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 11/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are pending in the application, where claim 14 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the specification objections, claim objections, and 112(b) rejections from the previously filed Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for the USC § 103 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues on pg. 12 of the Remarks,
“Both van Kessel and Pease are silent on a passive communication system including a "first reflector comprising a reflective surface that reflects at least a portion of the first signal which is incident on the reflective surface back toward the first satellite, the reflective surface comprising a plurality of rotatable panels" and "a modulator unit configured to modulate a reflectivity of the reflective surface of the first reflector between a first reflective state to a second reflective state by generating a signal that causes the plurality of rotatable panels on the reflective surface to rotate to adjust the portion of the first signal which is incident on the reflective surface that is reflected back toward the first satellite" as recited in amended claim 1. The retro-reflective tags discussed in van Kessel do not include such a modulator unit that modulates the reflectivity of the tags or have a reflective surface comprising a plurality of reflective panels. Furthermore, Pease discusses that entire reflector or the entire reflective surfaces of the reflector can be moved by the actuator disclosed therein. Pease is also silent on "the reflective surface comprising a plurality of rotatable panels" as recited in amended claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. van Kessel discloses a passive communication system on pg. 5, paragraph 0039,
“In various embodiments, component 122 can construct a retro directive array (RDA) capable of modifying both polarization and amplitude through a passive retroreflective element”
Pease discloses rotatable panels in col. 8, line 25,
“The reflective surfaces may also be independently rotated”,
as well as in col. 2, lines 37-40,
“Each actuator may move one or more reflective surface of a corresponding corner reflector. Each corner reflector in the array of corner reflectors may have a different orientation”,
and further in col. 8, lines 17-20,
“The actuator 405 may be a piezoelectric device that moves upon application of an electric charge. Controlled application of electric charges may cause the reflective surfaces to move”.
The language of “rotatable panels” from amended claim 1 may include surfaces, such as the three surfaces of the reflector in Pease Fig. 3 where each surface can qualify as a panel. In this way, Pease Fig. 3 illustrates three rotatable panels. Pease discloses rotatable surfaces as well as moving those surfaces. It is reasonable to believe that the surfaces of Pease can be moved in various ways, such as a rotation, by the modulation unit as disclosed in Pease (for further elaboration, see claim 1 rejection below in section 12 of this Office Action).
For at least these reasons, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains previous rejections corresponding to the USC § 103 rejection. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that van Kessel et al. (US 20230289940 A1) and Pease (US 7693426 B2) disclose each and every limitation of independent claim 1 based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of independent claims 11 and 16 are moot based on a new grounds of rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Kessel et al. (US 20230289940 A1) in view of Pease (US 7693426 B2).
Regarding claim 1, van Kessel discloses [Note: what van Kessel fails to disclose is strike-through]
A passive communication system (see pg. 5, paragraph 0039, “In various embodiments, component 122 can construct a retro directive array (RDA) capable of modifying both polarization and amplitude through a passive retroreflective element”) comprising:
a first reflector disposed at a first location within line of sight of a first satellite (see Fig. 1B, satellite element 100 and retro reflective tag element 101; pg. 4, paragraph 0031, the retro reflective tag is “affixed to an object or location on earth surface”), the first satellite configured to transmit a first signal at a first wavelength (see Fig. 1B, transmitted signal element 103; pg. 4, paragraph 0031, the satellite “emits radar frequency signal (transmitted signal) 103 that is incident on the retro directive assembly (e.g., retro reflective tag)”), the first reflector comprising a reflective surface (see pg. 3, paragraph 0024, “Retro reflective tag 102 is a device, surface, or material that reflects radiation (usually light) back to its source with minimum scattering”) that reflects at least a portion of the first signal which is incident on the reflective surface back toward the first satellite (see Fig. 1B, returned signal element 105; pg. 4, paragraph 0031, “retro reflective tag 102 returns radar signal (returned signal) 105 that is modified in both phase and amplitude. Returned signal 105 is received by SAR satellite”), (see pg. 4, paragraph 0034, “component 122 receives a radar signal from an orbiting or airborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system, wherein the received radar signal is reflected back from one or more affixed objects to an SAR receiver within the SAR system”; pg. 3, paragraph 0023, “component 122 receives transmission/transmitted signals and/or image data from SAR satellite 101, wherein component 122 processes the received data”); and
Pease discloses
the reflective surface comprising a plurality of rotatable panels (see col. 8, line 25, “The reflective surfaces may also be independently rotated”),
a modulator unit (see Fig. 4, remote information source 110) configured to modulate a reflectivity of the reflective surface (see col. 4, lines 8-10, “In reflecting the outgoing laser beam 130a to create the reflected laser beam 135a, the remote information source 110 modulates the corner reflector”) of the first reflector between a first reflective state to a second reflective state (see col. 2, lines 37-40, “Each actuator may move one or more reflective surface of a corresponding corner reflector. Each corner reflector in the array of corner reflectors may have a different orientation”) by generating a signal that causes the plurality of rotatable panels on the reflective surface to rotate (see col. 2, lines 37-40, “Each actuator may move one or more reflective surface of a corresponding corner reflector. Each corner reflector in the array of corner reflectors may have a different orientation”; col. 8, lines 17-20, “The actuator 405 may be a piezoelectric device that moves upon application of an electric charge. Controlled application of electric charges may cause the reflective surfaces to move”) to adjust the portion of the first signal which is incident on the reflective surface that is reflected back toward the first satellite (see col. 2, lines 40-43, “Each actuator may impart a modulated signal within a beam of light reflected from the corresponding corner reflector and the respective modulated signals imparted by at least two of the actuators may differ”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Pease into the invention of van Kessel. Both van Kessel and Pease are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose passive reflector devices that can be adjusted to modify the signals they reflect. Van Kessel discloses components for a reflector and a satellite to exchange signals; however, van Kessel fails to disclose the reflective surface comprising a plurality of rotatable panels, generating a signal that causes the panels to rotate, and a modulator unit that modifies reflective elements of the reflector. These features are disclosed by Pease where the reflectors include rotatable panels and each reflector is coupled to an actuator that can control the movements of the reflector, including rotating a panel. The combination of van Kessel and Pease would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to modulate and change the path of the reflected signal by controlling movements of the reflector (see Pease col. 8, lines 27-29), allowing the reflected signal to avoid obstacles if the line of sight between the satellite and reflector is obscured. The combination would also allow the system to transmit information by controlling movements of the reflector to modulate a reflection of the signal, resulting in information embedded in the reflection that can be detected and decoded by a receiver (see Pease col. 1, lines 33-38).
Regarding claim 2, van Kessel further discloses
The passive communication system of claim 1, wherein the first satellite is a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite (see Fig. 2, synthetic aperture satellite element 100).
Regarding claim 3, van Kessel further discloses
The passive communication system of claim 1, wherein the first reflector comprises a corner reflector comprising three mutually perpendicular reflecting surfaces that reflect the at least a portion of the first signal back toward the first satellite (see Fig. 4; pg. 5, paragraph 0039, the reflective element can be a trihedral corner reflector where “the trihedral corner reflector is the corner formed by the right-angle intersection of 3 planar conducting plates. Radar signals (electromagnetic waves) incident on the concave portion of the corner cube are reflected off one or more sides of the corner to return in the direction of incidence”).
