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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 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. Claims 16-18 and 20 recite: “first portion” and “second portion of the ground terminals”, and “first portion” nor “second portion” are not clearly defined. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted as thus: communication with the ground terminals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al (US 20200186242 A1), hereinafter Miller in view of Bondyopadhyay (US 6292134 B1)
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses:
A polyhedral antenna system for a low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite, the polyhedral antenna system comprising (Miller, paras [0085], The communications satellite 120 may be any suitable type of communications satellite configured for wireless communication with the one or more access node terminals 130 and the one or more user terminals 150. In some examples the communications satellite 120 may be deployed in a geostationary orbit, such that its orbital position with respect to terrestrial devices is relatively fixed, or fixed within an operational tolerance or other orbital window (e.g., within an orbital slot). In other examples, the communications satellite 120 may operate in any appropriate orbit (e.g., low Earth orbit (LEO), medium Earth orbit (MEO), etc.). In some examples the communications satellite 120 may have an uncertain orbital position, which may be associated with the communications satellite 120 being designed prior to determining an orbital slot deployment, being deployed to one of a range of possible orbital positions (e.g., an orbital slot having a range of orbital positions, or being deployed to one of a set of orbital slots), a range of orbital paths, and/or drifting over time after deployment to an unintended orbital position and/or orbital path. In various examples the communications satellite 120 may be retasked (e.g., moved to a different geostationary orbital slot, adjusted to a different LEO or MEO orbital path, etc.), wherein such retasking may be commanded by the communications satellite 120 itself, and/or commanded by signals received at the communications satellite 120 (e.g., from an access node terminal 130, from a network device 141, etc.) and (further reference para [0112] regarding polyhedral array)):
a mounting structure to mount to the LEO satellite in a defined orientation (Miller, Fig. 1A satellite 120, feed array assembly 127, Fig. 1B feed elements 128, para [0085] and para [0112], The reflector 122 may be configured to reflect the signals transmitted between the feed array assembly 127 and one or more target devices (e.g., user terminals 150, access node terminals 130, etc.). Each feed element 128 of the feed array assembly 127 may be associated with a respective native feed element pattern, which may be further associated with a projected native feed element pattern coverage area (e.g., as projected on a terrestrial surface, plane, or volume after reflection from the reflector 122). The collection of the native feed element pattern coverage areas for a multi-feed antenna may be referred to as a native antenna pattern. The feed array assembly 127 may include any number of feed elements 128 (e.g., tens, hundreds, thousands, etc.), which may be arranged in any suitable arrangement (e.g., a linear array, an arcuate array, a planar array, a honeycomb array, a polyhedral array, a spherical array, an ellipsoidal array, or combinations thereof). Although each feed element 128 is shown in FIG. 1C as circular, feed elements 128 may be other shapes such as square, rectangular, hexagonal, and others));
a polyhedral antenna integrated with the mounting structure, such that relative to an orbital orientation of the LEO satellite (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]),
,
the polyhedral antenna comprising (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
a nadir-facingsub-antenna integrated with the mounting structure to have a nadir-facing boresight pointing in the nadir direction (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]);
(Miller, Fig. 1A, paras [0112] and [0324])
Bondyopadhyay discloses:
the polyhedral antenna has a defined nadir direction and a defined maximum slant direction that is angled K degrees from the nadir direction and corresponds to an edge of coverage (EoC) of the polyhedral antenna, wherein K is not equal to zero (Bondyopadhyay, col. 3, lines 43-48: Phased array antennas with omni-directional scanning capabilities that can be deployed as a satellite in the low earth orbit to observe important events like ballistic missile launches and tracking, and have simultaneous communications with earth stations as well as other satellites in various kinds of orbits and altitudes are of great importance as well) and (col.4, lines 2-15: The phased array antenna comprises a plurality of substantially equilateral triangular-shaped planar subarray units arranged in a geodesic sphere configuration derived from a regular or semi-regular polyhedron and mounted on a geodesic structure of corresponding configuration. The icosahedron, which is a regular polyhedron, and a Platonic solid, is one of the preferred basic configurations of the present invention and the truncated icosahedron, which is a semi-regular polyhedron and an Archimedian solid, is another preferred basis in the invention. Each subarray of planar antenna elements is connectable to a signal feed means for forming at least one electromagnetic beam in space, either by itself or in combination with a plurality of adjacent subarrays)
and an EoC-facing sub-antenna integrated with the mounting structure to have an edge-of-coverage (EoC) boresight pointing in the maximum slant direction (Bondyopadhyay, col. 3, lines 43-48) and (col.4, lines 2-15)
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller with Zossin to incorporate the features of: the polyhedral antenna has a defined nadir direction and a defined maximum slant direction that is angled K degrees from the nadir direction and corresponds to an edge of coverage (EoC) of the polyhedral antenna, wherein K is not equal to zero, and an EoC-facing sub-antenna integrated with the mounting structure to have an edge-of-coverage (EoC) boresight pointing in the maximum slant direction. Both arts are considered analogous arts as they both disclose polyhedral components of a satellite. The modification would render the predictable results of improved coverage shaping, improved beam steering; and reduction with interference.
