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
1. Applicant's arguments/amendments received on April 06, 2026 have been carefully considered but they are not persuasive because the teaching of all the cited reference reads on the rejected claims (1-4 and 8-13) as set forth in the previous rejection. Therefore, the finality of this Office Action is deemed proper.
Contrary to the assertions at pages 6 - 9 of the Arguments, claims 1 and 8 are not patentable.
During examination, the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Re claims 1 and 8: Applicant argues Reis et al. (US 2017/0188372) does not teach the limitation “on the basis of knowledge of a throughput of the communication as a function of transmission characteristics of the server satellite and of a topology of the satellite network in an interference zone containing satellites liable to interfere with the communication, and configuring the server satellite so as to apply said at least one determined transmission parameter during the communication with the user equipment”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that Reis does not teach the claimed invention. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the Examiner is of the opinion that Reis teaches that the system herein may compute such values based on public knowledge of antenna characteristics, or else based on various assumptions thereof, and the system ensures that the transmitter does not interfere with the operations of another nearby satellite, the locations of geostationary satellite are well known while the momentary locations of non-stationary satellites can be calculated with regard to communication of the data, the data about the incumbent network may illustratively be uploaded to the terminal during initial configuration of the device, and/or when high-bandwidth connectivity is available, and retrieving the data over a lower bandwidth connection, such as a satellite link, might take a long time, and as such, (and non-limiting) embodiment reserves such low-bandwidth link transfers for smaller updates, and a more accurate determination of a zone of potential interference is to calculate the receiver acceptance corn (RAC) as the interaction between the pattern of the antenna of the transmitting terminal and the antenna of the specific PtPR, assuming the given transmission power of the terminal, and the terminal may then receive, in response to the wireless communication, an instruction message from the intended receiver based on acceptable communication parameters for the terminal as determined by a server, the instruction message selected from an approval for the terminal to use the current communication parameters when they are acceptable communication parameters, and instructions for the terminal to change to the acceptable communication parameters for continued transmitting. Accordingly, the terminal operates any continued transmissions according to the instruction message (see pages 7, paragraphs 72 – pages 9, paragraphs 86, Fig. 4, 5, 12, page 1, paragraphs 6 – 7, and pages 15, paragraphs 143 – 147), regarding the claim limitation. More specifically, Reis teaches on the basis of knowledge of a throughput of the communication (configuration high-bandwidth and low-bandwidth) as a function of transmission characteristics of the server satellite and of a topology of the satellite network in an interference zone (more accurate determination of a zone of potential interference is to calculate the receiver acceptance corn (RAC) as the interaction between the pattern of the antenna of the transmitting terminal and the antenna of the specific PtPR) containing satellites liable to interfere with the communication, and the terminal may then receive, in response to the wireless communication, an instruction message from the intended receiver based on acceptable communication parameters for the terminal as determined by a server, the instruction message selected from an approval for the terminal to use the current communication parameters when they are acceptable communication parameters, and instructions for the terminal to change to the acceptable communication parameters for continued transmitting. Accordingly, the terminal operates any continued transmissions according to the instruction message.
The claimed limitation “a throughput of the communication” and “a function of transmission characteristics” is not require or limit or indicate special function or meaning in this claim invention of claim 1 as of broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection below for the reasons as to why this limitation is not patentable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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 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.
3. Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reis et al. (US 2017/0188372).
Regarding claim 1, Reis teaches that a communication method for communication between a server satellite of a satellite communication network and a user equipment, said method being implemented by a determination device (page 1, paragraphs 6 - 7, Fig. 3, 4, and pages 3, paragraphs 45 – pages 4, paragraphs 53). Reis teaches that determining at least one transmission parameter of the communication (Fig. 3 and page 1, paragraphs 6 – 7, where teaches the server may determine acceptable communication parameters for the terminal to communicate on the satellite wireless communication network, e.g., based on preventing transmission by the terminal that might interfere with operation of one or more unintended receivers) on the basis of knowledge of a throughput of the communication as a function of transmission characteristics (transmission properties, interference, power, diverse polarity, etc.) of the server satellite and of a topology of the satellite network in an interference zone containing satellites liable to interfere with the communication (Fig. 4, 5, 12 and pages 7, paragraphs 72 – pages 9, paragraphs 86, where teaches the information, notably, includes the coordinate locations/orientation of PtPRs, the frequencies of the PtP communication (e.g., frequency center and width), and antenna height, height above mean sea level (base altitude), receiver polarization, antenna type, and optionally other information, such as azimuth, gain characteristics (lobe shape), and so on for each PtPR antenna (the system herein may compute such values based on public knowledge of antenna characteristics, or else based on various assumptions thereof. Also, the system ensures that the transmitter does not interfere with the operations of another nearby satellite, the locations of geostationary satellite are well known while the momentary locations of non-stationary satellites can be calculated, and a more accurate determination of a zone of potential interference is to calculate the receiver acceptance corn (RAC) as the interaction between the pattern of the antenna of the transmitting terminal and the antenna of the specific PtPR, assuming the given transmission power of the terminal), and configuring the server satellite so as to apply said at least one determined transmission parameter during the communication with the user equipment (page 1, paragraphs 6 – 7, Fig. 4, 5, 12 and pages 7, paragraphs 72 – pages 9, paragraphs 86, where teaches the terminal may then receive, in response to the wireless communication, an instruction message from the intended receiver based on acceptable communication parameters for the terminal as determined by a server, the instruction message selected from an approval for the terminal to use the current communication parameters when they are acceptable communication parameters, and instructions for the terminal to change to the acceptable communication parameters for continued transmitting. Accordingly, the terminal operates any continued transmissions according to the instruction message).
Regarding claim 2, Reis teaches that during the determining, said at least one transmission parameter of the communication is determined on the basis of knowledge of the throughput of the communication as a function of a bandwidth allocated to this communication (pages 5, paragraphs 58, Fig. 6, and pages 13, paragraphs 133-134), of a transmission power of the server satellite (pages 18, paragraphs 166-167 and Fig 5, 12), of a distance between the server satellite and the user equipment (pages 6, paragraphs 65-pages 7, paragraphs 71 and Fig. 12), of a ratio of the-antenna gains of the server satellite to said satellites liable to interfere with the communication (pages 5, paragraphs 60 – 62 and Fig. 7), and of said topology of the satellite network in said interference zone (pages 7, paragraphs 72 – pages 9, paragraphs 86 and Fig 5, 12).
Regarding claim 3, Reis teaches that the at least one transmission parameter comprises a transmission power of the server satellite, the throughput of the communication, and/or a bandwidth allocated to the communication (pages 5, paragraphs 58, Fig. 6, pages 18, paragraphs 166-167, and pages 13, paragraphs 133-134).
Regarding claim 4, Reis teaches that the topology of the satellite network comprises at least one element from among a density of the satellites liable to interfere with the communication of the satellite network in said interference zone, an altitude of the server satellite, a minimum elevation angle of the satellites liable to interfere with the communication, and/or a probability of a satellite being located in said interference zone and being liable to interfere with the communication (pages 7, paragraphs 69 – pages 8, paragraphs 75, Fig. 4, 12, and pages 3, paragraphs 45 – pages 4, paragraphs 53).
Regarding claim 8, Reis teaches all the limitation as discussed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Reis teaches all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Reis further teaches that a determination device for determining at least one transmission parameter of a communication between a server satellite of a satellite communication network and a user equipment, an device comprising at least one processor (page 1, paragraphs 6 - 7, Fig. 4, 5, 6, and pages 3, paragraphs 45 – pages 4, paragraphs 53).
Regarding claim 10, Reis teaches all the limitation as discussed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 12, Reis teaches that management device for managing the satellite network comprising the determination device (page 1, paragraphs 6 - 7, Fig. 4, 5, 6, and pages 3, paragraphs 45 – pages 4, paragraphs 53).
Regarding claim 13, Reis teaches that a communication system comprising the user equipment of the satellite communication network and the determination device configured to determine the at least one transmission parameter of the communication between the user equipment and the server satellite (page 1, paragraphs 6 - 7, Fig. 4, 5, 6, and pages 3, paragraphs 45 – pages 4, paragraphs 53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reis in view of OH (US 2014/0087652).
Regarding claim 11, Reis does not specifically disclose the limitation “a satellite of the satellite network comprising the determination device”. However, OH teaches the limitation “a satellite of the satellite network comprising the determination device” (Fig. 3 and pages 3, paragraphs 43 – 45, where teaches a satellite comprising the determination unit). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Reis’s system as taught by OH, provide the motivation to achieve enhancing communication performance in satellite system.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 5 and 6 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the limitation “determining uses a relationship equivalent to the relationship for formula of designates the throughput of the communication, and the at least one transmission parameter is a transmission power of the server satellite and the determining comprises estimating the throughput of the communication for a given transmission power of the server satellite, referred to as initial transmission power, and if the estimated throughput is less than a determined threshold, increasing said initial transmission power” as specified the claims.
7. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
J.L
June 12, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights