combination of Determan and Lee, B discloses
The method of claim 24. Determan in view of Lee does not disclose wherein the assistance information further includes at least one of: a required service time for a service provided by the satellite, 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.
Go discloses
Wherein the assistance information further includes at least one of: a required service time for a service provided by the satellite, a UE preference indicating a list of cell identifiers (IDs) the UE prefers to utilize (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)"; Page 11 Lines 29-32, "When the terminal is powered on or newly enters a cell, the terminal performs an initial cell search operation such as synchronizing with the base station (S601). To this end, the UE receives a Primary Synchronization Signal (PSS) and a Secondary Synchronization Signal (SSS) from the base station to synchronize with the base station and obtain information such as cell ID”; 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" where a base station preference will incorporate a cell ID and the UE is capable of having more than one base station preference), and an indication whether the UE continues to use a current beam serving the UE.
Determan and Go are both considered analogous arts as they both concern wireless communications. Determan discloses footprints for users but does not disclose using UE preferences that includes cell IDs. A satellite using UE preferences can improve the user experience and optimize the use of resources. Additionally, the cell identifiers can help optimize network traffic as no one cell is serving too many users while other cells are neglected. 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 it can use UE preferences, including cell identifiers, so that it can optimize its resource allocation, network traffic, and improve the user’s experience.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Determan (US20170019814A1) in view of Lee (US 20230413109 A1) further in view of Ramachandra (US 20240244499 A1).
Regarding claim 26 the combination of Determan and Lee discloses
The method of claim 24. Determan in view of Lee does not disclose further comprising: 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.
Ramachandra discloses
Further comprising: 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 (Paragraph 0003, “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”; Paragraph 0086, “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 …[0089] 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”).
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 deprioritizing a connection (i.e. a handoff command) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 6:00pm ET.
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, 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.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648