Regarding claim 4, Pease discloses
The passive communication system of claim 1, wherein the modulator unit is configured to generate a first signal to cause the plurality of rotatable panels to rotate to a first orientation to place the reflective surface in the first reflective state and to generate a second signal to cause the plurality of rotatable panels to rotate to second orientation to place the reflective surface in the second reflective state (see col. 2, lines 37-40, “Each actuator may move one or more reflective surface of a corresponding corner reflector. Each corner reflector in the array of corner reflectors may have a different orientation”; col. 8, lines 17-20, “The actuator 405 may be a piezoelectric device that moves upon application of an electric charge. Controlled application of electric charges may cause the reflective surfaces to move”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Pease into the invention of van Kessel. Van Kessel fails to disclose rotatable panels and a modulator unit able to generate signals to rotate the panels into different orientations. This feature is disclosed by Pease where the reflector surfaces are rotatable and an actuator can rotate the surfaces to form different orientations of the reflector. The combination of van Kessel and Pease would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to modulate and change the path of the reflected signal by controlling movements of the reflector (see Pease col. 8, lines 27-29), allowing the reflected signal to avoid obstacles if the line of sight between the satellite and reflector is obscured.
Regarding claim 5, Pease further discloses
The passive communication system of claim 1, wherein the reflective surface comprises a plurality of rotatable panels (see col. 8, line 25, “The reflective surfaces may also be independently rotated”), and wherein the modulator unit includes a control mechanism which when actuated by a user causes the modulator unit to rotate to a first orientation to place the reflective surface in the first reflective state or to rotate to a second orientation to place the reflective surface in the second reflective state (see Fig. 4, actuator elements 405, processor element 410, and data source element 415; col. 2, lines 37-40, “Each actuator may move one or more reflective surface of a corresponding corner reflector. Each corner reflector in the array of corner reflectors may have a different orientation”; col. 8, lines 32-33, “The processor 410 signals the actuator 405 to move the reflective surfaces”; col. 8, lines 37-41, “The processor 410 may use the information from the data source 415 to govern when the reflective surfaces of the corner reflector 300 are moved. The data source 415 may be a memory operable to store information, or it may be a device capable of detecting or producing information (e.g., a sensor).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Pease into the invention of van Kessel. Van Kessel fails to disclose rotatable panels and a modulator unit able to be activated by a user to rotate the panels into different orientations. This feature is disclosed by Pease where the reflector surfaces are rotatable and an actuator, coupled to a device capable of detecting or producing information, can rotate the surfaces to form different orientations of the reflector. A device capable of detecting or producing information can be controlled by a user. The combination of van Kessel and Pease would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to modulate and change the path of the reflected signal by controlling movements of the reflector (see Pease col. 8, lines 27-29), allowing the reflected signal to avoid obstacles if the line of sight between the satellite and reflector is obscured.
Regarding claim 6, van Kessel further discloses
The passive communication system of claim 1, wherein the reflective surface comprises a plurality of electrically controlled panels, and wherein the modulator unit is configured to generate a first signal to cause the plurality of electrically controlled panels to place the reflective surface in the first reflective state and to generate a second signal to cause the plurality of electrically-controlled panels to place the reflective surface in the second reflective state (see Figs. 5, 6, and 7; pg. 5, paragraph 0048, the reflective elements “can be modified to alter both phase and amplitude by employing active circuit elements in the connections between patches”).
