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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Please Note: Paragraphs 0073, 0074, 0077, 0078 of Applicants’ disclosure reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. 35 U.S.C. 112 a and b are therefore met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 – 3, 8, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24 – 26, 31, 37, 39, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen et al. (US 2023/0262590) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2022/0232503).
Regarding Claim 1, Maattanen teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless communication device, comprising: detecting a trigger to communicate via satellite connectivity (Section 0053, redirection to a NTN is a trigger); determining one or more alignment opportunities associated with one or more satellites, wherein each alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities is a time period during which a main lobe of at least one antenna of one or more antennas of the wireless communication device is predicted to be aligned with a line-of-sight (LOS) direction to at least one of the one or more satellites (Section 0053, can predict where satellite will be based on ephemeris and point antenna and the energy of said antenna in direction of said satellite, said energy can be pointed or directed at the satellite for a finite amount of time); and communicating with at least one satellite of the one or more satellites during the at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0053, UE can communicate when its energy and antenna are pointed at said satellite).
Maattanen does not teach refraining from communicating with the one or more satellites until at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities.
Cheng, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches refraining from communicating with the one or more satellites until at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0466, no satellite candidate means no opportunity to communicate with a satellite).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen with the above feature to Cheng for the purpose of providing power saving as taught by Cheng.
Regarding Claim 24, Maattanen teaches a wireless communication device, comprising: one or more memories; one or more transceivers; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to: detect a trigger to communicate via satellite connectivity (Figure 2, Sections 0089, 0090, wireless device with transmitters and receivers, processing circuitry, and device readable mediums, Section 0053, redirection to a NTN is a trigger); determine one or more alignment opportunities associated with one or more satellites, wherein each alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities is a time period during which a main lobe of at least one antenna of one or more antennas of the wireless communication device is predicted to be aligned with a line-of-sight (LOS) direction to at least one of the one or more satellites (Section 0053, can predict where satellite will be based on ephemeris and point antenna and the energy of said antenna in direction of said satellite, said energy can be pointed or directed at the satellite for a finite amount of time); and communicate, via the one or more transceivers, with at least one satellite of the one or more satellites during the at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0053, UE can communicate when its energy and antenna are pointed at said satellite).
Maattanen does not teach refrain from communicating with the one or more satellites until at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities.
Cheng, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches refraining from communicating with the one or more satellites until at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0466, no satellite candidate means no opportunity to communicate with a satellite).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen with the above feature to Cheng for the purpose of providing power saving as taught by Cheng.
Regarding Claim 47, Maattanen teaches a wireless communication device, comprising: means for detecting a trigger to communicate via satellite connectivity (Section 0053, redirection to a NTN is a trigger); means for determining one or more alignment opportunities associated with one or more satellites, wherein each alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities is a time period during which a main lobe of at least one antenna of one or more antennas of the wireless communication device is predicted to be aligned with a line-of-sight (LOS) direction to at least one of the one or more satellites (Section 0053, can predict where satellite will be based on ephemeris and point antenna and the energy of said antenna in direction of said satellite, said energy can be pointed or directed at the satellite for a finite amount of time); and means for communicating with at least one satellite of the one or more satellites during the at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0053, UE can communicate when its energy and antenna are pointed at said satellite).
Maattanen does not teach means for refraining from communicating with the one or more satellites until at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities.
Cheng, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches means for refraining from communicating with the one or more satellites until at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0466, no satellite candidate means no opportunity to communicate with a satellite).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen with the above feature to Cheng for the purpose of providing power saving as taught by Cheng.
Regarding Claim 48, Maattanen teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a wireless communication device, cause the wireless communication device to: detect a trigger to communicate via satellite connectivity (Figure 2, Sections 0089, 0090, wireless device with transmitters and receivers, processing circuitry, and device readable mediums Section 0053, redirection to a NTN is a trigger); determine one or more alignment opportunities associated with one or more satellites, wherein each alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities is a time period during which a main lobe of at least one antenna of one or more antennas of the wireless communication device is predicted to be aligned with a line-of-sight (LOS) direction to at least one of the one or more satellites (Section 0053, can predict where satellite will be based on ephemeris and point antenna and the energy of said antenna in direction of said satellite, said energy can be pointed or directed at the satellite for a finite amount of time); and communicate with at least one satellite of the one or more satellites during the at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0053, UE can communicate when its energy and antenna are pointed at said satellite).
Maattanen does not teach refrain from communicating with the one or more satellites until at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities.
Cheng, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches means for refraining from communicating with the one or more satellites until at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0466, no satellite candidate means no opportunity to communicate with a satellite).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen with the above feature to Cheng for the purpose of providing power saving as taught by Cheng.
Regarding Claims 2, 25, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen further teaches wherein the one or more alignment opportunities are determined based on: a characterization of an orientation and shape of each main lobe of each of the one or more antennas relative to the wireless communication device, an estimate of an orientation of the wireless communication device relative to the Earth, an estimate of an uncertainty of the orientation of the wireless communication device, an estimate of trajectories of the one or more satellites, signal strength measurements of the one or more satellites, one or more preferences related to selecting the one or more satellites, or any combination thereof (Section 0053, ephemeris provides the trajectory).
Regarding Claims 3, 26, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 2, 25. Maattanen further teaches wherein the orientation of the wireless communication device relative to the Earth comprises a gravity direction only (Figure 1, user equipment is on earth in the spot beam of the satellite, user equipment will have the earth’s gravitational pull acting on it).
Regarding Claim 8, 31, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen does not teach transitioning to a sleep state until the at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities.
Cheng, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches transitioning to a sleep state until the at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0466, stopping the monitoring is effectively sleeping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen with the above feature to Cheng for the purpose of providing power saving as taught by Cheng.
Regarding Claims 14, 37, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen further teaches prompting a user of the wireless communication device to place the wireless communication device on a stable surface such that a main lobe of at least one of the one or more antennas faces upward (Section 0053, wireless device can direct its energy at a satellite based on ephemeris, mobile device can be in a variety of locations such as a table).
Regarding Claims 16, 39, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen further teaches notifying a user of the wireless communication device of a time of a next alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0053, redirection to NTN is notification of opportunity to communicate with satellite).
Regarding Claim 18, 41, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen further teaches wherein detecting the trigger comprises: receiving a request from a user of the wireless communication device to communicate via satellite connectivity; detecting an emergency event at the wireless communication device; determining that the user is incapable of performing an interactive pointing procedure with the wireless communication device; or any combination thereof (Figure 1 of Maattanen, typical UEs that communicate with satellites receive requests to communicate with said satellites).
Regarding Claims 21, 44, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen further teaches communicating with the at least one satellite comprises transmitting at least one first message to the at least one satellite, communicating with the at least one satellite comprises receiving at least one second message from the at least one satellite, or any combination thereof (Figure 1, wireless device can communicate with the satellite thus rendering a scenario wherein said wireless device transmits messages to said satellite).
Regarding Claims 22, 45, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen further teaches wherein the wireless communication device is: an Internet of Things (IoT) device, or a wireless communications device (Section 0087, NB-IoT standard).
Claim(s) 4 – 6, 9, 27 – 29, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen et al. (US 2023/0262590) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2022/0232503) and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0289583)
Regarding Claims 4, 27, the combination of Maattanen in view of Cheng teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. The combination does not teach determining whether an orientation of the wireless communication device is stable.
Zhang, which also teaches wireless communications, teaches determining whether an orientation of the wireless communication device is stable (Section 0125).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen in view of Cheng with the above features of Zhang for the purpose of performing communication with increased reliability and power efficiency as taught by Zhang.
Regarding Claims 5, 28, the combination of Maattanen, Cheng in view of Zhang teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 4, 27. The combination does not teach initiating an orientation change detector based on the orientation of the wireless communication device being stable; or prompting a user of the wireless communication device to place the wireless communication device on a stable surface based on the orientation of the wireless communication device not being stable.
Zhang, which also teaches wireless communications, teaches initiating an orientation change detector based on the orientation of the wireless communication device being stable; or prompting a user of the wireless communication device to place the wireless communication device on a stable surface based on the orientation of the wireless communication device not being stable (Section 0125, measuring or detecting motion/rotation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen combination with the above features of Zhang for the purpose of performing communication with increased reliability and power efficiency as taught by Zhang.
Regarding Claims 6, 29, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 5, 28. Maattanen further teaches wherein the wireless communication device communicates with the at least one satellite during the at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities (Section 0053, UE can communicate when its energy and antenna are pointed at said satellite).
Maattanen combination does not teach wherein the wireless communication device communicates with the at least one satellite during the at least one alignment opportunity of the one or more alignment opportunities based on the orientation change detector not detecting a change in the orientation of the wireless communication device.
Zhang, which also teaches wireless communications, teaches orientation change detector not detecting a change in the orientation of the wireless communication device (Section 0125).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen combination with the above features of Zhang for the purpose of performing communication with increased reliability and power efficiency as taught by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 9, 32, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen further teaches determining one or more first alignment opportunities associated with the one or more satellites (Section 0053, ephemeris provides the plurality of alignment opportunities); movement of the wireless communication device before the one or more first alignment opportunities (Section 0053, the UE is a mobile device thus it can move); and determining one or more second alignment opportunities associated with the one or more satellites based on the movement of the wireless communication device (Section 0053, ephemeris provides the plurality of alignment opportunities).
Maattanen combination does not teach detecting movement of the wireless communication device before the one or more first alignment opportunities.
Zhang, which also teaches wireless communications, teaches detecting movement of the wireless communication device before the one or more first alignment opportunities (Section 0125, detecting motion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen combination with the above features of Zhang for the purpose of performing communication with increased reliability and power efficiency as taught by Zhang.
Claim(s) 7, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen et al. (US 2023/0262590) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2022/0232503) and in further view of Li et al. (US 10,484,033)
Regarding Claims 7, 30, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen does not teach determining that the one or more alignment opportunities will not occur within a threshold period of time of a current time; and prompting a user of the wireless communication device to reposition the wireless communication device.
Cheng, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches determining that the one or more alignment opportunities will not occur within a threshold period of time of a current time (Section 0466, no satellite candidate for a while).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen with the above feature to Cheng for the purpose of providing power saving as taught by Cheng.
Maattanen combination does not teach prompting a user of the wireless communication device to reposition the wireless communication device.
Li, which also teaches wireless communications, teaches prompting a user of the wireless communication device to reposition the wireless communication device (Col. 13 lines 43 – 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen combination with the above features of Li for the purpose of avoiding antenna signal blockage and thus improve signal quality as taught by Li.
Claim(s) 10 – 13, 33 – 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen et al. (US 2023/0262590) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2022/0232503) and in further view of Sharma et al. (US 2024/0314664)
Regarding Claims 10, 33, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen combination does not teach determining whether or not communication with the at least one satellite was successful.
Sharma, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches determining whether or not communication with the at least one satellite was successful (Section 0099, return of ACK indicates success).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Maattanen combination with the above features of Sharma for the purpose of handling transmission of uplink data more efficiently as taught by Sharma.
Regarding Claims 11, 34, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 10, 33. Maattanen combination does not teach wherein: communicating with the at least one satellite comprises transmitting a message to the at least one satellite, and the message is determined to have been transmitted successfully based on reception of an acknowledgment from the at least one satellite.
Sharma, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches wherein: communicating with the at least one satellite comprises transmitting a message to the at least one satellite (Section 0099), and the message is determined to have been transmitted successfully based on reception of an acknowledgment from the at least one satellite (Section 0099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Maattanen combination with the above features of Sharma for the purpose of handling transmission of uplink data more efficiently as taught by Sharma.
Regarding Claims 12, 35, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 10, 33. Maattanen combination does not teach notifying a user of the wireless communication device whether or not communication with the at least one satellite was successful.
Sharma, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches notifying a user of the wireless communication device whether or not communication with the at least one satellite was successful (Section 0099, an ACK indicates that the communication is successful).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Maattanen combination with the above features of Sharma for the purpose of handling transmission of uplink data more efficiently as taught by Sharma.
Regarding Claim 13, 36, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 10, 33. Maattanen combination does not teach re-attempting to communicate with the at least one satellite based on communication with the at least one satellite being unsuccessful.
Sharma, which also teaches the use of satellites, teaches re-attempting to communicate with the at least one satellite based on communication with the at least one satellite being unsuccessful (Section 0099, re-establishment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Maattanen combination with the above features of Sharma for the purpose of handling transmission of uplink data more efficiently as taught by Sharma.
Claim(s) 15, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen et al. (US 2023/0262590) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2022/0232503) and in further view of Eom (US 2007/0159405)
Regarding Claims 15, 38, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen combination does not teach determining that the wireless communication device is not stationary; determining a pattern of movement of the wireless communication device; and increasing a margin of error of the one or more alignment opportunities based on the pattern of movement.
Eom, which also teaches satellite communications, teaches determining that the wireless communication device is not stationary (Section 0020, takes into account sudden movement of device); determining a pattern of movement of the wireless communication device (Section 0020, takes into account sudden movement of device); and increasing a margin of error of the one or more alignment opportunities based on the pattern of movement (Section 0020, azimuth or elevation error).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Maattanen combination with the above features of Eom for the purpose of minimizing satellite tracking error according to the movements of a mobile as taught by Eom.
Claim(s) 17, 40, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen et al. (US 2023/0262590) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2022/0232503) and in further view of Merrell (US 2018/0076517)
Regarding Claim 17, 40, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 1, 24. Maattanen combination does not teach monitoring a signal strength of the at least one satellite before communication with the at least one satellite, wherein communication with the at least one satellite is based on the signal strength of the at least one satellite being above a threshold.
Merrell, which also teaches satellite communications, teaches monitoring a signal strength of the at least one satellite before communication with the at least one satellite (Sections 0052, 0053), wherein communication with the at least one satellite is based on the signal strength of the at least one satellite being above a threshold (Sections 0052, 0053, maximizing signal strength).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maattanen combination with above features of Merrell for the purpose of improving resource efficiency as taught by Merrell.
Claim(s) 19, 20, 42, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen et al. (US 2023/0262590) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2022/0232503) and in further view of Herz (US 2017/0150060)
Regarding Claims 19, 42 Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 18, 41. Maattanen combination does not teach displaying a prompt to the user to choose to perform the interactive pointing procedure or the method of wireless communication, wherein the user is determined to be incapable of performing the interactive pointing procedure based on reception of user input to perform the method of wireless communication.
Herz, which also teaches mobile devices, teaches displaying a prompt to the user to choose to perform the interactive pointing procedure or the method of wireless communication (Section 0080, display indicates when user is pointing the device accurately), wherein the user is determined to be incapable of performing the interactive pointing procedure based on reception of user input to perform the method of wireless communication (Section 0027, smartphones enable public land mobile network (PLMN) communications, when user engages in said communications said user is incapable of engaging in pointing the device for satellites).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Maattanen combination with the above features of Herz for the purpose of providing advanced imaging satellite information on a mobile device as taught by Herz.
Regarding Claims 20, 43, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 18, 41. Maattanen combination does not teach detecting a plurality of failed attempts to perform the interactive pointing procedure, wherein the user is determined to be incapable of performing the interactive pointing procedure based on the plurality of failed attempts being detected.
Herz, which also teaches mobile devices, teaches detecting a plurality of failed attempts to perform the interactive pointing procedure, wherein the user is determined to be incapable of performing the interactive pointing procedure based on the plurality of failed attempts being detected (Section 0027, smartphones enable public land mobile network (PLMN) communications, when user engages in said communications said user is incapable of engaging in pointing the device for satellites, when user is engaging in said communications then there will be failed attempts for pointing the device for satellites)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Maattanen combination with the above features of Herz for the purpose of providing advanced imaging satellite information on a mobile device as taught by Herz.
Claim(s) 23, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen et al. (US 2023/0262590) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2022/0232503) and in further view of Capella et al. (US 9,781,581)
Regarding Claim 23, 46, Maattanen combination teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claims 18, 24. Maattanen combination does not teach wherein the trigger to communicate via satellite connectivity is based on the wireless communication device not having cellular connectivity.
Capella, which also teaches wireless communications, teaches wherein the trigger to communicate via satellite connectivity is based on the wireless communication device not having cellular connectivity (Col. 31 lines 42 – 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the Maattanen combination with the above features of Capella for the purpose of uniquely identifying a sender of a message in a cost efficient manner as taught by Capella.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND S DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00-2:30, 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/RAYMOND S DEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Raymond S. Dean
March 12, 2026