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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 10/22/2025 is entered.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, 20, and 27 are amended.
Claims 1-29 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to for the following informalities:
In Claim 11, line 4, the phrase “one and more” should be “one or more” (based on the language in line 5)
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or
in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b),
in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and
was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12-16, 19-25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreeger (US 2019/0369263).
Regarding Claim 1, Kreeger discloses:
An apparatus comprising:
a flat-panel antenna of a satellite antenna terminal ([0036]: “flat panel antenna”); and
a signal processing engine communicably coupled to the flat-panel antenna ([0036]: “processing logic”) configured to
process asynchronous sensory inputs from a plurality of sensors ([0032]: “sensor data”; [0037]: “one or more sensors”), 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 ([0032]: “sensor data”; [0037]: “estimating the antenna orientation is estimated using the one or more sensors”),
wherein the signal processing engine comprises:
a sensory input processing core engine to generate the estimates ([0053]: “The estimate yaw 521 output from IMU 501”); and
a sensory input pre-processor to
receive the sensory inputs ([0053]: “The estimate yaw 521 output from IMU 501 is received by yaw value generator 510”),
determine which of one or more sensor measurements of the sensory inputs to send to the core engine for use in generating the estimates ([0054]: “yaw value generator 510 includes occlusion logic 501A to occlude one or more yaw values from being output from yaw value generator 510.”), 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 ([0054]: “yaw value generator 510 includes occlusion logic 501A to occlude one or more yaw values from being output from yaw value generator 510.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Kreeger discloses:
A method comprising:
processing asynchronous sensory inputs from a plurality of sensors ([0032]: “sensor data”; [0037]: “one or more sensors”), 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 ([0032]: “sensor data”; [0037]: “estimating the antenna orientation is estimated using the one or more sensors”), wherein generating estimates of a state of the flat-panel antenna comprises
determining which of one or more sensor measurements of the sensory inputs to be selected for use in generating the estimates ([0053]: “The estimate yaw 521 output from IMU 501 is received by yaw value generator 510”), 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 selected for use in generating the estimates ([0054]: “yaw value generator 510 includes occlusion logic 501A to occlude one or more yaw values from being output from yaw value generator 510.”).
Regarding Claim 27, Kreeger discloses:
One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereupon ([0036]; [0148]) which, when executed by a satellite terminal having at least a signal processing engine and a memory therein ([0036]; [0148]), cause the signal processing engine to perform operations comprising:
processing asynchronous sensory inputs from a plurality of sensors ([0032]: “sensor data”; [0037]: “one or more sensors”), 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 ([0032]: “sensor data”; [0037]: “estimating the antenna orientation is estimated using the one or more sensors”), wherein generating estimates of a state of the flat-panel antenna comprises
determining which of one or more sensor measurements of the sensory inputs to be selected for use in generating the estimates ([0053]: “The estimate yaw 521 output from IMU 501 is received by yaw value generator 510”), 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 selected for use in generating the estimates ([0054]: “yaw value generator 510 includes occlusion logic 501A to occlude one or more yaw values from being output from yaw value generator 510.”).
Regarding Claims 2, 21, and 28, Kreeger discloses: 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 ([0027]: “accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes”; [0073]).
Regarding Claims 3, 22, and 29, Kreeger discloses: 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 ([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.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kreeger discloses: 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 ([0054]: “yaw value generator 510 includes occlusion logic 501A to occlude one or more yaw values from being output from yaw value generator 510.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Kreeger discloses: wherein the sensory input processing core engine comprises an iterative processing engine ([0046]: “Iterate in time between both Step 2 and Step 3 until the signal is found.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Kreeger discloses: 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 and determining whether the flat-panel antenna was in a stationary interval with respect to rotation when the sensory measurements were made ([0027]: “an estimate of yaw is obtained by using either the magnetometer if stationary or GPS heading while in motion.”; “If the direction of the vehicle motion is not aligned with the antenna orientation, then there will not be an accurate yaw orientation estimate when using the GPS heading estimate.”; [0032]: “One purpose of the techniques disclosed herein is to make best use of available yaw sensor data while still ensuring acquisition occurs in the event of installation errors.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Kreeger discloses: 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.”).
Regarding Claims 12 and 23, Kreeger discloses: 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 ([0038]: “performs a signal acquisition process to search for a satellite signal”; [0039]: “… if the satellite signal meeting predetermined criteria is not found”;), wherein the acquisition engine is configured to select a search space using information related to the estimate of orientation from the signal processing engine ([0039]: “searching the second portion of the full 360° yaw search if the satellite signal meeting predetermined criteria is not found”; [0042]: “search over 0 to 5 degrees within the best yaw estimate”).
Regarding Claims 13 and 24, Kreeger discloses: 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 simultaneously to search for a satellite, where each of the multiple beams is formed based on one of the plurality of hypotheses ([0038]: “interleaving a plurality of signal searches performed by the satellite antenna, where the plurality of signal searches are based on an estimated yaw”; [0053]: “yaw value generator 510 generates yaw values associated with the most probable yaw (e.g., yaw values within a predetermined number of degrees (e.g., 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 degrees, etc.) of the most probably yaw)”; [0061]: “the antenna system uses surface scattering metamaterial technology to form and steer transmit and receive beams through separate antennas.”; [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.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Kreeger discloses: wherein the acquisition engine is configured to perform re-acquisition by repeatedly narrowing the search space, including preventing beam formation for an orientation hypothesis previously determined to be a non-likely state of the terminal ([0028]: “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.”; [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”).
Regarding Claim 15, Kreeger discloses: 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 ([0028]: “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.”; [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”).
