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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 12/15/2023 and 09/18/2025 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 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 1-5, 7, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell, US Patent No. 9,621,850 (hereinafter Mitchell), in view of Vacanti, EP 2485063 A1, (hereinafter Vacanti).
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell teaches an aircraft comprising:
a first antenna (Col. 18, lines 29-39. The satcom antenna 334));
a radio (Col. 14, lines 33-38. Controller 338 and controller 348 are being interpreted as main components of the radio);
the radio comprising a memory maintaining one or more program instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the one or more program instructions (Fig. 3, col. 14, lines 33-38 - - the controllers 338 and 348 of the radio may include a programmable memory and processor for carrying out the variety of function associated with each antenna. The first antenna/the satcom antenna is controlled by controller 338.
causing the radio to: cause the first antenna to establish a low-earth orbit communication link. (Col. 14, lines 63-65 - - Mitchell teaches the satcom antenna 334 may establish connectivity between one or more of the plurality of LEO Sats 160).
wherein the low-earth orbit communication link is in at least one of an L band, a 3GPP low band, a 3GPP mid band, or a 3GPP high band (Col. 14, Lines 52-62. The system 300 via 332 may employ one of the L band to enable either or both of the satcom link 134. Mitchell discloses the L band.)
a nose radome; wherein the nose radome is transmissive to the low-earth orbit communication link. (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 18-25. See the nose radome enclosure. Also see Col. 14, lines 63-65.) Satcom antenna 334 may provide the airborne system 300 the connectivity with one or more of the plurality of LEO SATs 160 within LEO SAT distribution 200. As a result, Mitchell’s nose radome is transmissive since satcom antenna 334 is connected with LEO SATs 160.
Mitchell fails to clearly specify the forward bulkhead, as well as the nose radome and the forward bulkhead enclosing the first antenna and the radio.
However, Vacanti teaches a forward bulkhead (fig 7, paragraph 24. See the nose radome enclosure); It is also clear that Vacanti discloses a forward bulkhead in fig. 7 seen as forward pressure bulkhead 250, which is the material the nose radome is attached to);
as well as the nose radome and the forward bulkhead enclosing the first antenna and the radio (Paragraph 15, read as the PBSAS 20 (i.e. radio) and the four-element antenna array are placed on the pressure bulkhead inside the nose radome).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Vacanti into the invention of Mitchell in order to provide structural support and protection for the antenna and radio while maintaining transmissivity of the nose radome for LEO communications.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mitchell and Vacanti teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination further teaches the aircraft, wherein the low-earth orbit communication link is in the L band; wherein the low-earth orbit communication link is in a personal communication service band. (Mitchell; Col. 14, Lines 52-62. Satcom terminal 332 provides the low-earth orbit communication link which is used to transmit various information. The system 300 via 332 may employ one of the L band to enable either or both of the satcom link 134. Mitchell discloses the L band of 1-2 gigahertz.)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mitchell and Vacanti teaches all the limitations of claim 2. The combination further teaches the aircraft, wherein the low-earth orbit communication link is in a Block G portion of the personal communication service band. (Mitchell; Col. 14, Lines 52-62. Satcom terminal 332 provides the low-earth orbit communication link which is used to transmit various information. The system 300 via 332 may employ one of the L band to enable either or both of the satcom link 134. Mitchell discloses the L band of 1-2 gigahertz.)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mitchell and Vacanti teaches all the limitations of claim 3. The combination further teaches the aircraft, wherein the low-earth orbit communication link is one of the 3GPP low band, the 3GPP mid band, or the 3GPP high band. (Mitchell; Col. 14, Lines 20-52. Satcom terminal 332 provides the low-earth orbit communication link which is used to transmit various information. The system 300 via 332 may employ one of the L band to enable either or both of the satcom link 134. Mitchell discloses the L band of 1-2 gigahertz.)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mitchell and Vacanti teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination further teaches the aircraft, wherein the first antenna is a phased array. (Mitchell; Col. 19, lines 23-28 - - Hybrid antenna 334 is a phased array antenna; see figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mitchell and Vacanti teaches all the limitations of claim of claim1. The combination further teaches a radar system; wherein the nose radome and the forward bulkhead enclose the radar system (Vacanti; fig. 7, weather radar antenna 254 -- shows the radar system enclosed.); wherein the first antenna and the radio are disposed above the radar system (Vacanti; Fig. 7 shows PBSAS package 200 above the radar antenna 254, enclosed in the radome).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Vacanti into the invention of Mitchell in order to provide structural support and protection for the antenna and radio while maintaining transmissivity of the nose radome for LEO communications.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mitchell and Vacanti teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination further teaches the aircraft, comprising a router (herein after wireless router 310) and a wireless bridge (Mitchell; the connection between the wireless router and the controllers); wherein the radio is communicatively coupled to the router via the wireless bridge. Fig. 3 in Mitchell teaches a connection between the wireless router 310 and the radio. The router and the wireless bridge are communicatively coupled. The combination of parts 338 and 348, considered as main components of the radio, is what is communicatively coupled to the wireless router, with a wireless bridge).
