DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for at least three signals received from at least one satellite, does not reasonably provide enablement for less than three signals received from at least one satellite. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claim 1, the “receive at least one signal from at least one satellite” fails enablement requirement if there are less than three signals (i.e. reads on “at least one signal” as claimed) received at least one satellite because a first contour of geolocations is based on a first pseudo range difference of two signals received from a satellite; and a second contour of geolocations is based on a second pseudo range difference of two signals received from a satellite. Therefore, at least three signals need to be received from a satellite which results in a first contour of geolocations and a second contour of geolocations (emphasis added). Thus, one skilled in the art cannot practice the invention without undue experimentation with the claimed invention of “receive at least one signal from at least one satellite” as claimed.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for at least two signals received from at least one satellite, does not reasonably provide enablement for less than two signals received from at least one satellite. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claim 14, the “received at least one signal from at least one satellite” fails enablement requirement if there are less than two signals (i.e. reads on “at least one signal” as claimed) received at least one satellite because a first contour of geolocations is based on a first pseudo range difference of two signals received from a satellite. Therefore, at least two signals need to be received from a satellite which results in a first contour of geolocations (emphasis added). Thus, one skilled in the art cannot practice the invention without undue experimentation with the claimed invention of “receive at least one signal from at least one satellite” as claimed.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 19, the claims are rejected as lacking adequate written descriptive support for the broad devices and method encompassed by the claim language. Applicant has not adequately described the claimed invention because the specification fails to provide adequate written descriptive support of how and in what manner a location of the device is determined based on the area of overlap (i.e. claims 1, 14, 19); how and in what manner an area of overlap between the first contour and the estimated location is determined based on a contour and only an estimated location (i.e. claims 14, 19). Applicant fails to give any guidance as to which variables to use, how they correlate or relate to one another, or how they are ranked in priority to determine a location of the device and/or the overlap area such that practice of the invention could be made by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Applicant's disclosure is a laundry list of abstract variables and a result, without specifically providing any specific concrete disclosure as to how to combine the variables to produce the result claimed.
It is pure speculation on the part of the Examiner to presume that Applicant has a working embodiment of the claimed invention based on the disclosure as filed. While Applicant has disclosed some variables to be used in implementing the claimed invention, Applicant has not adequately provide with disclosure of how the variables are defined, weighted, and combined to execute and produce the claimed invention.
A written descriptive support for a claimed invention is adequate where the disclosure specifies “relevant identifying characteristics,” such as “complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. GenProbe Inc., , 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, that is not a case here. “[P]roof of a reduction to practice, absent an adequate description in the specification of what is reduced to practice, does not serve to describe or identify the invention for purposes of [the written description requirement].” Enzo, 323 F.3d at 969.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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.
Claims 14-20 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, it is unclear of what “an estimated location” is referenced to. Is it an estimated location of a satellite(s) or a device or something else? The metes and bound of the claims cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art.
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the devices and method for determining a location of a device that can be accomplished through a series of mental processes. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a device. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 14 (and its dependents) recites a device. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 19 (and its dependent) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 recites:
a location identification logic, configured to:
identify a first contour of geolocations;
identify a second contour of geolocations;
determine an area of overlap between the first contour and the second contour; and
determine a location of the device based on the area of overlap.
The “identify” steps may be performed by observing and evaluating the received signal(s) from a satellite(s) to create a contour(s) of geolocations which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
The “determine an area of overlap…” step may be performed by evaluating the contours and judging an area where the contours overlap with each other which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement.
The “determine a location of the device …” step may be performed by judging the area where the contours overlapping with each other and estimating/determining a device’s location in the overlap area which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claim 14 recites:
a location identification logic, configured to:
identify a first contour of geolocations;
determine an area of overlap between the first contour and the estimated location; and
determine a location of the device based on the area of overlap.
The “identify” step may be performed by observing and evaluating the received signal(s) from a satellite(s) to create a contour of geolocations which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
The “determine an area of overlap…” step may be performed by evaluating the contour with an estimated location and judging an area where they overlap with each other which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement.
The “determine a location of the device …” step may be performed by judging the area where the contour and the estimated location overlapping with each other and estimating/determining a device’s location in the overlap area which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claim 19 recites:
determining a first pseudo range difference based on a first signal and a second signal received by a device from a first satellite in a first time period;
identifying a first contour of geolocations having the first pseudo range difference corresponding to the first satellite in the first time period;
determining an area of overlap between the first contour and the estimated location; and
determining a location of the device based on the area of overlap, wherein the device is stationary during the first time period.