Regarding claim 2, Miller discloses:
The polyhedral antenna system of claim 1, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
the nadir-facing sub-antenna comprises a first array of antenna elements configured to radiate according to the nadir boresight (Miller, para [0079], Various other configurations are possible for providing a change in native antenna pattern for providing a communications service. For example, an antenna assembly may include more than one reflector, and one or more actuators may be located between the feed array assembly and one of the reflectors, and/or between a first reflector and a second reflector. In some examples a reflector may have its own actuator that may change the reflection characteristics of the reflector (e.g., change the location of a focal region, change the focal region from a one-dimensional focal region to a two-dimensional region, change from a single focal point to multiple focal points, change the shape of a focal region, etc.). Additionally or alternatively, a feed array assembly may include an actuator, which may provide a change in position and/or orientation for one or more feed elements of the feed array assembly (e.g., changing a feed array assembly from having feed element apertures on a planar surface to having feed element apertures on an arced or spherical surface, moving a subset of feed element apertures with respect to another subset of feed element apertures, expanding or contracting a pattern of feed elements, etc.). In various examples, an antenna assembly may include any combination of the described actuator assemblies to provide various changes in native antenna pattern for adapting a communications service );
and the EoC-facing sub-antenna comprises a second array of antenna elements configured to radiate according to the EoC boresight (Miller, para [0324], Native antenna pattern coverage areas 221-e-2 and 221-f-2 may represent projected coverage areas of the native antenna patterns 220-e-1 and 220-f-1 described with reference to FIG. 24C, but at the second geostationary orbital position. In some examples the native antenna pattern coverage areas 221-e-2 and 221-f-2 may be provided by not only changing the orbital position of the communications satellite 120-d, but also by changing a boresight direction of the associated antennas 121 of the communications satellite 120-d(e.g., changing a skew angle as measured from the communications satellite 120-d between the antenna boresight direction and the center of the Earth, thereby compensating for the adjustment from an orbital slot at 98° to an orbital slot at 88°). In some examples, this change to the antenna boresight direction may be accomplished by causing the communications satellite 120-d to be oriented with a different attitude. However, in some examples the antennas 121 of the communications satellite 120-d may have the entire Earth in their field of view, and adjusting the boresight direction of the antenna assemblies may not be necessary (e.g., the antennas 121 may continue to be pointed at the center of the Earth.)).
Regarding claim 3, Miller discloses:
The polyhedral antenna system of claim 2, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
each of the first and second arrays is a planar array of at least one antenna element (Miller, para [0079]).
Regarding claim 4, Miller discloses:
The polyhedral antenna system of claim 1, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
N is a positive integer greater than 1 (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]),
the EoC-facing sub-antenna is one of N EoC-facing sub-antennas (Miller, para [0079]);
each having a respective array of radiating elements configured to radiate in a respective one of N pointing directions (Miller, para [0079]);
Bondyopadhyay discloses:
and each of the N pointing directions corresponds to the maximum slant direction and is orthogonal to at least one other of the N pointing directions (Bondyopadhyay, col. 6, lines 25-47, Bondyopadhyay, Table 1 reflecting the quantitative description of the geodesic sphere icosahedron, col. 6, lines 25-47: The present invention, is a geodesic sphere geodesic sphere phased array antenna such as the antenna structure 20 shown in FIG. 1. It comprises N number of substantially equilateral triangular shaped subarrays 22 of antenna elements arranged in the configuration of a geodesic sphere or a portion thereof, the number N being determined by the phased array antenna performance requirements for specific applications. One of the embodiments of the invention, the geodesic sphere structure 20, shown in FIG. 1 as part of a sphere, is constructed based on the icosahedron, one of the five regular polyhedra (Platonic solids) with twenty equilateral triangular sides. The geodesic sphere phased array antenna structure 20 is designed to provide greater than hemispherical coverage and in the present invention, the elevation angle of the structure extends from +90.degree. through -.theta..degree. where .theta..degree. could be 45.degree. to 30.degree.. In some applications such as space based radars, the antenna structure of the invention for performing omni-directional radar and communication functions as an artificial satellite could be a full geodesic spherical structure. FIG. 1 also includes an exploded view of a subarray 22 containing antenna element clusters capable of two-way communication with dual frequency and dual orthogonal circular polarization capabilities) and (Table 1 from col. 8, lines 1-20
PNG
media_image1.png
392
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
Examiner interprets the icosahedron a species within the genus of polyhedron (Reference MPEP 2131.02 Section I: "A generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus." The species in that case will anticipate the genus. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411, 125 USPQ 345, 347 (CCPA 1960); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Gosteli claimed a genus of 21 specific chemical species of bicyclic thia-aza compounds in Markush claims. The prior art reference applied against the claims disclosed two of the chemical species. The parties agreed that the prior art species would anticipate the claims unless applicant was entitled to his foreign priority date.)”)
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller with Bondyopadhyay to incorporate the features of: and each of the N pointing directions corresponds to the maximum slant direction and is orthogonal to at least one other of the N pointing directions. Both arts are considered analogous arts as they both disclose polyhedral components of a satellite. The modification would render the predictable results of improved interference management, and also improved beam steering and stability.
Regarding claim 5, Miller discloses:
The polyhedral antenna system of claim 4, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
each of the N sub-antennas is assigned to communicate using a different respective one of N carriers (Miller, para [0101], In some satellite communications systems, there may be a limited amount of frequency spectrum available for transmission. Communication links between access node terminals 130 and the communications satellite 120 may use the same, overlapping, or different frequencies as communication links between communications satellite 120 and user terminals 150. Access node terminals 130 may also be located remotely from user terminals 150 to facilitate frequency re-use)
Regarding claim 6, Miller discloses:
The polyhedral antenna system of claim 4, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
the N sub-antennas are grouped into M disjoint subsets (Miller, para [0115, lines 25-36], It should be understood that diagram 201 is not drawn to scale and that native feed element pattern coverage areas 211 are generally each much larger than the reflector 122-a. Because the feed array assembly 127-a is located at a focal region 123 of the reflector 122-a, the native feed element patterns 210-a are substantially non-overlapping in the region of the native antenna pattern coverage area 221-a, and thus the native feed element pattern coverage areas 211-a, are substantially non-overlapping. Therefore each position in the native antenna pattern coverage area 221-a is associated with one or a small number (e.g., 3 or fewer) of feed elements 128)) Examiner interprets non-overlapping as disjointed,
N > 2 and M < N (Miller, para [0079]),
and all of the sub-antennas in any subset are substantially non-overlapping (Miller, para [0115, lines 25-36]);
and each subset is assigned to communicate using a different respective one of M carriers (Miller, para [0101], In some satellite communications systems, there may be a limited amount of frequency spectrum available for transmission. Communication links between access node terminals 130 and the communications satellite 120 may use the same, overlapping, or different frequencies as communication links between communications satellite 120 and user terminals 150. Access node terminals 130 may also be located remotely from user terminals 150 to facilitate frequency re-use)
Regarding claim 7, Miller discloses:
The polyhedral antenna system of claim 1, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
Bondyopadhyay discloses:
the polyhedral antenna is a pyramidal structure having a top surface and four slanted side surfaces (Bondyopadhyay, Table 1, col. 8, lines 1-20);
each side surface is angled relative to the top surface so that a normal vector of the top surface points in the nadir direction ) (Bondyopadhyay, Table 1, col. 8, lines 1-20),
and a normal vector of each side surface points in a direction that is angled K degrees from the nadir direction (Bondyopadhyay, Table 1, col. 8, lines 1-20);
the nadir-facing sub-antenna is disposed on the top surface (Bondyopadhyay, Table 1, col. 8, lines 1-20)
and the EoC-facing sub-antenna is one of four EoC-facing sub-antennas (Bondyopadhyay, col.4, lines 2-15, Table 1, col. 8, lines 1-20),
each disposed on a respective one of the four side surfaces (Bondyopadhyay, Table 1, col. 8, lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller with Bondyopadhyay to incorporate the features of: he polyhedral antenna is a pyramidal structure having a top surface and four slanted side surfaces; each side surface is angled relative to the top surface so that a normal vector of the top surface points in the nadir direction, and a normal vector of each side surface points in a direction that is angled K degrees from the nadir direction; the nadir-facing sub-antenna is disposed on the top surface; and the EoC-facing sub-antenna is one of four EoC-facing sub-antennas, each disposed on a respective one of the four side surfaces. Both arts are considered analogous arts as they both disclose polyhedral components of a satellite. The modification would render the predictable results of improved core coverage and edge-of-coverage (side sub-antennae), reduced interference, and improved ability to support different frequency bands.
Regarding claim 8, Miller discloses:
The polyhedral antenna system of claim 7, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
the polyhedral antenna is configured to operate at five different carrier frequencies (Miller, para [0101]);
the nadir-facing sub-antenna is configured to operate at a first of the five different carrier frequencies (Miller, para [0101]);
and each of four EoC-facing sub-antennas is configured to operate at a respective one of a second, third, fourth, or fifth of the five different carrier frequencies (Miller, para [0101])
Regarding claim 9, Miller discloses:
the polyhedral antenna system of claim 7, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
the polyhedral antenna is configured to operate at three different carrier frequencies (Miller, para [0101])
the nadir-facing sub-antenna is configured to operate at a first of the three different carrier frequencies (Miller, para [0101]) Examiner interprets the different frequencies as any number greater than one;
a first pair of the four EoC-facing sub-antennas is configured to operate at a second of the three different carrier frequencies (Miller, para [0101]),
and a second pair of the four EoC-facing sub-antennas is configured to operate at a third of the three different carrier frequencies (Miller, para [0101]),
Bondyopadhyay discloses:
the first pair being disposed opposite each other on the polyhedral antenna) (Bondyopadhyay, Fig. 5A and col. 7, lines 6-10: In one of the preferred embodiments, the icosahedron 50 shown in FIG. 5a, is the basis for the geodesic spherical antenna structure. FIG. 5b shows the circumscribing of the icosahedron by a sphere 51 which is divided into twenty equal triangular surfaces 52.),
the second pair being disposed opposite each other on the polyhedral antenna (Bondyopadhyay, Fig. 5A and col. 7, lines 6-10)
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller with Bondyopadhyay to incorporate the features of: the first pair being disposed opposite each other on the polyhedral antenna, the second pair being disposed opposite each other on the polyhedral antenna. Both arts are considered analogous arts as they both disclose polyhedral components of a satellite. The modification would render the predictable results of augmented performance of the satellite and improved reduction of interference.
Regarding claim 10, Miller discloses:
the polyhedral antenna system of claim 1 (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]),
wherein the polyhedral antenna further comprises (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
.
Bondyopadhyay discloses:
an intermediate-facing sub-antenna integrated with the mounting structure to have an intermediate-facing boresight pointing in a direction that is angled greater than zero and less than K degrees from the nadir direction (Bondyopadhyay, col. 7, lines 6-10: In one of the preferred embodiments, the icosahedron 50 shown in FIG. 5a, is the basis for the geodesic spherical antenna structure. FIG. 5b shows the circumscribing of the icosahedron by a sphere 51 which is divided into twenty equal triangular surfaces 52.)
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller with Bondyopadhyay to incorporate the features of: an intermediate-facing sub-antenna integrated with the mounting structure to have an intermediate-facing boresight pointing in a direction that is angled greater than zero and less than K degrees from the nadir direction. Both arts are considered analogous arts as they both disclose polyhedral components of a satellite. The modification would render the predictable results of improved coverage, improved pointing accuracy, and improved interference management.
Regarding claim 11, Mendelsohn discloses:
the polyhedral antenna system of claim 1, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
the mounting structure is configured to mount the polyhedral antenna to an Earth deck of the LEO satellite (Miller, Fig. 1B antenna assembly 121 of communication satellite 120).
Regarding claim 12, Miller discloses:
The polyhedral antenna system of claim 1, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
Bondyopadhyay discloses:
maximum slant direction is angled between 55 and 65 degrees from the nadir direction (Bondyopadhyay, col. 9, lines 18-22: If .nu. is the frequency of the alternative breakdown scheme of constructing the icosahedron based geodesic sphere, then the angular distance between two adjacent vertices of the geodesic sphere is .theta.=60.575.degree./.nu. )
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller with Bondyopadhyay to incorporate the features of: maximum slant direction is angled between 55 and 65 degrees from the nadir direction. Both arts are considered analogous arts as they both disclose polyhedral components of a satellite. The modification would render the predictable results of improved coverage, improved pointing accuracy, and improved interference management.