Regarding claim 15, Mitchell teaches a communication system comprising: a first antenna (Col. 18, lines 29-39. The satcom antenna 334));
a radio (Col. 14, lines 33-38. Controller 338 and controller 348 are being interpreted as main components of the radio, but also is interpreted to include 330.);
the radio comprising a memory maintaining one or more program instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the one or more program instructions (Fig. 3, col. 14, lines 33-38 - - the controllers 338 and 348 of the radio may include a programmable memory and processor for carrying out the variety of function associated with each antenna. The first antenna/the satcom antenna is controlled by controller 338.
causing the radio to: cause the first antenna to establish a low-earth orbit communication link. (Col. 14, lines 63-65 - - Mitchell teaches the satcom antenna 334 may establish connectivity between one or more of the plurality of LEO Sats 160).
wherein the low-earth orbit communication link is in at least one of an L band, a 3GPP low band, a 3GPP mid band, or a 3GPP high band (Col. 14, Lines 52-62. The system 300 via 332 may employ one of the L band to enable either or both of the satcom link 134. Mitchell discloses the L band.)
a nose radome; wherein the nose radome is transmissive to the low-earth orbit communication link. (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 18-25. See the nose radome enclosure. Also see Col. 14, lines 63-65.) Satcom antenna 334 may provide the airborne system 300 the connectivity with one or more of the plurality of LEO SATs 160 within LEO SAT distribution 200. As a result, Mitchell’s nose radome is transmissive since satcom antenna 334 is connected with LEO SATs 160.
a low-earth orbit satellite; wherein the low-earth orbit communication link is between the first antenna and the low-earth orbit satellite; (Mitchell; Col. 11, lines 14-21 - - Mitchell teaches a terrestrial link 134, a method of communications between the airborne station 110 being routed and the satellite 160).
and a ground station; wherein the low-earth orbit satellite and the ground station are configured to communicate via a satellite-to-ground communication link. Fig. 1 in Mitchell’s case shows continuous connectivity between the LEO SAT constellation 170 (which includes 160) and terrestrial network 120 via satcom ground antennas (see Mitchell Col. 11, lines 22-25).
Mitchell fails to clearly specify the forward bulkhead, as well as the nose radome and the forward bulkhead enclosing the first antenna and the radio.
However, Vacanti teaches a forward bulkhead (fig 7, paragraph 24. See the nose radome enclosure); Vacanti teaches a forward bulkhead in fig. 7 seen as forward pressure bulkhead 250, which is the material the nose radome is attached to.);
as well as the nose radome and the forward bulkhead enclosing the first antenna and the radio (Paragraph 15, read as the PBSAS 20 (i.e. radio) and the four-element antenna array are placed on the pressure bulkhead inside the nose radome).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Vacanti into the invention of Mitchell in order to provide structural support and protection for the antenna and radio while maintaining transmissivity of the nose radome for LEO communications.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Vacanti and further in view of Holt, US Patent No. 20190064338 (hereinafter Holt).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mitchell and Vacanti teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The combination fails to teach the aircraft, wherein the first antenna comprises a beamwidth of 30- degrees or less.
Holt teaches the aircraft, wherein the first antenna comprises a beamwidth of 30- degrees or less. Holt discusses a transit beam, where according to the present case, may be the same as several FMCW transmit beams. The signal outputted from the weather radar apparatus in Holt’s case also has its own specific beamwidths, approximately four to eight degrees. (paragraph 58, lines 22-24, read as in some examples, the beamwidth in the second illumination direction is approximately four to eight degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Holt into the invention of Mitchell and Vacanti in order to improve directional resolution, and increase signal accuracy.
Claims 8, 11, 12, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell, in view of Vacanti, further in view of Mitchell, US Patent No. 8791853, (hereinafter Mitchell 2).
Regarding claim 8, Mitchell and Vacanti teach all the limitations of claim 7. Mitchell further teaches a second antenna; wherein the radio causes the second antenna to establish an air-to-ground communication link (col. 14, lines 27-29 - - Mitchell teaches a satcom router 330 that causes a second antenna to establish a connection 144.)
Mitchell fails to teach wherein both a nose radome and a forward bulkhead enclose the second antenna.
However, Vacanti further teaches wherein both a nose radome and a forward bulkhead enclose a second antenna (Vacanti; paragraphs 24, 25, fig. 7 - - Vacanti teaches a second PBSAS package antenna with second microstrip antenna elements 234 enclosed by a radome and forward pressure bulkhead).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Vacanti into the invention of Mitchell in order to provide structural support and protection for the antenna and radio while maintaining transmissivity of the nose radome for air to ground communications.
The combination of Mitchell and Vacanti fails to teach the second antenna being disposed below the radar system.
However, Mitchell 2 teaches an aircraft wherein the second antenna is disposed below the radar system (Mitchell 2; Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 45-49 - - Mitchell 2 teaches antenna element 204A positioned on the surface 106 below the weather radar 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Mitchell 2 into the invention of Mitchell and Vacanti in order to mitigate desensitizing receivers at both ends and reducing interferences.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 teach the aircraft of claim 8, wherein the radio is configured to select between the first antenna and the second antenna based on a connectivity of the low-earth communication link and the air-to-ground communication link. (Mitchell teaches an air to ground router 330 that determines which of the links, satcom link 134 or terrestrial link 144, are to be utilized based on favorable connectivity (col. 14, lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 teaches the aircraft of claim 8. The combination further teaches where there is a sensor configured to generate sensor data; wherein the radio is configured to receive the sensor data from the sensor and cause the first antenna and the second antenna to transmit the sensor data via the low-earth orbit communication link and the air-to-ground communication link (col. 16, lines 37-42 - - Mitchell teaches a video signal that as captured, is transferred by radio components satcom link 134 and terrestrial link 144.)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mitchell and Vacanti teaches all the limitations of claim 15. The combination further teaches the aircraft, the aircraft comprising a second antenna; wherein the radio causes the second antenna to establish an air-to-ground communication link (col. 14, lines 27-29 - - Mitchell teaches a satcom router 330 that causes a second antenna to establish a connection 144.).
wherein the communication system comprises a cell tower; wherein the air-to-ground communication link is between the second antenna and the cell tower (Mitchell teaches a system 100 that can direct the airborne station 110 to connect to terrestrial network 120 via the ground antennas 140 (Col. 11-12, lines 65-67 & 1-3).
Mitchell fails to clearly specify a radar system; wherein the nose radome and the forward bulkhead enclose the radar system; wherein the first antenna and the radio are disposed above the radar system; and wherein the nose radome and the forward bulkhead enclose the second antenna.
However, Vacanti teaches a radar system; wherein the nose radome and the forward bulkhead enclose the radar system (Vacanti; fig. 7, weather radar antenna 254 -- shows the radar system enclosed.);
wherein the first antenna and the radio are disposed above the radar system. (Vacanti; Fig. 7 shows PBSAS package 200 above the radar antenna 254, enclosed in the radome).
and wherein the nose radome and the forward bulkhead enclose the second antenna (Vacanti; paragraphs 24, 25, fig. 7 - - Vacanti teaches a second PBSAS package antenna with second microstrip antenna elements 234 enclosed by a radome and forward pressure bulkhead).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Vacanti into the invention of Mitchell in order to provide structural support and protection for the antenna and radio while maintaining transmissivity of the nose radome for LEO communications.
The combination of Mitchell and Vacanti teach the claimed invention but fail to disclose an aircraft wherein the second antenna is disposed below the radar system.
However, Mitchell 2 teaches an aircraft wherein the second antenna is disposed below the radar system (Mitchell 2; Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 45-49 - - Mitchell 2 teaches antenna element 204A positioned on the surface 106 below the weather radar 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Mitchell 2 into the invention of Mitchell and Vacanti in order to optimize antenna placement within the radome while reducing interference with the radar system.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 teaches all the claimed limitations, as outlined above.