The “determining a first pseudo range difference…” step may be performed by observing and evaluating the received signals from a satellite to determine the pseudo range difference between the signals which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
The “identifying” step may be performed by observing and evaluating the pseudo range difference between the signals to create a contour of geolocations which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
The “determining an area of overlap…” step may be performed by evaluating the contour with an estimated location and judging an area where they overlap with each other which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement.
The “determining a location of the device …” step may be performed by judging the area where the contour and the estimated location overlapping with each other and estimating/determining a device’s location in the overlap area which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1, 14, and 19 encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13, 15, and 20 further claiming information gleaned from the mental process.
Regarding claims 2-5, 8-10, 13 and 15, the further steps of determining pseudo range differences as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
Regarding claim 11, the further step as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind through using evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Regarding claim 20, the further step as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind through using evaluation.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 13, 15, and 20 also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 1 is “at least one global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver configured to receive at least one signal from at least one satellite”, of claim 14 is “at least one global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver configured to receive at least one signal from at least one satellite; retrieve an estimated location”; of claim 19 is “a first signal and a second signal received by a device from a first satellite in a first time period; retrieving an estimated location”; and of claim 20 is “the estimated location is retrieved from at least one of: a Global Positioning System (GPS) database or a crowd-sourced database of a plurality of access points”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. In addition, the GNSS receiver(s) acts only for data gathering and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extrasolution activity which simply provide what all GNSS receivers provide. Further, “a location identification logic” as claimed require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-15, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(a), 35 USC 112(b), and/or 35 USC 101 rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,439,370 discloses systems, apparatuses, methods, and computer-readable media for identifying a locations of a network entities within a network. A method for identifying a location of an (AP) includes receiving a first location measurement associated with a first measurement variant and a second location measurement associated with a second measurement variant from a first AP; receiving a third location measurement associated with the first measurement variant and a fourth location measurement associated with the second measurement variant from a second AP; determining weights associated with the location measurements; determining a first location associated with the first AP and a second location associated with the second AP based on a first weight, a second weight, a third weight, and a fourth weight; determining a confidence of the first location based on a comparison of the first location measurement and the second location measurement.
US 2024/0168172 discloses a method for positioning a terminal performed by a computer device. The method includes: obtaining first actual observation data, second actual observation data, an actual location of a target base station, and actual locations of N satellites; determining an initial estimated location of the terminal based on the first actual observation data and the actual locations of the N satellites; determining, based on the second actual observation data, the actual location of the target base station, and the actual locations of the N satellites, a first system positioning error corresponding to the initial estimated location of the terminal; and adjusting the initial estimated location of the terminal according to the first system positioning error and the first actual observation data, to obtain a target location of the terminal. Location positioning accuracy of the terminal can be improved by using this application.
US 11,487,025 discloses a method of inferring the GPS location of a device with a GPS receiver. The method includes using signals from two GPS satellites to determine two candidate GPS locations. Geographic information can be used to estimate the probability that the device is at each location. If one of the two candidate GPS locations has a substantially higher probability of being the correct location, that location may be selected as the inferred GPS location. The method may also include making use of additional sensed data that could be provided using sensors onboard the device.
US 10,018,730 discloses a method of determining a position of a GNSS receiver includes: receiving, at the GNSS receiver, information from at least two GNSS satellites and an estimated location area from a non-GNSS positioning application, determining candidate pseudoranges corresponding to candidate correlation peaks determined based on the information received from the at least two GNSS satellites; determining possible positions of the GNSS receiver using the candidate pseudoranges and the estimated location area; determining a best possible position of the GNSS receiver from the possible positions; and setting the best possible position as the position of the GNSS receiver; wherein when multiple candidate correlation peaks corresponding to one of the at least two GNSS satellites are determined, the estimated location area is usable to reduce the number of candidate correlation peaks prior to candidate pseudoranges being determined.
EP 2,556,603 discloses a system, apparatus, and method for using spot beam overlap for geolocation leveraging. In one or more embodiments, the method for using spot beam overlap for geolocation leveraging involves providing an estimate of a location of a user receiver device. The method comprises emitting from at least one vehicle at least one spot beam on Earth, and receiving with the user receiver device a first signal from at least one spot beam and receiving with the user receiver device a second signal from the at least one spot beam. The method further comprises calculating with the user receiver device an estimate of the location of the user receiver device according to the user receiver device's location within an overlap of the signal amplitude contours of the first and second signals of the at least one spot beam.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646