Regarding claim 13, Miller discloses:
A method for providing a polyhedral antenna system for a low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite, the method comprising (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
constructing a mounting structure to mount the polyhedral antenna to the LEO satellite in a defined orientation, such that relative to an orbital orientation of the LEO satellite (Miller, para [0323], FIG. 24D shows an illustration 2480 of native antenna pattern coverage areas 221-e and 221-f provided by the communications satellite 120-d while positioned in a second geostationary orbital position that has a more eastward position than the first geostationary orbital position. For various reasons (e.g., orbital drift, a change in deployment, etc.), the communications satellite 120-d may be moved to from the first geostationary orbital position to the second geostationary orbital position (e.g., an orbital slot at 88° longitude) for operation at the new orbital position),
constructing a plurality of sub-antennas comprising a nadir-facing sub-antenna and an EoC-facing sub-antenna (Miller, para [0115, lines 25-36]);
structurally integrating the nadir-facing sub-antenna with the mounting structure to have a nadir-facing boresight pointing in the nadir direction (Miller, para [0115, lines 25-36]);
and structurally integrating the EoC-facing sub-antenna with the mounting structure to have an EoC boresight pointing in the maximum slant direction (Miller, para [0324]).
Bondyopadhyay discloses:
determining a maximum slant direction to manifest a predefined edge of coverage (EoC) of the polyhedral antenna at a nominal orbital altitude of the LEO satellite (Bondyopadhyay, col. 3, lines 43-48) and (col.4, lines 2-15))
the polyhedral antenna has a defined nadir direction and the maximum slant direction is angled K degrees from the nadir direction, wherein K is not equal to zero (Bondyopadhyay, col. 3, lines 43-48) and (col.4, lines 2-15))
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller with Bondyopadhyay to incorporate the features of: determining a maximum slant direction to manifest a predefined edge of coverage (EoC) of the polyhedral antenna at a nominal orbital altitude of the LEO satellite, the polyhedral antenna has a defined nadir direction and the maximum slant direction is angled K degrees from the nadir direction, wherein K is not equal to zero. Both arts are considered analogous arts as they both disclose polyhedral components of a satellite. The modification would render the predictable results of improved interference management, and also improved beam steering and stability.
Regarding claim 14, Miller discloses:
The method of claim 13, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
the constructing the plurality of sub-antennas comprises constructing (Miller, para [0334], The feed array assembly 127-g may include multiple feed elements 128-g, such as feed elements 128-g-1 and 128-g-2. Although only two antenna feed elements 128-g are shown for simplicity, a feed array assembly 127-g may include any number of antenna feed elements 128-g (e.g., tens, hundreds, thousands, etc.). Moreover, the antenna feed elements 128-g may be arranged in any suitable manner (e.g., in a linear array, an arcuate array, a planar array, a honeycomb array, a polyhedral array, a spherical array, an ellipsoidal array, or any combination thereof),
for each sub-antenna, a respective planar array of radiating elements (Miller, para [0334]).
Claim 15 is rejected under the same analysis as claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, Miller discloses:
A method for providing satellite communications between a plurality of ground terminals and a low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite, the method comprising (Miller, para [0085]):
(Mendelsohn, para [0038]) (Bondyopadhyay,
wherein the polyhedral antenna comprises a plurality of sub-antennas including a nadir-facing sub-antenna having a nadir-facing boresight pointing in the nadir direction (Miller, para [0324]),
and an EoC-facing sub-antenna having an EoC boresight pointing in the maximum slant direction (Miller, para [0324]);
assigning a first portion of the ground terminals to communicate via the nadir- facing sub-antenna based on determining that the nadir-facing sub-antenna provides a higher gain satellite link with each of the first portion of the ground terminals than any others of the plurality of sub-antennas (Miller, para [0096]);
assigning a second portion of the ground terminals to communicate via the EoC- facing sub-antenna based on determining that the EoC-facing sub-antenna provides a higher gain satellite link with each of the second portion of the ground terminals than any others of the plurality of sub-antennas (Mendelsohn, paras [0023-0025]) (Miller, para [0096]);
communicating with the first portion of the ground terminals via the nadir-facing sub-antenna and concurrently with the second portion of the ground terminals via the EoC-facing sub-antenna (Miller, para [0096]).