Regarding claim 7, Pease further discloses
The passive communication system of claim 1, wherein the modulator unit is configured to receive a signal from a first sensor (see Fig. 4, data source element 415; col. 8, lines 39-41, “The data source 415 may be a memory operable to store information, or it may be a device capable of detecting or producing information (e.g., a sensor).”), and wherein the modulator unit is configured to modulate the reflectivity of the reflective surface to the first reflective state responsive to the first sensor signal indicating a first state detected by the first sensor and to modulate the reflectivity of the reflective surface to the second reflective state responsive to a second sensor signal indicating a second state detected by the first sensor (see col. 8, lines 31-39, “The motion of the reflective surfaces of the corner reflector 300 is controlled by a processor 410. The processor 410 signals the actuator 405 to move the reflective surfaces of the corner reflector 300 to embed information within the reflected laser beam. The information to be embedded within the reflected laser beam may be produced by a data source 415. The processor 410 may use the information from the data source 415 to govern when the reflective surfaces of the corner reflector 300 are moved.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Pease into the invention of van Kessel. Van Kessel fails to disclose a sensor associated with a reflector that can cause reflector adjustment. This feature is disclosed by Pease where the reflector can be coupled to a sensor that causes the reflector to modify. The combination of van Kessel and Pease would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to adjust and improve reflected signal accuracy when the path from reflector to satellite is obscured, for example in unfavorable environmental conditions detected by a sensor, therefore improving data collection efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Pease further discloses
The passive communication system of claim 1, wherein the passive communication system includes a plurality of reflectors including the first reflector (see Fig. 4, corner reflector elements 300) and wherein the modulator unit is configured to selectively modulate the reflectivity of each reflector of the plurality of reflectors to either the first reflective state or the second reflective state (see col. 2, lines 37-40, “Each actuator may move one or more reflective surface of a corresponding corner reflector. Each corner reflector in the array of corner reflectors may have a different orientation”), wherein each reflector of the plurality of reflectors represents a bit of data (see col. 1, lines 33-37, “Information is transmitted by controlling movements of a corner reflector to modulate a reflection of a laser beam that originates at or near the receiver. As a result, information can be embedded in the reflection of the laser beam”; col. 2, lines 40-43, “Each actuator may impart a modulated signal within a beam of light reflected from the corresponding corner reflector and the respective modulated signals imparted by at least two of the actuators may differ”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Pease into the invention of van Kessel. Van Kessel fails to disclose multiple reflectors where the modulating unit can selectively modify each reflector where each reflector represents a bit of data. This feature is disclosed by Pease where there are multiple reflectors that can be selectively modified, and therefore transmit different data depending on their orientation. The combination of van Kessel and Pease would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to differentiate data reflected from the reflectors and transmit various bits of data to improve data processing efficiency as well as increase the amount of data sent from the reflectors.
Regarding claim 10, van Kessel further discloses
The passive communication system of claim 1, further comprising a computing device configured to receive reflected signal data measured by the detector of the first satellite and to analyze the reflected signal data, and to perform one or more actions based on a detected reflective state of the first reflector (see Fig. 1, computing device element 110 and server computer element 120; Fig. 9, representing server computer 120 which may include component 122; Fig. 8, representing actions that can be performed by component 122; pg. 6, paragraph 0054, “In various embodiments, component 122 outputs instructions on how to arrange an array of elements or dynamically arranges the array of elements based on received feedback”).
Claims 8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Kessel et al. (US 20230289940 A1) in view of Pease (US 7693426 B2) and further in view of Berger et al. (US 12038497 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Pease further discloses [Note: what Pease fails to disclose is strike-through]
The passive communication system of claim 1, wherein the modulator unit is configured to modulate the reflectivity of the reflective surface between the first reflective state and the second reflective state (see col. 2, lines 37-40, “Each actuator may move one or more reflective surface of a corresponding corner reflector. Each corner reflector in the array of corner reflectors may have a different orientation”) (see col. 1, lines 33-38, “information can be embedded in the reflection”), wherein each bit of data is represented by a current reflective state of the reflective surface (see col. 2, lines 40-43, “Each actuator may impart a modulated signal within a beam of light reflected from the corresponding corner reflector and the respective modulated signals imparted by at least two of the actuators may differ”)
Berger discloses
wherein the modulator unit is configured to modulate the reflectivity of the reflective surface between the first reflective state and the second reflective state over a period of time
wherein each bit of data is represented by a current reflective state of the reflective surface for a specified interval of time (see col. 8, lines 20-24, “each time interval at the reflector 120 can be defined by and synchronized with a timing signal maintained by the control system 123. The reflector's rotation rate and orientation can be phase-locked with the time interval as defined by the timing signal”)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Berger into the invention of Pease and van Kessel. Berger, van Kessel, and Pease are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose passive reflector devices that can be adjusted and oriented to modify the signals they reflect. Pease discloses a modulator unit that can modulate the reflectivity of a reflective surface between different reflective states to transmit data where each reflective state represents different data; however, Pease fails to disclose performing this process over a period of time or a specific time interval. This feature is disclosed by Berger where a timing signal can synchronize with reflector orientation. The combination of Berger, van Kessel, and Pease would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve data collection efficiency and organization by including time stamps of when signals were reflected and time intervals of how long a reflector was in a particular orientation.
Regarding claim 16, van Kessel discloses [Note: what van Kessel fails to disclose is strike-through]
A data processing system (see pg. 1, paragraph 0004, “ Embodiments of the present invention disclose a computer-implemented method, an apparatus, and an apparatus for remotely detecting and identifying objects”) comprising:
a processor (see Fig. 9, processor element 901); and
a machine-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform operations of (see Fig. 9, memory element 902 and storage element 905; pg. 7, paragraph 0063, “Program instructions and data used to practice embodiments of the present invention may be stored in persistent storage 905 and in memory 902 for execution by one or more of the respective processors 901”):
obtaining measured reflected signal data measured by a detector of a first satellite (see pg. 4, paragraph 0031, “Returned signal 105 is received by SAR satellite 100 where it is recorded along with other proximate SAR data on one or more channels. The data from the satellite is transmitted to earth stations (e.g., server computer 120) where it is processed by component 122 and made available in the form of data images to users, via computing device 110.”), the first satellite being configured to transmit a first signal at a first wavelength (see Fig. 1B, transmitted signal element 103; pg. 4, paragraph 0031, the satellite “emits radar frequency signal (transmitted signal) 103 that is incident on the retro directive assembly (e.g., retro reflective tag)”) and to measure reflected signal data that comprises a portion of the first signal reflected back to the first satellite (see pg. 4, paragraph 0034, “component 122 receives a radar signal from an orbiting or airborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system, wherein the received radar signal is reflected back from one or more affixed objects to an SAR receiver within the SAR system”; pg. 3, paragraph 0023, “component 122 receives transmission/transmitted signals and/or image data from SAR satellite 101, wherein component 122 processes the received data”), the reflected signal data including reflected signal data reflected by a first reflector disposed at a first location within a line of sight of the first satellite (see Fig. 1B, satellite element 100 and retro reflective tag element 101; pg. 4, paragraph 0031, the retro reflective tag is “affixed to an object or location on earth surface”), the first reflector comprising a reflective surface that reflects at least a portion of the first signal which is incident on the reflective surface back toward the first satellite (see pg. 3, paragraph 0024, “Retro reflective tag 102 is a device, surface, or material that reflects radiation (usually light) back to its source with minimum scattering”),
analyzing the measured reflected signal data to identify a measured reflective state of the first reflector in the reflected signal data (see pg. 4, paragraph 0034, “component 122 receives a radar signal from an orbiting or airborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system, wherein the received radar signal is reflected back from one or more affixed objects to an SAR receiver within the SAR system”; pg. 3, paragraph 0023, “component 122 receives transmission/transmitted signals and/or image data from SAR satellite 101, wherein component 122 processes the received data”; pg. 4, paragraph 0031, “Returned signal 105 is received by SAR satellite 100 where it is recorded along with other proximate SAR data on one or more channels. The data from the satellite is transmitted to earth stations (e.g., server computer 120) where it is processed by component 122 and made available in the form of data images to users, via computing device 110.”; pg. 4, paragraph 0034, “the received radar signal's polarization and amplitude are altered to enable both identification of the object and estimation of the objects location using a radar image processing algorithm”); and
performing one or more actions based on the measured reflective state of the first reflector (see Fig. 8, representing actions that can be performed by component 122 before, during, and after receiving a reflected signal).
Pease discloses [Note: what Pease fails to disclose is strike-through]
the first reflector comprising a reflective surface that can be modulated between a first reflective state to a second reflective state by a modulator unit to adjust the portion of the first signal which is incident on the reflective surface that is reflected back toward the first satellite (see Fig. 4, remote information source 110; col. 4, lines 8-10, “In reflecting the outgoing laser beam 130a to create the reflected laser beam 135a, the remote information source 110 modulates the corner reflector”; col. 2, lines 37-40, “Each actuator may move one or more reflective surface of a corresponding corner reflector. Each corner reflector in the array of corner reflectors may have a different orientation”; col. 2, lines 40-43, “Each actuator may impart a modulated signal within a beam of light reflected from the corresponding corner reflector and the respective modulated signals imparted by at least two of the actuators may differ”),
Berger discloses
the modulator unit being configured to modulate reflectivity of the reflective surface of the first reflector for each of a plurality of time intervals during a period of time in which the first satellite is predicted to have a line of sight to the first reflector (see col. 4, lines 54-59, “The radar system 106 may transmit radio energy continuously or periodically, according to embodiments. The radar system 106 may transmit radio energy in one direction at a time and alternate or sweep across a range of directions. Alternatively, the radar system 106 may transmit radio energy toward a range of multiple directions simultaneously”; col. 8, lines 20-29, “According to embodiments, each time interval at the reflector 120 can be defined by and synchronized with a timing signal maintained by the control system 123. The reflector's rotation rate and orientation can be phase-locked with the time interval as defined by the timing signal. With a combination of the timing signal, the reflector's rotational rate, and the reflector's pre-established orientation (e.g., North) of the reflector 120 at the time of each timing signal (e.g., the beginning of a time interval), the reflector's orientation at other times can be determined”; col. 12, lines 45-52, “ As shown, the received signal 350 can vary over time in amplitude or intensity, which can be due to the time-varying orientation of the reflector 120 and resulting time-variation in the amount of radio energy that is reflected back to the radar system 106. Additionally, the received signal 350 may arrive in pulses, or otherwise periodically disappear, which can happen when the reflector 120 faces away from the radar system 106”; col. 18, lines 32-37, “By introducing rotating reflectors at landing areas and other suitable locations, a localized navigation system can be introduced. Shared timing information between the reflectors and aircraft can enable the aircraft to navigate based on periodically-reflected signals (which may be amplitude-modulated) from the reflectors.”);
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Berger into the inventions of Pease and van Kessel. van Kessel discloses a system, processor, storage medium, first reflector with measured reflected signals, analyzing the signals and performing an action based on the measured reflective state. Pease discloses a modulator unit that can modulate the reflectivity of a reflective surface between different reflective states to transmit data; however, Pease and van Kessel fail to disclose performing this process over a period of time when the satellite is in a predicted line of sight. This feature is disclosed by Berger where a timing signal can synchronize with reflector orientation and periodically transmit reflected signals in a case such as when the reflector is not within a line of sight of a target radar system. The combination of Berger, van Kessel, and Pease would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve data collection efficiency and organization by including time stamps of when signals were reflected and time intervals of how long a reflector was in a particular orientation, and improve energy efficiency by knowing when to send signals when the satellite is within line of sight of the reflector.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 2 are applied.
Regarding claim 18, Pease discloses
The data processing system of claim 16, wherein the measured reflective state of the first reflector represents a condition measured by a sensor associated with the first reflector (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, remote information source element 110; col. 7, line 49, “the remote information source 110 may be a sensor”; col. 8, lines 39-41, “The data source 415 may be a memory operable to store information, or it may be a device capable of detecting or producing information (e.g., a sensor)”; col. 8, lines 44-45, “the data source may be a mechanical device that detects environmental conditions”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Pease into the invention of van Kessel. Van Kessel fails to disclose a sensor associated with a reflector that can measure a condition, and then that condition is represented in a measured reflective state. This feature is disclosed by Pease where the reflector can be coupled to a sensor that measures environmental conditions. The combination of van Kessel and Pease would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to collect data in “a location with limited power or in a location that is not easily accessible due to environmental conditions (e.g., on an active volcano)” (see Pease col. 7, lines 49-52).
Regarding claim 19, van Kessel further discloses
The data processing system of claim 16, wherein analyzing the reflected signal data to identify a measured reflective state of the first satellite in the reflected signal data further comprises:
identifying changes in the measured reflective state of the first reflector in the reflected signal data to identify a pattern in the changes in the measured reflective state (see Fig 8, steps 806, 808, and 810; pg. 6, paragraphs 0056-0058, component 122 processes the reflected signal data and can identify peaks, detecting and classifying objects based on the peaks); and
performing the one or more actions based on the pattern (see Fig. 8, step 812; pg. 6, paragraph 0059, component 122 can generate a list based on the measured reflective signals).
Regarding claim 20, van Kessel further discloses
The data processing system of claim 16, wherein the measured reflected signal data includes reflected signal data from a plurality of reflectors including the first reflector (see Fig. 3; pg. 4, paragraph 0032, “In various embodiments, the RDA [retro directive assembly] consists of an array of corner reflectors (e.g., trihedral) arranged in a plane”), and wherein analyzing the reflected signal data further comprises:
identifying changes in the measured reflective state of each reflector of the plurality of reflectors in the reflected signal data to identify a pattern in the measured reflective state (see Fig 8, steps 806, 808, and 810; pg. 6, paragraphs 0056-0058, component 122 processes the reflected signal data and can identify peaks, detecting and classifying objects based on the peaks); and
performing the one or more actions based on the pattern (see Fig. 8, step 812; pg. 6, paragraph 0059, component 122 can generate a list based on the measured reflective signals).
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Kessel et al. (US 20230289940 A1) in view of Pease (US 7693426 B2) and further in view of Hiller (US 20220147063 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 1 are applied. van Kessel further discloses [Note: what van Kessel and Pease fail to disclose is strike-through]
A method for passive wireless data communications (see pg. 5, paragraph 0030, “Various methods exist to construct a retro directive array (RDA) capable of modifying both polarization and amplitude that include passive and active methods.”), the method comprising:
Hiller discloses
the reflective surface comprising a plurality of electrically-controlled elements selectively configurable between a first level of opacity and a second level of opacity to adjust a reflectivity of the reflective surface (see Figs. 6A and 6B; pg. 1, paragraph 0037, “ FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate a communication embodiment wherein the drones transmit information by acting as a collective modulating retroreflector, each drone including a reflective half-cube or prism and a modulator modulating attenuation of the beam through a layer according to the bit sequence in the signal, so that the layer is (1) transparent to allow retroreflection to a satellite when sending a “1” bit (FIG. 6A) or (2) opaque to block or absorb the retroreflection when sending a “0” bit (FIG. 6B).”),
modulating the reflectivity of the reflective surface of the first reflector between a first reflective state to a second reflective state to adjust the portion of the first signal which is incident on the reflective surface that is reflected back toward the first satellite by selectively toggling at least a portion of the plurality of electrically-controlled elements between the first level of opacity and the second level of opacity (see pg. 3, paragraphs 0073 and 0074, “The modulator comprises a corner reflector 604; a layer 606 coupled to the corner reflector and having a variable transparency for the electromagnetic radiation; and an actuator. The actuator 608 modulates a transparency of the layer so that: [0074] the layer is transparent to the electromagnetic radiation when sending the “1” bit so that the electromagnetic radiation 110 from the transmitter is transmitted through the layer and retroreflected 610 from the corner reflector back through the layer to the receiver”; pg. 3, paragraph 0076, “In one or more examples, the layer comprises quantum wells and the actuator modulates a voltage across quantum wells to vary the transparency of the layer between transparent and opaque.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hiller into the inventions of van Kessel and Pease. Pease, van Kessel, and Hiller are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose retroreflectors for satellite communications. van Kessel and Pease fail to disclose reflective surfaces with electrically-controlled elements configured to different levels of opacity. This feature is disclosed by Hiller where the corner reflector surface is able to be modulated to vary the transparency of the reflector. The combination of van Kessel, Pease, and Hiller would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the retroreflection to a satellite to send signals that vary in information (see Hiller pg. 1, paragraph 0037, “1” bit and “0” bit), improving communications by increasing the possibilities of signals reflected.
Regarding claim 12, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 2 are applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 3 are applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 6 are applied.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kelleher can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648