Regarding Claim 16, Kreeger discloses: wherein the acquisition engine is configured to provide the signal processing engine with an indication of both non-acceptable and acceptable orientation hypotheses ([0028]: “higher confidence estimate”; “lower confidence yaw estimates.”), and further wherein the signal processing engine is configured to update the orientation estimate based on the non-acceptable and acceptable orientation hypotheses ([0028]: “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.”; [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”).
Regarding Claim 19, Kreeger discloses: wherein the flat-panel antenna comprises a metasurface antenna ([0061]: “surface scattering metamaterial”).
Regarding Claim 25, Kreeger teaches: wherein performing re-acquisition comprises repeatedly narrowing the search space, by
preventing beam formation for an orientation hypothesis previously determined to be a non-likely state of the terminal ([0028]; [0040]), or
determining whether to include individual orientation hypothesis based on a comparison between one or more orientation hypotheses previously determined as acceptable for searching ([0028]; [0040]).
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.
Claims 6-8, 17-18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreeger (US 2019/0369263) and further in view of Johnson (US 2017/0254903).
Regarding Claim 6, Kreeger teaches: … the iterative processing engine … ([0046]: “Iterate in time between both Step 2 and Step 3 until the signal is found.”).
Kreeger does not explicitly teach – but Johnson teaches: … comprises a Kalman filter to estimate unknown states associated with the flat-panel antenna used to generate the estimates of the orientation (Johnson [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.”; [0062]).
It would have been obvious to modify Kreeger and use a Kalman filter to estimate the unknown states associated with the flat-panel antenna, as taught by Johnson. Kalman filters are well-known in the art and are beneficial for reducing noise and improving measurement accuracy.
Regarding Claim 7, Kreeger teaches: … the iterative processing engine … ([0046]: “Iterate in time between both Step 2 and Step 3 until the signal is found.”).
Kreeger does not explicitly teach – but Johnson teaches: wherein the iterative processing engine comprises:
a first Kalman filter to estimate the state of the flat-panel antenna (Johnson [0057]); 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 (Johnson [0057]; [0062]: “the most recent orientation data from the extended Kalman Filter (EKF) is used as an initial starting point and the process begins again.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Kreeger and use a Kalman filter to estimate the state the flat-panel antenna, and an iterator to cause the first Kalman filter it iterate on the sensory inputs along with any new sensor input data received since a previous iteration, as taught by Johnson. Kalman filters and iteration are well-known in the art and are beneficial for reducing noise and improving measurement accuracy.
Regarding Claim 8, Kreeger does not explicitly teach – but Johnson teaches: wherein the sensory input processing core engine comprises:
an orientation initializer to provide an initial orientation estimate ([0057]: “initial orientation”); and
a gyro bias initializer to infer gyro bias and provide an initial bias indication for a gyro associated with the flat-panel antenna ([0057]: “gyroscope”; “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”).
It would have been obvious to modify Kreeger and use a gyro bias initializer to infer gyro bias and provide an initial bias indication for a gyro associated with the flat-panel antenna, as taught by Johnson. Inferring the gyro bias would be beneficial for correcting the gyro bias and thereby improving measurement accuracy.
Regarding Claims 17 and 26, Kreeger teaches: … the acquisition engine … ([0038]).
Kreeger does not explicitly teach – but 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 (Johnson [0047]: “a second search pattern narrower than the first search pattern”; [0055]: “As the search progresses, the maximum angle of the search pattern is decreased.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Kreeger and adjust beamwidth as multiple searches are performed, and narrow the beamwidth as a subsequent search is performed, as taught by Johnson. Adjusting and narrowing the beamwidth is beneficial for reducing search time and thereby improves signal acquisition.
Regarding Claim 18, Kreeger teaches: … the acquisition engine … ([0038]).
Kreeger does not explicitly teach – but Johnson teaches: wherein the acquisition engine is configured to bound beam stride as more searches of the search space occur ([0047]: “a second search pattern narrower than the first search pattern”; [0055]: “As the search progresses, the maximum angle of the search pattern is decreased.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Kreeger and adjust beamwidth as multiple searches are performed, and narrow the beamwidth as a subsequent search is performed, as taught by Johnson. Adjusting and narrowing the beamwidth is beneficial for reducing search time and thereby improves signal acquisition.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreeger (US 2019/0369263) and further in view of Halperin (US 2021/0253276).
Regarding Claim 11, Kreeger does not explicitly teach – but Halperin teaches: the apparatus further comprising a sensory input post-processor coupled to the core engine to:
receive the estimates generated by the core engine (Halperin [0089]: “orientation of the structure”; “Based on the information measured by the control sensors...”);
determine one and more of the estimates comply with expected behavior (Halperin [0089]: “ensure the accurate orientation”); and
output any of the one or more estimates determined to comply with the expected behavior (Halperin [0089]: “given the current measured orientation of the structure 100, provide commands to their associated actuators 228, 28.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Kreeger with a post-processor configured to receive the estimates generated by the core engine, determine estimates comply with expected behavior, and output estimates determined to comply with the expected behavior, as taught by Halperin. Determining and outputting estimates that comply with expected behavior is beneficial for improving measurement accuracy and thereby improves signal acquisition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-11, filed 10/22/2025 regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections have been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 11-14, filed 10/22/2025 regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to argue that Kreeger does not teach the following limitations of Claim 1:
a sensory input processing core engine to generate the estimates; and
a sensory input pre-processor to receive the sensory inputs,
determine which of one or more sensor measurements of the sensory inputs to send to the core engine for use in generating the estimates, 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.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the above limitations are taught by paras. [0053-0054] of Kreeger as detailed in the rejections for Claims 1, 20, and 27 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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