Bondyopadhyay discloses:
providing a polyhedral antenna mounted on the LEO satellite in an orientation that defines a nadir direction and a maximum slant direction that is angled K degrees from the nadir direction and corresponds to an edge of coverage (EoC) of the polyhedral antenna (Bondyopadhyay, col. 3, lines 43-48) and (col.4, lines 2-15)),
wherein K is not equal to zero (Bondyopadhyay, col. 3, lines 43-48) and (col.4, lines 2-15)),
(Bondyopadhyay, col. 3, lines 43-48) and (col.4, lines 2-15)),
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller with Bondyopadhyay to incorporate the features of: providing a polyhedral antenna mounted on the LEO satellite in an orientation that defines a nadir direction and a maximum slant direction that is angled K degrees from the nadir direction and corresponds to an edge of coverage (EoC) of the polyhedral antenna, wherein K is not equal to zero. Both arts are considered analogous arts as they both disclose polyhedral components of a satellite. The modification would render the predictable results of improved interference management, and also improved beam steering and stability.
Regarding claim 17, Miller discloses:
The method of claim 16, wherein the communicating comprises (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
communicating with the first portion of the ground terminals via the nadir-facing sub-antenna using a first carrier and concurrently with the second portion of the ground terminals via the EoC-facing sub-antenna using a second carrier (Miller, para [0152], In general, satellite architecture 700 provides for K generic hopping pathways. Each pathway functionally consists of an Rx spot beam 125 and a Tx spot beam 125, connected together through electronics and circuitry that provide signal conditioning, such as one or more of filtering, frequency conversion, amplification, and the like. The pathways may each be represented as bent pipe transponders that can be used in a hub-spoke configuration or a mesh configuration. For example, in one embodiment with a mesh configuration, a pathway carries signals between a first plurality of terminals and a second plurality of terminals via the satellite. In accordance with the systems and methods described herein, the termination points (e.g., the Tx spot beam coverage area location and Rx spot beam coverage area location) for each pathway may be dynamic and programmable, resulting in a highly flexible satellite communications architecture).
Regarding claim 18, Miller discloses:
The method of claim 16, further comprising (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
assigning each ground terminal of the plurality of ground terminals to one of the plurality of sub-antennas by, for each ground terminal (Miller, para [0336], The reflector 122-g may be configured to reflect signals transmitted between the feed array assembly and one or more target devices (e.g., access node terminals 130 and/or user terminals 150). The reflector surface may be of any suitable shape for distributing signals between the feed array assembly 127-g and a service coverage area 410 of the communications satellite 120-e, which may include a parabolic shape, a spherical shape, a polygonal shape, etc. Although only a single reflector 122-g is illustrated, a communications satellite 120 may include more than one reflector 122 for a particular feed array assembly 127. Moreover, a reflector 122 of a communications satellite 120 may be dedicated to a single feed array assembly 127, or shared between multiple feed array assemblies 127):
determining an off-boresight angle associated with the ground terminal relative to the nadir direction (Miller, para [0077], As used herein, the term “focal region” refers to the one, two, or three dimensional regions in front of a reflector (e.g., a spherical reflector or a parabolic reflector) in which the reflector will reflect electromagnetic energy received from a particular direction. For an ideal parabolic reflector, the focal region is a single point in the high frequency limit scenario. This is often referred to as the “geometric optics” focal point for the ideal parabolic reflector. In real world implementations, the surfaces of even the most advanced reflectors include errors, distortions, and deviations from the profile of the deal surface. Uncorrelated errors, distortions, or deviations in the surface of a reflector of any significant size may cause a distribution of focal points in a two or three dimensional focal region. Similarly, in the case of a spherical reflector, in which the ideal surface results in a line of focal points instead of single focal point, errors, distortions, or deviations in the surface of real world spherical reflectors from the ideal spherical surface result in a three dimensional spread of the line focal region. In some embodiments, the focal region associated with the reflector is determined based on rays that are on-boresight, or parallel to the optical axis, of the reflector. In other embodiments, the focal region may be defined relative to a reference direction that is off-boresight of the reflector. A system of two or more reflectors may also be fed by a phased array with the system having a focal region);
and determining which of the plurality of sub-antennas provides a highest antenna gain at the associated off-boresight angle (Miller, para [0077] and [0096], A user terminal 150 may include a user terminal antenna 152 configured for receiving forward downlink signals 172 from the communications satellite 120. The user terminal antenna 152 may also be configured to transmit return uplink signals 173 to the communications satellite 120. Thus, a user terminal 150 may be configured for uni-directional or bi-directional communications with the communications satellite 120 via a spot beam 125 (e.g., user spot beam 125-a). In some examples the user terminal antenna 152 may be directional. For example, the user terminal antenna 152 may have a peak gain along a primary axis (e.g., an antenna boresight direction), which may be provided by way of a fixed configuration of focusing and/or reflecting elements, and/or by way of electronically configurable beamforming)),
wherein the ground terminal is assigned as part of the assigning the first portion of the ground terminals responsive to determining that the nadir- facing sub-antenna provides the highest antenna gain at the associated off- boresight angle (Miller, paras [0077] and [0096]),
and wherein the ground terminal is assigned as part of the assigning the second portion of the ground terminals responsive to determining that the EoC- facing sub-antenna provides the highest antenna gain at the associated off- boresight angle (Miller, paras [0077] and [0096]).