Mitchell further teaches being configured to generate sensor data; wherein the radio is configured to receive the sensor data from the sensor and cause the first antenna and the second antenna to transmit the sensor data via the low-earth orbit communication link and the air-to-ground communication link (col. 16, lines 37-42 - - Mitchell teaches a video signal that as captured, is transferred by radio components satcom link 134 and terrestrial link 144.);
and further teaches the communication system comprising a processing center; wherein the processing center is communicatively coupled to the cell tower and the ground station; wherein the processing center is configured to receive the sensor data from the aircraft (Col. 15, 63-65, and fig. 4 - - Mitchell teaches a digital switch 422 (processing center) that is coupled to ground antenna 140 (cell tower) and to satcom ground antenna 130 (ground station). Digital switch 422 can receive sensor data by operating to route signals to and from an internet 424 either via the satcom link 134 or the terrestrial link 144.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell, in view of Vacanti, further in view Mitchell 2, in view of Smith, US 20220106059 A1, (hereinafter Smith), further in view of Stultz, US 10992122 B2, (hereinafter Stultz).
Regarding claim 9, Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 teach all the limitations of claim 8.
The combination of Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 fail to teach an electronics equipment bay; and a first antenna, the radio, the second antenna, and the radar system.
However, Smith discloses an electronics equipment bay (Smith; page 4, paragraph 50 - - the aircraft 110 includes an avionics bay 120 that houses one or more avionics systems); and a first antenna, the radio, the second antenna, and the radar system (Smith; page 4, Paragraph 50, 52, 68 - - Smith teaches an avionics bay that houses avionics systems, including communication unit 125 as a radio, a first antenna as part of communication system 125, a second antenna 136. Smith also teaches examples of avionics systems include radar systems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Smith into the invention of Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 in order to safely and neatly house components of the aviation system into the avionics bay.
Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2, and Smith fail to clearly specify the forward bulkhead defining an aperture, and sharing one or more electrical connections to the electronics equipment bay via the aperture.
However, Stultz teaches a forward bulkhead defining an aperture (Col. 9, lines 39-51 - - a bulkhead that includes an opening); and sharing one or more electrical connections to the electronics equipment bay via the aperture. (Col. 9, lines 39-51 - - routing electrical wiring between compartments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Stultz into the invention of Mitchell, Vacanti, Mitchell 2, and Smith in order to avoid malfunctions and miscommunications caused by damage by neatly wiring connections.
Regarding claim 10, Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 teach all the limitations of claim 9.
Mitchell further discloses wherein the router is communicatively coupled to the radio via one or more connections (Mitchell; Col 14, lines 47-51 and Fig 3 - Fig. 3 shows the wireless router being communicatively coupled to the radio. Mitchell teaches a wireless router 310 may operate as an RF transceiver onboard the airborne station 110 providing a data connectivity via an onboard wireless antenna 312 to which one or more personal electronic devices (PED) 314 and 316 may connect).
Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 fail to clearly specify wired connections which are routed through the aperture and the electronics equipment bay.
However, Stultz teaches wired connections (Col. 9, lines 39-51 – Used with wires and/ or cables); which are routed through the aperture and the electronics equipment bay (Stultz teaches a bulkhead defining aperture (orifice) that is configured to receive a feedthrough assembly. The feedthrough assembly allows one or more wired electrical connection to physically pass through the aperture in the bulkhead from one aircraft compartment to another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Stultz into the invention of Mitchell, Vacanti, Mitchell 2 in order to avoid malfunctions and miscommunications caused by damage by neatly wiring connections.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell,
in view of Vacanti, further in view of Mitchell 2, further in view of Stevens, US 20220070728 A1, (hereinafter Stevens).
Regarding claim 13, Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 disclose all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 fail to clearly specify the aircraft wherein at least one of the low-earth orbit communication link or the air-to-ground communication link comprise one or more Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) messages.
However, Stevens teaches the aircraft claim 8, wherein at least one of the low-earth orbit communication link or the air-to-ground communication link comprise one or more Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) message (Stevens teaches the transceiver 106 may receive ACARS messages (e.g., fuel levels, component status updates, failure warnings, airline text messages) from the end systems 108a-n for downlink transmittal (110) to the ground station 104 (see paragraph 34 and 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Stevens into the invention of Mitchell, Vacanti, and Mitchell 2 in order to provide an aircraft that is capable for high-frequency data communications between aircraft systems and ground control facilities.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Sherwood, US 20140220918 A1, (hereinafter Sherwood), further in view of Liber, CN 107534483 A, (hereinafter Liber).
Regarding claim 18, Mitchell teaches an aircraft comprising: a first antenna (Col. 18, lines 29-39. The satcom antenna 334));
a radio (Col. 14, lines 33-38. Controller 338 and controller 348 are being interpreted as main components of the radio);
the radio comprising a memory maintaining one or more program instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the one or more program instructions (Fig. 3, col. 14, lines 33-38 - - the controllers 338 and 348 of the radio may include a programmable memory and processor for carrying out the variety of function associated with each antenna. The first antenna/the satcom antenna is controlled by controller 338.
causing the radio to: cause the first antenna to establish a low-earth orbit communication link. (Col. 18, lines 29-39, read as in embodiments, a controller 338 within satcom terminal 332 onboard the airborne station 110 may operate to alter and limit the look angle 530 available to the satcom antenna 334. Based on the population of the LEO SAT constellation 170, the controller may be programmed to vary and limit the look angle to accommodate a greater or lesser look angle 530 available. For example, a greater population of satellite vehicles within LEO SAT constellation 170 may allow for a lesser maximum look angle 530 available to the satcom antenna 334.)
wherein the low-earth orbit communication link is in at least one of an L band, a 3GPP low band, a 3GPP mid band, or a 3GPP high band (Col. 14, Lines 52-62. The system 300 via 332 may employ one of the L band to enable either or both of the satcom link 134. Mitchell discloses the L band.)
and a flight deck; the flight deck comprising a cockpit glass; Mitchell teaches a flight deck, also known as cockpit. In this figure is also the cockpit glass, as seen in fig. 3.
Mitchell fails to clearly specify wherein the first antenna and the radio are disposed within the flight deck;
However, Sherwood teaches wherein the first antenna and the radio are disposed within the flight deck (see page 2, paragraph 21, and paragraph 22 - - Sherwood teaches an antenna in the radio, and the radio in the flight deck.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sherwood into the invention of Mitchell in order to conveniently place the first antenna and radio within the flight deck to allow signals to exit and enter the aircraft without signal issues.
The combination of Mitchell and Sherwood fails to teach wherein the cockpit glass is transmissive to the low-earth orbit communication link.
However, Liber teaches wherein the cockpit glass is transmissive to the low-earth orbit communication link (Paragraph 8 - - Liber teaches radio transmission between an aircraft and its environment through the aircraft's windows)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Liber into the invention of Mitchell and Sherwood in order to allow direct, reliable satellite communication without excessive external antennas.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mitchell, Sherwood, and Liber teaches the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the low-earth orbit communication link is in the L band; wherein the low-earth orbit communication link is in a personal communication service band. (Mitchell; Col. 14, Lines 52-62. Satcom terminal 332 provides the low-earth orbit communication link which is used to transmit various information. The system 300 via 332 may employ one of the L band to enable either or both of the satcom link 134. Mitchell discloses the L band of 1-2 gigahertz.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Sherwood, further in view of Liber, further in view of Jin, US 20240146349 A1 (hereinafter Jin).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mitchell, Sherwood, and Liber discloses the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the first antenna is a phased array. (Mitchell; Col. 19, lines 23-28 - - Hybrid antenna 334 is a phased array antenna; see figure 5).
Mitchell, Sherwood, and Liber fails to clearly specify wherein the radio is configured to cause the antenna to form a beam through the cockpit glass.
However, Jin teaches the radio being configured to cause the antenna to form a beam through the cockpit glass (Jin; Page 5, paragraph 88 - - When the radio frequency signal radiated from the antenna is incident into the surface of the glass, a width of a beam transmitting out of the glass window is widened, and finally a gain of the antenna is reduced).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Jin into the invention of Mitchell, Sherwood, and Liber to place beams and through the cockpit glass, where it has an unobstructed forward field of view.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRES RAFAEL SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8776. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-9:00.
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 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.
/ANDRES RAFAEL SANCHEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2645
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645