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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicants’ assertion-Thus, the general operation of the receiving unit 200, which is to receive signals from a satellite and transmit the signal to a server, is generally similar to that of the receivers 113 of Kane, which also receive and transmit signals. Regarding the rejection of the control unit, the Office states on page 9 of the Office action in the rejection of claim 1 that: 55)); a transmitting unit configured to receive a signal from the antenna unit and transmit the signal to the receiving unit (signals are received by as antenna of the low- earth orbiting (LEO) satellite from a high-earth orbiting (HEO) satellite for retransmission to the earth stations (Col. 2 lines 32 - 55)); and a control unit configured to control the antenna unit (Figure 2, typical satellites comprise processors or controllers that controls the functions of said satellites), wherein the control unit designates at least one of the Thus, the Office, and a person of ordinary skill in the art, understand the structure and operation of a control unit as described in Applicant's specification connotes the typical elements as stated by the Office. For the reasons described above, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b), as well as any interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), of claims 1-10 should be withdrawn.-Applicants’ are attempting to make the case, as detailed above, that because both the Kane reference and the outstanding Office Action make use of “units” in rejecting the claims then this is proof that the claimed receiving unit and control unit connote structure. This does not negate that fact that the specification of the instant application does not specifically recite or teach the corresponding structure of the claimed “control unit”. The diagrams or figures that show said control unit do not adequately teach the corresponding structure as said control unit is shown in the figures as just a box or square with the words “control unit” on it. This also does not negate the fact that said specification does not specifically recite or teach the corresponding structure of the claimed “receiving unit”. The diagrams or figures that show said receiving unit do not adequately teach the corresponding structure as said receiving unit is shown in the figures as just a triangle. The claims are also indefinite for the same reasons set forth above.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ assertion that the combination of Sasaki and Kane does not teach wherein the control unit designates at least one of the plurality of high-orbit satellites as a designated satellite and controls the antenna unit to selectively receive signals from the designated satellite. Sasaki teaches wherein the control unit designates at least one of the high-orbit satellites as a designated satellite and controls the antenna unit to selectively receive signals from the designated satellite (Figure 6, Col. 6 lines 35 – 45, the particular HEO or geostationary satellite that spherical antenna links or communicates with is the designated satellite). Kane teaches a plurality of high-orbit satellites (Col. 2 lines 54 – 55). The combination of Sasaki and Kane teaches wherein the control unit designates at least one of the plurality of high-orbit satellites as a designated satellite and controls the antenna unit to selectively receive signals from the designated satellite.
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 – 10 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 claim(s) contains 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. While the specification of the instant application does teach the claimed “control unit” via Figure 1 (control unit (130)), said specification does not specifically recite or teach the corresponding structure of the claimed “control unit”. The diagrams or figures that show said control unit do not adequately teach the corresponding structure as said control unit is shown in the figures as just a box or square with the words “control unit” on it. All claims that depend from Claim 1 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claims 7 – 10 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 claim(s) contains 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. While the specification of the instant application does teach the claimed “receiving unit” via Figure 6 (receiving unit (200)) and Section 0034, said specification does not specifically recite or teach the corresponding structure of the claimed “receiving unit”. The diagrams or figures that show said receiving unit do not adequately teach the corresponding structure as said receiving unit is shown in the figures as just a triangle. All claims that depend from Claim 7 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification of the instant application does teach the claimed “control unit” via Figure 1 (control unit (130)), said specification does not specifically recite or teach the corresponding structure of the claimed “control unit”. The diagrams or figures that show said control unit do not adequately teach the corresponding structure as said control unit is shown in the figures as just a box or square with the words “control unit” on it. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All claims that depend from Claim 1 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim limitation “receiving unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification of the instant application does teach the claimed “receiving unit” via Figure 6 (receiving unit (200)) and Section 0034, said specification does not specifically recite or teach the corresponding structure of the claimed “receiving unit”. The diagrams or figures that show said receiving unit do not adequately teach the corresponding structure as said receiving unit is shown in the figures as just a triangle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
All claims that depend from Claim 7 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claims 11 – 13 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the control unit" in line 7, “the antenna unit” in line 8, and the “the plurality of high-orbit satellites in lines 7 – 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. All claims that depend from Claim 11 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (6,023,605) in view of Kane et al. (US 6,088,571)
Regarding Claim 1, Sasaki teaches a low-orbit satellite relaying signals from a plurality of high-orbit satellites to a ground receiving unit, the low-orbit satellite comprising: an antenna unit configured to receive a signal the high-orbit satellite (signals are received by an antenna of the low-earth orbiting (LEO) satellite from a high-earth orbiting (HEO) satellite for retransmission to the earth stations (Col. 2 lines 32 – 55)); a transmitting unit configured to receive a signal from the antenna unit and transmit the signal to the receiving unit (signals are received by an antenna of the low-earth orbiting (LEO) satellite from a high-earth orbiting (HEO) satellite for retransmission to the earth stations (Col. 2 lines 32 – 55)); and a control unit configured to control the antenna unit (Figure 2, typical satellites comprise processors or controllers that controls the functions of said satellites), wherein the control unit designates at least one of the high-orbit satellites as a designated satellite and controls the antenna unit to selectively receive signals from the designated satellite (Figure 6, Col. 6 lines 35 – 45, the particular HEO or geostationary satellite that spherical antenna links or communicates with is the designated satellite).
Sasaki does not teach a plurality of high-orbit satellites.
Kane, which also teaches LEO and HEO satellites, teaches a plurality of high-orbit satellites (Col. 2 lines 54 – 55).
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 Sasaki with the above features of Kane for the purpose of providing more efficient, less costly, and more reliable broadcast delivery of data as taught by Kane.
Regarding Claim 11, Sasaki teaches a control method of a satellite system including a low-orbit satellite to relay a signal, the method comprising: (a) generating, by a high-orbit satellite, a signal (signals are received by an antenna of the low-earth orbiting (LEO) satellite from a high-earth orbiting (HEO) satellite for retransmission to the earth stations (Col. 2 lines 32 – 55)); (b) receiving, by the low-orbit satellite, the signal from the high-orbit satellite (signals are received by an antenna of the low-earth orbiting (LEO) satellite from a high-earth orbiting (HEO) satellite for retransmission to the earth stations (Col. 2 lines 32 – 55)); (c) transmitting, by the low-orbit satellite, the signal to a receiving unit (signals are received by an antenna of the low-earth orbiting (LEO) satellite from a high-earth orbiting (HEO) satellite for retransmission to the earth stations (Col. 2 lines 32 – 55)); and (d) determining, by a server, a position of the receiving unit (Col. 4 lines 26 – 33, network control station acquires position information of the earth stations); designating at least one of the high-orbit satellites as a designated satellite and controlling the antenna unit to selectively receive signals from the designated satellite (Figure 6, Col. 6 lines 35 – 45, the particular HEO or geostationary satellite that spherical antenna links or communicates with is the designated satellite).
Sasaki does not teach designating at least one of the plurality of high-orbit satellites as a designated satellite and controlling the antenna unit to selectively receive signals from the designated satellite
Kane, which also teaches LEO and HEO satellites, teaches a plurality of high-orbit satellites (Col. 2 lines 54 – 55).
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 Sasaki with the above features of Kane for the purpose of providing more efficient, less costly, and more reliable broadcast delivery of data as taught by Kane.
Regarding Claim 2, Sasaki in view of Kane teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Sasaki further teaches wherein the antenna unit includes a plurality of fixed antennas spaced apart from each other by a predetermined angle (Figure 6, Col. 6 lines 35 – 45, antenna elements will have some kind of space or distance between them which would consist of some kind of angle).
Regarding Claim 5, Sasaki in view of Kan teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Sasaki further teaches wherein the control unit controls a signal reception direction of the antenna unit so that a reception range of the antenna unit overlaps a signal transmission range of the designated satellite (Col. 6 lines 35 – 45, in order for the LEO satellite antenna to properly receive the signals transmitted by the HEO satellites there would need to be an overlap in the transmission range and the reception range).
Regarding Claim 7, Sasaki in view of Kane teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Sasaki further teaches a satellite system which is a signal relay system of relaying a signal including a low- orbit satellite, the satellite system comprising: a plurality of low-orbit satellites including the characteristics of claim 1 (See Claim 1 rejection); a receiving unit configured to receive a signal from the low-orbit satellite (signals are received by an antenna of the low-earth orbiting (LEO) satellite from a high-earth orbiting (HEO) satellite for retransmission to the earth stations (Col. 2 lines 32 – 55)); a high-orbit satellite configured to transmit a signal to the antenna unit of the low-orbit satellite (signals are received by an antenna of the low-earth orbiting (LEO) satellite from a high-earth orbiting (HEO) satellite for retransmission to the earth stations (Col. 2 lines 32 – 55)); and a server configured to receive signal information from the receiving unit and calculate and store positional information of the receiving unit (Col. 4 lines 26 – 33, network control station acquires position information of the earth stations).
Sasaki does not teach a plurality of high-orbit satellites.
Kane, which also teaches LEO and HEO satellites, teaches a plurality of high-orbit satellites (Col. 2 lines 54 – 55).
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 Sasaki with the above features of Kane for the purpose of providing more efficient, less costly, and more reliable broadcast delivery of data as taught by Kane.
Regarding Claim 8, Sasaki in view of Kane teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 7. Sasaki further teaches wherein the server designates at least one of the high- orbit satellites positioned within a predetermined distance range in a traveling direction of each low-orbit satellite as the designated satellite of the low-orbit satellite based on orbit information and a signal reception range of the low-orbit satellite and orbit information and a signal transmission range of the high-orbit satellite (Col. 4 lines 26 – 33, network control station sends tracking information to earth stations, HEO and LEO satellites thus rendering a scenario wherein a LEO being able to track a HEO orbit and communicate with said HEO thus there will be a communication and/or signal transmission range).
Regarding Claim 12, Sasaki in view of Kane teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 11. Sasaki further teaches wherein the step (b) includes, by the server, (b1) searching for the high-orbit satellite adjacent to each low-orbit satellite and designating the searched high-orbit satellite as a designated satellite (Col. 4 lines 26 – 33, network control station sends tracking information to earth stations, HEO and LEO satellites thus rendering a scenario wherein a LEO being able to track a HEO orbit and thus a designated HEO satellite), (b2) communicating with a control unit of the low-orbit satellite to control a signal reception direction of an antenna unit (Figure 6, Col. 6 lines 35 – 45, spherical antenna’s angle is changed via mechanical tracking thus enabling the signal reception direction to change), and (b3) receiving, by the antenna unit, the signal from the high-orbit satellite (signals are received by an antenna of the low-earth orbiting (LEO) satellite from a high-earth orbiting (HEO) satellite for retransmission to the earth stations (Col. 2 lines 32 – 55)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (6,023,605) in view of Kane et al. (US 6,088,571), as applied to Claim 1 set forth above, and further in view of Grbic et al. (US 2012/0007791)
Regarding Claim 3, Sasaki in view of Kane teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Sasaki further teaches wherein the antenna unit includes at least one of a spherical antenna whose angle is changed by the control unit (Col. 6 lines 35 – 45, spherical antenna’s angle is changed via mechanical tracking).
Sasaki in view of Kane does not teach helical antenna
Grbic, which also teaches use of a spherical antenna, teaches helical antenna (Section 0039, helix antenna reads on helical antenna).
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 Sasaki in view of Kane with the above features of Grbic for the purpose of achieving miniaturization and maximum inductance as taught by Grbic.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (6,023,605) in view of Kane et al. (US 6,088,571), as applied to Claim 1 set forth above, and further in view of Wang (US 2018/0131102)
Regarding Claim 4, Sasaki in view of Kane teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Sasaki further teaches wherein the antenna unit includes an array antenna where the control unit adjusts an array (Col. 6 lines 35 – 45, can be adjusted by changing the frequencies and phases).
Sasaki in view of Kane does not each wherein the control unit adjusts an array according to a predetermined gain value.
Wang, which also teaches control of beam direction, teaches adjusting an array according to a predetermined gain value (Section 0092).
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 Sasaki in view of Kane with the above features of Wang for the purpose of providing beam squint compensation as taught by Wang.
Claim(s) 6, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (6,023,605) in view of Kane et al. (US 6,088,571), as applied to Claims 1, 11 set forth above, and further in view of in view of Benden (5,140,694)
Regarding Claim 6, Sasaki in view of Kane teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 1. Sasaki in view of Kane does not tech wherein the control unit receives a signal and source information of the signal from the antenna unit, and determines that the source information of the signal is external interference information when the source information of the signal does not match source information of the designated satellite, and discards signal data.
Benden, which also teaches a satellite system, teaches wherein the control unit receives a signal and source information of the signal from the antenna unit, and determines that the source information of the signal is external interference information when the source information of the signal does not match source information of the designated satellite, and discards signal data (Col. 7 lines 12 – 29).
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 Sasaki in view of Kane with the above features of Benden for the purpose of defeating and locating intentional or unintentional intrusion or interfering signals transmitted to a communication satellite on a channel-by-channel basis as taught by Benden.
Regarding Claim 13, Sasaki in view of Kane teaches all of the claimed limitations recited in Claim 11. Sasaki in view of Kane does not teach wherein the step (b) further includes, by the control unit, (b4) following the step (b3) and discarding interference information when source information of the signal received from the antenna unit does not match source information of the designated satellite.
Benden, which also teaches a satellite system, teaches by the control unit, (b4) following the step (b3) and discarding interference information when source information of the signal received from the antenna unit does not match source information of the designated satellite (Col. 7 lines 12 – 29).
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 Sasaki in view of Kane with the above features of Benden for the purpose of defeating and locating intentional or unintentional intrusion or interfering signals transmitted to a communication satellite on a channel-by-channel basis as taught by Benden.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the following features:
wherein the server derives a travel time of a signal and a pseudo-orange from the received signal, and stores a first delay time, which is a signal transmission time between the high-orbit satellite and the low-orbit satellite, and a second delay time, which is a signal transmission time between the low-orbit satellite and the receiving unit, and corrects the first delay time and the second delay time with the derived pseudo-range to determine a position of the receiving unit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 18, 2026