Claim 19 is rejected under the same analysis as claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, Miller discloses:
The method of claim 16, wherein (Miller, paras [0085] and [0112]):
the plurality of sub-antennas is N sub-antennas (Miller, paras [0079] and [0115, lines 25-36]);
the N sub-antennas are grouped into M disjoint subsets (Miller, paras [0079] and [0115, lines 25-36]),
N > 2 and M < N (Miller, paras [0079] and [0115, lines 25-36]),
and all of the sub-antennas in any subset are substantially non-overlapping (Miller, paras [0079] and [0115, lines 25-36]);
the nadir-facing sub-antenna and the EoC-facing sub-antenna are in different ones of the M subsets (Miller, paras [0079] and [0115, lines 25-36]);
and the communicating comprises assigning a different carrier to each of the M subsets
(Miller, para [0101]),
such that the communicating is with the first portion of the ground terminals via a first carrier and concurrently with the second portion of the ground terminals via a second carrier (Miller, para [0152] and [0241], FIG. 16B shows an example of a 50%-50% time resource allocation 1610 with a similar 8-path communications satellite 120 and 8 spot beams 125 as in FIG. 15B. Now, however, only two access nodes are required, GW1 and GW2. In FIG. 16B, GW1 is transmitting LHCP to B1 (which receives RHCP) and transmitting RHCP to B2 (which receives LHCP). Due to the separate polarization, there is no signal interference between spot beams 125, even though they are physically adjacent and could even overlap partially or totally. At the same time (during that first time slot), the user terminals in B7 and B8 are transmitting to access node terminal GW1. Also during this first time slot of FIG. 16B, access node terminal GW2 is transmitting to B3 and B4, while B5 and B6 are transmitting to access node terminal GW2. In the second slot, as in FIG. 15B, the transmission directions are reversed from those of slot 1. Comparing FIG. 16B to FIG. 15B, it can be seen that each spot beam 125 has exactly the same number of transmission and reception opportunities. Note that in this specific case, half-duplex user terminals 150 could be deployed, as the spot beams 125 are scheduled such that the user terminal transmit slots do not overlap with corresponding receive slots. A different schedule could be used that would also achieve the 50%-50% time allocation, but with spot beam transmit and receive slot overlap, possibly requiring that user terminals 150 operate full-duplex, where they could transmit and receive at the same time.)
References Cited But Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as thus:
Buer WO 2022191820 A1 discloses a low-earth (LEO) satellite system that comprises a mounting, communication with a terminal via different frequencies, boresight direction and planar phased array
Noerpel et al WO 2018125700 A1 discloses a planar phased array antenna system that comprises sub-arrays of LEO satellites
Nardini et al CN 115777162 A discloses a LEO satellite communication system
Legay et al US 20230163460 A1 discloses an active-array multi-beam antenna with a plurality of sub-arrays for a low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellite that is nadir facing (paras [0057] and [0080])
Kossin US 20230118396 A1 discloses a steerable antenna system that has a geodesic polyhedron shape (paras [0009], [0034] and [0070]), that may be on a platform in space on a “space vehicle” (para [0071])
Mendelson et al CA-3228761-A1 discloses a LEO satellite system
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY JENKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-0404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8a-5p 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at 517.270.5144. 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.
/KIMBERLY JENKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights