DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 11, 20, and 27 are amended.
Claims 1-29 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objections have been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 11-16, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are moot because they do not apply to the specific combination of reference being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 21, 25-26, and 28 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 2, the phrase “regarding positional sensor” should be “regarding a positional sensor”
In Claim 21, the phrase “regarding positional sensor” should be “regarding a positional sensor”
In Claim 25, the phrase “The apparatus of claim 24” should be “The method of claim 24”
In Claim 25, the phrase “determining whether to include individual orientation hypothesis” should be “determining whether to include an individual orientation hypothesis”
In Claim 26, the phrase “The apparatus of claim 24” should be “The method of claim 24”
In Claim 28, the phrase “regarding positional sensor” should be “regarding a positional sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the
inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
invention.
Claim(s) 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites the limitation “the signal processing engine.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites the limitation “the acquisition engine.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a
new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in
which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-12, 15, 17-23, and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2017/0254903) in view of Bharadwaj (US 2011/0257927).
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson teaches:
An apparatus comprising:
a flat-panel antenna of a satellite antenna terminal ([0126]: “flat panel antennas”; [0128]: “mobile platform”); and
a signal processing engine communicably coupled to the flat-panel antenna ([0048]: “antenna system 200 comprises an inertial measurement unit 201, beam direction and polarization computation unit 202 and an electronically steerable antenna 203.”) configured to
process asynchronous sensory inputs from a plurality of sensors ([0050]: “IMU 201 is an electronic device that uses a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers”), and
generate estimates of a state of the flat-panel antenna of the satellite antenna terminal based on the sensory inputs, the estimates including an estimate of the orientation ([0050]: “IMU 201 is an electronic device that uses a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers to detect the attitude and attitude rate of change of the antenna”; [0057]: “acceleration data 301 from accelerometers, magnetometer data 302 from magnetometers and gyroscope rates 303 from gyroscopes of the antenna are input to extended Kalman filter (EKF) 310. Based on those inputs, EKF 310 determines the initial orientation 320 of the antenna.”),
wherein the signal processing engine comprises:
a sensory input processing core engine to generate the estimates ([0057]: “Based on those inputs, EKF 310 determines the initial orientation 320 of the antenna.”).
Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Bharadwaj teaches:
a sensory input pre-processor (Bharadwaj [0028]: “input filter 132”) to
receive the sensory inputs (Bharadwaj [0028]: “measurements from the IMU 110 … are provided to the input filter 132”),
determine which of one or more sensor measurements generated by the plurality of sensors of the sensory inputs to send to the core engine for use in generating the estimates (Bharadwaj [0028]: “The input filter 132 generally functions to reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range.”; [0029]: “The accepted measurements from the input filter 132 are provided to the kinematic state vector estimation module 134”), and
prevent any of the one or more sensor measurements from being sent to the core engine in response to determining that said any of the one or more sensor measurements are not to be used in generating the estimates such that the prevented sensor measurements are not used by the core engine to generate the estimate of orientation (Bharadwaj [0028]: “The input filter 132 generally functions to reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range.”; [0029]: “The accepted measurements from the input filter 132 are provided to the kinematic state vector estimation module 134”),
wherein the sensory input pre-processor comprises acceptance/rejection logic to accept or reject sensor measurements prior to forwarding accepted sensor measurements to the sensory input processing core engine (Bharadwaj [0028]: “The input filter 132 generally functions to reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range.”; “For example, the input filter 132 may calculate the input residuals … and use statistical tests to determine which measurements should be rejected.”; [0029]: “The accepted measurements from the input filter 132 are provided to the kinematic state vector estimation module 134”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and include a sensory input pre-processor configured to reject sensor measurements before forwarding accepted sensor measurements to the core engine, as taught by Bharadwaj, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying Johnson’s antenna system to include Bharadwaj’s input processor comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to the yield predictable result of improving the accuracy of antenna orientation estimates by rejecting faulty or inaccurate sensor measurements.
