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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Das et al. (Das, US Pat. 4,827,265).
Referring to Claim 1, Das teaches S1) apply a first mode of pointing of the antenna using almanac data for the platform and for the communications device so as to obtain an initial pointing position in azimuth and in elevation for the boresight of the antenna (Col. 5 ln 9-16; S2) apply a second mode of pointing of the antenna, comprising at least one scan of the antenna around the initial position so as to point the antenna in a direction that maximizes a received power of the reference signal (Col. 3 ln 16-18 and Col. 4 ln 37-41); S3) apply a third mode of pointing of the antenna in which wherein at least one triangulation manoeuvre is implemented for pointing the antenna based on the maximum power; Col. 4 ln 44-51.
Referring to Claim 2, Das teaches the second mode of pointing of the antenna comprises a first conical scan of the antenna with a first opening angle, and a second conical scan of the antenna with a second opening angle, the first opening angle being determined as a function of the angular range of the secondary lobes of the antenna radiating pattern, the second opening angle being determined as a function of the angular range of the main lobe of the antenna radiating pattern; Col. 6 ln 59-61.
Referring to Claim 3, Das teaches the second mode of pointing of the antenna comprises at least one movement in azimuth and in elevation, wherein, for each movement in azimuth and in elevation, a search for maximum power is carried out; Col. 4 ln 44-51.
Referring to Claim 4, Das teaches a monotonic antenna radiating pattern in the angular space wherein in which the at least one scan of the antenna and the triangulation manoeuvre take place; Fig. 2.
Referring to Claim 6, Das teaches the reference signal is a pure carrier in the second mode of pointing of the antenna; see Claim 7.
Referring to Claim 12, Das teaches the communications device is disposed on a celestial body, and the platform is in orbit around the celestial body; See Fig. 1 and associated text.
Referring to Claim 14, Das teaches applying a first mode of pointing of the antenna using almanac data for the platform and for the communications device so as to obtain an initial position in azimuth and in elevation of the boresight of the antenna; applying a second mode of pointing of the antenna, comprising at least one scan of the antenna around the initial position so as to point the antenna in a direction that maximizes a received power of the reference signal; applying a third mode of pointing of the antenna wherein at least one triangulation manoeuvre is implemented for pointing the antenna based on the maximum power; see Claim 1 for citations.
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) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das in view of Lliff et al. (Lliff, US Pat. 3,699,324).
Referring to Claim 11, Das teaches the first mode of pointing comprises a command to aim towards the initial position, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit the command comprising a plurality of angular movements in azimuth and in elevation, each angular movement having a predetermined duration.
However, Lliff teaches the first mode of pointing comprises a command to aim towards the initial position, the command comprising a plurality of angular movements in azimuth and in elevation, each angular movement having a predetermined duration; See Claim 7.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Das with the movements as taught by Lliff as the techniques are known to improve tracking and aid precise orbital path measurements.
Referring to Claim 13, Das a modified by Lliff teaches he drift linked to the relative movement between the platform and the communications device is compensated, in the third mode of pointing, using the almanac data for the platform and for the communications device; see combination of references.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-10 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are respectfully traversed as the Examiner maintains that the citations provided above teach the claims as they are currently presented. Applicant states that Das needs a power measurement to guarantee communication performance and that Applicant’s invention recites a method in which the communications device, which transmits the reference signal, does not implement a power measurement. While the Applicant may find the aspect of not implement a power measurement novel, that limitation is not present in the claim and the claims are not written in a manner where a power measurement cannot take place or is inherently excluded. In the most basic terms, Claim 1 has three steps, S1, S2 and S3 which are all different pointing modes of an antenna. Applicant argues that Das fails to teach a third mode of pointing. Applicant points to the two modes that are taught but states that the prior art fails to teach the third mode of pointing. The Examiner disagrees with this conclusion and points to the same citation used above, “In the former case when a signal variation is produced by the offset between the emitter and the rotation axis, the relationship between the rotation angle and the receiver output is indicative of the direction and magnitude of the departure of the emitter from rotation axis 30. Typically this information is employed to direct antenna 20 to minimize the signal variation which thus aligns rotation axis 30 with the emitter.” The Examiner emphasizes the last line, as the aligning the rotation axis 30 with the emitter is interpreted as the third pointing mode. In other words after the first two steps are completed properties of the signal are considered (direction and magnitude) and the antenna is adjusted accordingly, which would result in the third pointing mode. The Applicant has not addressed this citation and explained why this would not be a third pointing mode. The Applicant also points to the step and stare technique which teaches four different positions and appears to loosely teach the idea of not only three pointing modes but 5 pointing modes which could also teach the claimed limitation. While the Applicant argues why the third point mode is beneficial, these are limitations and elements that are not present in the claim. While the technique might provide precise measurement, the limitations are what is being examined. The Examiner maintains that the claims are properly rejected based on the current limitations and prior art provide.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646