Regarding Claim 20, Johnson teaches:
A method comprising:
processing asynchronous sensory inputs from a plurality of sensors ([0050]: “IMU 201 is an electronic device that uses a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers”), and
generating estimates of a state of a flat-panel antenna of a satellite antenna terminal based on the sensory inputs, the estimates including an estimate of the orientation ([0050]: “IMU 201 is an electronic device that uses a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers to detect the attitude and attitude rate of change of the antenna”; [0057]: “acceleration data 301 from accelerometers, magnetometer data 302 from magnetometers and gyroscope rates 303 from gyroscopes of the antenna are input to extended Kalman filter (EKF) 310. Based on those inputs, EKF 310 determines the initial orientation 320 of the antenna.”).
Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Bharadwaj teaches:
wherein generating estimates of a state of the flat-panel antenna comprises
determining which of one or more sensor measurements generated by the plurality of sensors of the sensory inputs to be forwarded to a core estimation process for use in generating the estimates (Bharadwaj [0028]: “The input filter 132 generally functions to reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range.”; [0029]: “The accepted measurements from the input filter 132 are provided to the kinematic state vector estimation module 134”), and
in response to determining that said any of the one or more sensor measurements are not to be used in generating the estimates, preventing any of the one or more sensor measurements from being from being forwarded to the core estimation process for use in generating the estimates such that the prevented sensor measurements are not used by the core estimation process to generate the estimate of orientation (Bharadwaj [0028]: “The input filter 132 generally functions to reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range.”),
wherein determining which of the one or more sensor measurements are to be forwarded comprises applying acceptance/rejection logic to accept or reject sensor measurements prior to forwarding accepted sensor measurements to the core estimation process (Bharadwaj [0028]: “The input filter 132 generally functions to reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range.”; “For example, the input filter 132 may calculate the input residuals … and use statistical tests to determine which measurements should be rejected.”; [0029]: “The accepted measurements from the input filter 132 are provided to the kinematic state vector estimation module 134”).
The rationale to modify Johnson with the teachings of Bharadwaj persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 27, Johnson teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by a satellite terminal having at least a signal processing engine and a memory therein ([0043]: “The process is performed by processing logic that may comprise hardware …, software …, firmware, or a combination of the three.”), cause the signal processing engine to perform operations comprising:
processing asynchronous sensory inputs from a plurality of sensors ([0050]: “IMU 201 is an electronic device that uses a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers”), and
generating estimates of a state of a flat-panel antenna of the satellite antenna terminal based on the sensory inputs, the estimates including an estimate of the orientation ([0050]: “IMU 201 is an electronic device that uses a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers to detect the attitude and attitude rate of change of the antenna”; [0057]: “acceleration data 301 from accelerometers, magnetometer data 302 from magnetometers and gyroscope rates 303 from gyroscopes of the antenna are input to extended Kalman filter (EKF) 310. Based on those inputs, EKF 310 determines the initial orientation 320 of the antenna.”).
Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Bharadwaj teaches:
wherein generating estimates of a state of the flat-panel antenna comprises
determining which of one or more sensor measurements generated by the plurality of sensors of the sensory inputs to be forwarded to a core estimation process for use in generating the estimates (Bharadwaj [0028]: “The input filter 132 generally functions to reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range.”; [0029]: “The accepted measurements from the input filter 132 are provided to the kinematic state vector estimation module 134”), and
in response to determining that said any of the one or more sensor measurements are not to be used in generating the estimates, preventing any of the one or more sensor measurements from being from being forwarded to the core estimation process for use in generating the estimates such that the prevented sensor measurements are not used by the core estimation process to generate the estimate of orientation (Bharadwaj [0028]: “The input filter 132 generally functions to reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range.”),
wherein determining which of the one or more sensor measurements are to be forwarded comprises applying acceptance/rejection logic to accept or reject sensor measurements prior to forwarding accepted sensor measurements to the core estimation process (Bharadwaj [0028]: “The input filter 132 generally functions to reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range.”; “For example, the input filter 132 may calculate the input residuals … and use statistical tests to determine which measurements should be rejected.”; [0029]: “The accepted measurements from the input filter 132 are provided to the kinematic state vector estimation module 134”).
The rationale to modify Johnson with the teachings of Bharadwaj persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 2, 21, and 28, Johnson teaches: wherein the state comprises one or more of angular velocity, angular acceleration, linear acceleration, linear velocity, position, gyroscope bias, gyroscope noise statistics, accelerometer bias, accelerometer noise statistics, and accuracy indications regarding positional sensor ([0050]: “IMU 201 is an electronic device that uses a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers to detect the attitude and attitude rate of change of the antenna”; [0051]: “values 210 comprise roll, pitch, yaw, latitude and longitude. In one embodiment, values 210 includes the altitude of the antenna.”; [0057]: “acceleration data 301”).
Regarding Claims 3, 22, and 29, Johnson teaches: wherein the signal processing engine is configured to generate the estimate of the orientation based on one or more of a velocity vector, positional vector, a differential position vector, and a differential velocity vector ([0051]: “satellite location (e.g., latitude, longitude, altitude, etc.) and polarization values 230”; “In response to these inputs, beam direction and polarization computation unit 202 generates theta, phi and polarization values 220 (e.g., angles)”).
Regarding Claim 4, Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Bharadwaj teaches: wherein the sensory input pre-processor is operable to determine which of the one or more sensor measurements are acceptable to send to the core engine for selecting by the sensory input processing core engine to use in generating the estimates and which are to be rejected and not acceptable to send to the core engine for selecting by the core engine to use in generating the estimates, any rejected sensor measurements being prevented from being sent to the core engine (Bharadwaj [0028]: “The input filter 132 generally functions to reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range.”; [0029]: “The accepted measurements from the input filter 132 are provided to the kinematic state vector estimation module 134”).
The rationale to modify Johnson with the teachings of Bharadwaj persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Johnson teaches: wherein the sensory input processing core engine comprises an iterative processing engine ([0047]: “the process is repeated until a consistently observed satellite signal is received”; [0057]: “extended Kalman filter”).
Regarding Claim 6, Johnson teaches: wherein the iterative processing engine comprises a Kalman filter to estimate unknown states associated with the flat-panel antenna used to generate the estimates of the orientation ([0057]: “extended Kalman filter”).
Regarding Claim 7, Johnson teaches: wherein the iterative processing engine comprises:
a first Kalman filter to estimate the state of the flat-panel antenna ([0057]: “extended Kalman filter”); and
an iterator coupled to the first Kalman filter to cause the first Kalman filter to iterate on the sensory inputs along with any new sensor input data received since a previous iteration ([0062]: “the most recent orientation data from the extended Kalman Filter (EKF) is used as an initial starting point and the process begins again”).
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson teaches: wherein the sensory input processing core engine comprises:
an orientation initializer to provide an initial orientation estimate ([0052]: “The acquisition process needs an initial orientation to determine where to search for the satellite.”; [0057]: “EKF 310 determines the initial orientation 320 of the antenna.”); and
a gyro bias initializer to infer gyro bias and provide an initial bias indication for a gyro associated with the flat-panel antenna ([0037]: “The acquisition process uses feedback from the antenna to find the satellite signal and mitigates for errors in the gyroscopes”; [0057]: “The … gyroscopes are sensors that may have noise and some sensitivity that cause some of their data to be less than completely accurate. That is, each of the sensors have a perceived level of correctness. In one embodiment, EKF 310 weights each of the sensors based on that perceived level of correctness and takes the weighted values of those sensors to provide orientation 320”).
Regarding Claim 11, Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Bharadwaj teaches: the apparatus further comprising a sensory input post-processor coupled to the core engine (Bharadwaj [0038]: “health management system 180”) to:
receive the estimates generated by the core engine (Bharadwaj [0038]: “The health management system 180 further receives the innovations or residuals from the Kalman filter 136”; [0039]: “the health management system 180 further receives the second set of kinematic state vectors from the secondary INS unit 140 as well as the first set of kinematic state vectors from the primary INS unit 130.”);
determine one or more of the estimates comply with expected behavior (Bharadwaj [0038]: “the health indicators module 188 may compare the health indicators to an expected probability density function to determine faults”); and
output any of the one or more estimates determined to comply with the expected behavior (Bharadwaj [0033]: “Upon calculation of the errors and associated corrections, the first set of kinematic state vectors may be provided to the controller 160”; [0046]: “The health management system 180 may produce an alarm when the bias estimate exceeds a user-defined multiple of the 1-σ bias estimate bound.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and include a sensory input post-processor configured to output estimates determined to comply with the expected behavior, as taught by Bharadwaj, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying Johnson’s antenna system to include Bharadwaj’s post-processor comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to the yield predictable result of improving the accuracy of antenna orientation estimates by outputting estimates that are within an acceptable error range.
Regarding Claims 12 and 23, Johnson teaches: the apparatus further comprising an acquisition engine coupled to the signal processing engine to perform satellite signal acquisition in response to a loss of satellite tracking ([0048]: “The acquisition processing, as well as the dither processing described below, is performed by an antenna control and tracking system.”; [0062]: “If during orientation dithering the SNR drops below a threshold, then the most recent orientation data from the extended Kalman Filter (EKF) is used as an initial starting point and the process begins again.”), wherein the acquisition engine is configured to select a search space using information related to the estimate of orientation from the signal processing engine ([0052]: “The acquisition process needs an initial orientation to determine where to search for the satellite.”; [0062]: “the most recent orientation data from the extended Kalman Filter (EKF) is used as an initial starting point and the process begins again.”).
Regarding Claims 15 and 25, Johnson teaches: wherein the acquisition engine is configured to perform re-acquisition by reducing the search space by determining whether to include an individual orientation hypothesis based on a comparison between one or more orientation hypotheses previously determined as acceptable for searching ([0036]: “the new pattern includes the same point that produced the best signal in the previous search pattern.”; [0055]: “the orientation with the best SNR is chosen to be the next orientation to try”).
Regarding Claims 17 and 26, Johnson teaches: wherein the acquisition engine is configured to adaptively adjust beamwidth for beams being used to search for a satellite as multiple sets of searches are performed, wherein the acquisition engine is configured to narrow the beamwidth as a subsequent search set is performed ([0047]: “processing logic selects, as a new orientation, one of the variant orientation (processing block 105) and repeats the process above with the new orientation with a second search pattern narrower than the first search pattern (processing block 106).”; [0055]: “As the search progresses, the maximum angle of the search pattern is decreased.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Johnson teaches: wherein the acquisition engine is configured to bound beam stride as more searches of the search space occur ([0055]: “As the search progresses, the maximum angle of the search pattern is decreased.”; [0056]: “Initially there will be large hops made in an attempt to identify a location of the satellite, and as the acquisition process zeroes in on the satellite, the hops become smaller.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Johnson teaches: wherein the flat-panel antenna comprises a metasurface antenna ([0128]: “the flat panel antenna is part of a metamaterial antenna system”).
Claim(s) 9-10, 13-14, 16, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2017/0254903) in view of Bharadwaj (US 2011/0257927), as applied to Claims 1, 12, and 20 above, and further in view of Kreeger (US 2019/0369263).
Regarding Claim 9, Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Bharadwaj teaches: wherein the sensory input pre-processor is configured to determine which sensory measurements to send to the sensory input processing core engine by detecting one or more faulty sensors of the plurality of sensors and outlier data from any sensors of the plurality of sensors … (Bharadwaj [0028]: “reject measurements that are completely outside of a possible range”; “calculate the input residuals, e.g., the difference between the sensor measurements and the current estimate of the kinematic state vector, and use statistical tests to determine which measurements should be rejected.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and reject outlier and faulty sensor measurements, as taught by Bharadwaj, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying Johnson’s antenna system to include Bharadwaj’s outlier/fault detection comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to the yield predictable result of improving the accuracy of antenna orientation estimates by rejecting inaccurate measurements.
Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Kreeger teaches: determining whether the flat-panel antenna was in a stationary interval with respect to rotation when the sensory measurements were made (Kreeger [0027]: “an estimate of yaw is obtained by using either the magnetometer if stationary or GPS heading while in motion.”; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and determine which sensor measurements to use based on whether the antenna was stationary or moving, as taught by Kreeger, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying Johnson’s antenna system to select which sensor measurements to use based on whether the antenna was stationary or moving comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to the yield predictable result of improving the accuracy of antenna orientation estimates by selecting sensor measurements appropriate to the antenna’s motion.
Regarding Claim 10, Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Kreeger teaches: wherein the sensory input pre-processor determines that the flat-panel antenna was in the stationary interval based on historical gyro measurements and differential position and velocity vectors ([0042]: “if the antenna is stationary…”; [0052]: “ inertial measurement unit (IMU)”; [0073]: “The control structure may also incorporate sensors (e.g., a GPS receiver, a three-axis compass, a 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyro, 3-axis magnetometer, etc.) to provide location and orientation information to the processor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and determine when the antenna is stationary based on historical gyro measurements and differential position and velocity vectors, as taught by Kreeger, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using gyro, position, and velocity measurements to determine motion is considered ordinary and well-known in GNSS systems, and modifying Johnson’s antenna system to determine when the antenna is stationary based on gyro, position, and velocity measurements comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to the yield predictable result of accurately determining when the antenna is stationary by using various types of movement data.
Regarding Claims 13 and 24, Johnson teaches: wherein the acquisition engine is configured to generate a plurality of orientation hypotheses related to orientation of the flat-panel antenna and forming multiple beams … to search for a satellite, where each of the multiple beams is formed based on one of the plurality of hypotheses ([0035]: “an acquisition process is used to perturb the attitude data (e.g., roll, pitch, yaw) used in the satellite geometry solution to create a sampling pattern of multiple points”; “This allows the electromagnetic spectrum at many points to be sampled and the best orientation of antenna parameters to be computed.”; [0044]: “the process begins by processing logic perturbing one or more of roll, pitch and yaw angles of an antenna orientation to create variant orientations associated with a first search pattern”).
Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Kreeger teaches: forming multiple beams simultaneously to search for a satellite (Kreeger [0063]: “Such Rx and Tx irises, or slots, may be in groups of three or more sets where each set is for a separately and simultaneously controlled band.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and determine when the antenna is stationary based on historical gyro measurements and differential position and velocity vectors, as taught by Kreeger, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying Johnson’s antenna system to form multiple beams simultaneously to search for a satellite comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to the yield predictable result of reducing satellite acquisition time by searching multiple candidate orientations at once.
Regarding Claim 14, Johnson teaches: wherein the acquisition engine is configured to perform re-acquisition by repeatedly narrowing the search space … ([0047]: “repeats the process above with the new orientation with a second search pattern narrower than the first search pattern”).
Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Kreeger teaches: preventing beam formation for an orientation hypothesis previously determined to be a non-likely state of the terminal (Kreeger [0040]: “searching a portion of the full 360° yaw search includes occluding one or more previously search regions in that portion that did not result in receiving the correct satellite signal meeting the predetermined criteria.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and prevent beam formation for an orientation hypothesis previously determined to be a non-likely state of the terminal, as taught by Kreeger, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying Johnson’s antenna system to occlude previously unsuccessful orientation hypotheses comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to the yield predictable result of reducing satellite acquisition time by avoiding repeated beam formation for orientations already determined unlikely to acquire satellite signals.
Regarding Claim 16, Johnson teaches: wherein the acquisition engine is configured to provide the signal processing engine with an indication of … acceptable orientation hypotheses, and further wherein the signal processing engine is configured to update the orientation estimate based on the … acceptable orientation hypotheses ([0036]: “the direction of beams is oriented towards the point in the pattern for which the antenna received the “best” satellite signal”; [0055]: “the orientation with the best SNR is chosen to be the next orientation to try”).
Johnson does not explicitly teach – but Kreeger teaches: wherein the acquisition engine is configured to provide the signal processing engine with an indication of both non-acceptable and acceptable orientation hypotheses, and further wherein the signal processing engine is configured to update the orientation estimate based on the non-acceptable and acceptable orientation hypotheses ([0028]: “using the estimate of the antenna orientation, including the estimate of the yaw, a signal acquisition process uses a search algorithm that spends time searching in the direction of the yaw with the higher confidence estimate and less time searching in the direction of lower confidence yaw estimates.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson and indicate both non-acceptable and acceptable orientation hypotheses and update the orientation estimate based on the non-acceptable and acceptable orientation hypotheses, as taught by Kreeger, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying Johnson’s antenna system to indicate non-acceptable and acceptable orientation hypotheses and to update the orientation estimate the hypotheses comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to the yield predictable result of reducing satellite acquisition time by avoiding searching with non-acceptable orientations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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 J. Kelleher can be reached on (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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights