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 Status
Applicant filed remarks/amendments on 2026-05-05 which amended claims 2-5, 17-20, and 32-35. Examiner notes that these amendments did not change the scope of the claims. No claims are canceled or added. Claims 1-45 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Respectfully, applicant's remarks/arguments filed 2026-05-05 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as detailed below.
Applicant argues that it has not been shown that “the attenuation profile of Darapu ‘corresponding to signals 115’ teaches or suggests ‘determining a plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna associated with the plurality of beamformed beam orientations,’ as recited in independent claim 1” or that “such an attenuation profile of Darapu is relevant to ‘generating a communications performance map based at least in part on the received plurality of signals and the determined plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna,’ as recited in independent claim 1” (please see Remarks, p. 18, emphasis in original).
In general, Darapu is drawn to:
“determining an attenuation environment for a satellite terminal in a satellite communication system. In some examples the satellite terminal may receive signals from a first satellite (or group of satellites), and determine aspects of an attenuation environment related to communications between the satellite terminal and a second satellite based on measured characteristics of the received signals. For example, various characteristics of transmissions from a first satellite (or group of satellites) may be associated with a respective location of the transmitting satellite in order to define an attenuation profile (e.g., an attenuation map) for the satellite terminal. Subsequent signals from the first satellite (or group of satellites) may be compared with the attenuation map, and the comparison may be used to identify a diagnostic condition for communications with a second satellite. Signals received from the first satellite (or group of satellites) may be compared to an attenuation map to indicate, for example, directions of various obstructions with respect to a field of view of the satellite terminal antennas, and/or indicate a change in orientation of a satellite terminal antenna assembly” (Darapu, ¶0004).
Broadly speaking, Darapu thus discloses the main elements of applicant’s independent claims: a plurality of beamformed signals are received, and a plurality of directional antenna characteristics are determined and used to generate a communications performance map of the antenna. Darapu’s disclosure, and how it reads on applicant’s independent claims, will now be discussed in more detail.
Darapu’s Fig. 1 shows a satellite terminal 150 in communication, via satellite terminal antennas 151 and 152, with satellites 111 and 121 using signals 115 and 125 (please see at least Fig. 1, ¶¶0022-0025, and ¶¶0030-0035. Please also note Figs. 2-7 and 8, and ¶0083). Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that signals 115 and 125, being signals sent from a satellite, are beam-formed (i.e., directionally-transmitted and/or directionally-received) signals. Please also note:
¶0037, “predetermined characteristics (e.g., transmission power and/or beam width, antenna gain profiles, antenna orientation, known satellite orbital positions, satellite terminal position, etc.) … from signals 115 received from an auxiliary satellite 111”; and
¶0039, “an attenuation profile may be based in part on a gain profile of the satellite terminal auxiliary antenna 151, where the gain profile may reflect a higher gain along a principal direction of the satellite terminal auxiliary antenna 151. In such examples, the attenuation profile may reflect a combination of a strength of a signal 115 as transmitted by a transmitting auxiliary satellite 111, and an orientation of the satellite terminal auxiliary antenna 151 with respect to the auxiliary satellite 111”.
Thus, Darapu discloses “receive a plurality of signals using the [antennas] according to a plurality of beamformed beam orientations of the [antennas]” as recited by applicant’s independent claims.
Fig. 8, step 805, of Darapu performs:
“identifying an attenuation profile 550 for the satellite terminal 150. In various examples, the attenuation profile 550 for the satellite terminal 150 can be associated with transmissions of a first satellite, or multiple satellites from a first satellite system (e.g., signals 115 from one or more satellite(s) 111 of an auxiliary satellite system 110) to be received by the satellite terminal 150. The attenuation profile 550 may map one or more RF signal characteristics 325 associated with the first satellite (or multiple satellites) from the first satellite system with respect to a field of view of the satellite terminal 150. In various examples, the RF signal characteristics 325 may include any one or more of an RF signal strength, an RF signal attenuation, an RF signal interference, an RF signal-to-noise ratio, an RF signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio, or the like…” (Fig. 8 and ¶0084).
In other words, Darapu’s satellite terminal 150 determines a plurality of directional antenna characteristics associated with the plurality of (beamformed) signals and uses these to generate the communications performance maps (i.e., attenuation profiles) of Figs. 3-7. Please also note:
¶0039, “an attenuation profile may be based in part on a gain profile of the satellite terminal auxiliary antenna 151, where the gain profile may reflect a higher gain along a principal direction of the satellite terminal auxiliary antenna 151. In such examples, the attenuation profile may reflect a combination of a strength of a signal 115 as transmitted by a transmitting auxiliary satellite 111, and an orientation of the satellite terminal auxiliary antenna 151 with respect to the auxiliary satellite 111”;
¶0085, “any one of more of the aspects of determining an attenuation profile described with reference to FIG. 3, 4, or 5”;
¶0086, “determining an attenuation profile may include determining characteristics of signals to be transmitted from the first satellite (e.g., one or more auxiliary satellites 111 of an auxiliary satellite system 110) and to be received at a satellite terminal (e.g., received at a satellite terminal auxiliary antenna 151). In various examples, the determined characteristics may include such characteristics as a satellite position, a satellite path, a satellite transmission power, a satellite terminal auxiliary antenna gain, a satellite terminal antenna assembly position, or the like”;
and the rest of ¶¶0083-0090, which describe how step 805 of identifying an attenuation profile for the satellite terminal is carried out.
Thus, Darapu discloses “determine a plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the [antennas] associated with the plurality of beamformed beam orientations” and “generate a communications performance map based at least in part on the received plurality of signals and the determined plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the [antennas]” as recited by applicant’s independent claims.
Darapu does not disclose that either of the antennas 151 or 152 are a phased array antenna as recited in applicant’s independent claims (though examiner notes that Darapu provides multiple antennas that are coupled to work together, which is conceptually similar to a phased array antenna). However, examiner notes that Ray discloses using a phased array antenna (see Figs. 1-4, ¶0026, ¶0031, ¶0041, and ¶¶0047-0048). Ray is drawn toward “tracking signal beams and more particularly to phased array beam tracking using beam gain coding” (Ray, ¶0001) and “cross-correlation of a resulting gain profile or waveform of the received signal beam against a plurality of angle coded waveforms to determine an offset incident angle of the received signal beam” (Ray, ¶0022). Thus, both Ray and Darapu are drawn toward improving communications performance of antennas which communicate via directionally-received and/or directionally-transmitted signals, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ray and Darapu (as discussed in the previous Office Action).
For at least these reasons, the combination of Darapu and Ray disclose the limitations recited in applicant’s independent claims, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations that use the words “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, as described herein:
in claims 31 and 38-44: “means for receiving”, “means for communicating”, and “means for transmitting” are being interpreted to cover phased array antenna 155 and 155-a, feed element 156, receive antenna element, transmit antenna element, transceiver element, antenna assembly 151 and 151-a, access node terminal 130, user terminal 150, GPS receiver, receive beamforming network 310, transmit beamforming network 360, signal receiver 925, signal transmitter 960, and equivalents thereof (see Figs. 1, 2, 3A-B, and 9; ¶¶0026-0028, ¶0032, ¶0035, ¶0042, ¶¶0051-0054, and ¶¶0109-0131);
in claims 31-37, 39, 44, and 45: “means for determining”, “means for generating”, and “means for scaling” are being interpreted to cover user terminal controller 158, access node controller 135, network device 141, performance mapping component 935, antenna characteristic manager 930, signal quality evaluation component 950, signal quality scaling component 955, and equivalents thereof (see Figs. 1 and 9; ¶0028, ¶0035, and ¶¶0109-0131); and
in claim 38: “means for scheduling” is being interpreted to cover -----access node terminal 130, access node controller 135, network devices 141 (e.g., network operations centers and/or gateway command centers), user terminal 150 or other scheduling entities, communications manager 940, and equivalents thereof (see Figs. 1 and 9; ¶0031, ¶¶0095-0097, and ¶¶0109-0131).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner notes and concurs with the additional examples of structures that may perform various aspects of the features of claims 31-45 as noted by applicant (Remarks, p.15).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-24, 26-29, 31-39, and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0195340 to Darapu et al. (“Darapu”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0167102 to Ray.
As to claim 16 (and similarly applied to claims 1 and 31), Darapu discloses an apparatus for communications in a satellite communication system (Figs. 1 and 9, satellite terminal 150 and 150-a; ¶0022 and ¶0100), the apparatus comprising: an array antenna (Figs. 1 and 9, satellite terminal communications antenna 152 and 152-b; ¶0024 and ¶¶0101-0102; see also claims 1 and 2); and a controller coupled with the array antenna (Figs. 1 and 9, satellite terminal receiver 154 and 154-a, processor 905, satellite communications manager 930, and/or CPE communications manager 925; ¶0030 and ¶0107) and configured to: receive a plurality of signals using the array antenna according to a plurality of beamformed beam orientations of the array antenna; determine a plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the array antenna associated with the plurality of beamformed beam orientations; generate a communications performance map based at least in part on the received plurality of signals and the determined plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the array antenna (Figs. 1, 3-5, and 8, step 805; ¶¶0083-0090; ¶0024; and ¶0037); and communicate with a satellite using the array antenna based at least in part on the generated communications performance map (Figs. 1 and 8, steps 825-830; ¶0098). Please also see section Response to Arguments above.
Darapu does not disclose: that the array antenna is a phased array antenna.
However, Ray discloses: that the array antenna is a phased array antenna (Figs. 1-4; phased array transmitter 102, receiving antenna 118 and first receiver 120, phased array RF transmitter 200, phased array RF transmitter 300, and/or phased array receiver 400; ¶0026, ¶0031, ¶0041, ¶0047, and ¶0048).
Darapu and Ray are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: radio transmission systems, including multi-antenna systems using (e.g., using two or more spaced independent antennas); beam forming; selecting one or more beams from a plurality of beams; transmission in a satellite or space-based system; and/or arrangements for managing radio resources, i.e. for establishing or releasing a connection or handover of resources. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Darapu to incorporate the teachings of Ray to include: that the array antenna is a phased array antenna. Doing so would allow for continuous, faster, and more accurate communications performance by reducing or eliminating gain loss and ripples from repeated steering, sampling, and beam adjustment algorithms (Ray, ¶0003 and ¶0040). Additionally, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Darapu and Ray as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 17 (and similarly applied to claims 2 and 32), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein, to determine the plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna, the controller is configured to: determine, for each beamformed beam orientation of the plurality of beamformed beam orientations, an antenna gain of the phased array antenna associated with electronic beamforming along the beamformed beam orientation (Ray, Figs. 5A-B; ¶0051).
As to claim 18 (and similarly applied to claims 3 and 33), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein, to determine the plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna, the controller is configured to: determine, for each beamformed beam orientation of the plurality of beamformed beam orientations, an antenna noise metric of the phased array antenna associated with electronic beamforming along the beamformed beam orientation (Darapu, ¶0037).
As to claim 19 (and similarly applied to claims 4 and 34), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein, to determine the plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna, the controller is configured to: determine, for each beamformed beam orientation of the plurality of beamformed beam orientations, a beamwidth of the phased array antenna associated with electronic beamforming along the beamformed beam orientation (Darapu, ¶0037).
As to claim 20 (and similarly applied to claims 5 and 35), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein, to generate the communications performance map, the controller is configured to: determine, for each received signal of the plurality of signals, a respective signal quality metric for the received signal (Darapu, ¶0037); and scale, for each received signal of the plurality of signals, the respective signal quality metric for the received signal based at least in part on the directional antenna characteristic of the phased array antenna associated with the beamformed beam orientation corresponding to the received signal (Darapu, ¶0070).
As to claim 21 (and similarly applied to claims 6 and 36), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein, to generate the communications performance map, the controller is configured to: determine a blockage map associated with a location of the phased array antenna based at least in part on the received plurality of signals and the determined plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna (Darapu, Figs. 5-6 and 8, step 820; ¶0038 and ¶0095).
As to claim 22 (and similarly applied to claims 7 and 37), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein, to generate the communications performance map, the controller is configured to: determine a boundary of beamformed beam orientations for communications using the phased array antenna based at least in part on the received plurality of signals and the determined plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna (Darapu, Figs. 3-7, boundary 312 and 312-a; ¶0053, ¶0060, ¶0066, ¶0073, and ¶0080).
As to claim 23 (and similarly applied to claims 8 and 38), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein, to communicate with the satellite, the controller is configured to: schedule a handoff to the satellite from another satellite based at least in part on the generated communications performance map (Darapu, Fig. 8, step 835; ¶0098).
As to claim 24 (and similarly applied to claims 9 and 39), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine to perform a beam scanning operation based at least in part on a periodic interval or an event trigger; and receive the plurality of signals based at least in part on determining to perform the beam scanning operation (Darapu, Fig. 8, step 805; ¶0090).
As to claim 26 (and similarly applied to claims 11 and 41), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein, to receive the plurality of signals, the controller is configured to: receive ambient signals not associated with a transmitting device (Darapu, ¶0026, ¶0037, ¶0054, ¶0084, ¶0087; Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that calculating a signal-to-noise ratio would require reception of ambient signals (i.e., noise) not associated with a transmitting device).
As to claim 27 (and similarly applied to claims 12 and 42), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein, to receive the ambient signals, the controller is configured to: receive the ambient signals over a frequency not used for the communicating with the satellite (Darapu, ¶0026, ¶0037, ¶0054, ¶0084, ¶0087; Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that calculating a signal-to-noise ratio would require reception of ambient signals (i.e., noise) over a frequency not used for the communication with the satellite).
As to claim 28 (and similarly applied to claims 13 and 43), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the controller is further configured to: transmit the generated communications performance map to a network scheduling entity (Darapu, Fig. 8, step 830; ¶0097); and receive, from the network scheduling entity, an instruction to communicate with the satellite based at least in part on transmitting the generated communications performance map (Darapu, Fig. 8, step 835; ¶0098).
As to claim 29 (and similarly applied to claims 14 and 44), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the plurality of signals are received with a first physical orientation of the phased array antenna, and the controller is further configured to: receive a second plurality of signals at the phased array antenna according to a second plurality of beamformed beam orientations of the phased array antenna, wherein the second plurality of signals are received with a second physical orientation of the phased array antenna; determine a second plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna associated with the second plurality of beamformed beam orientations; and generate the communications performance map based at least in part on the received second plurality of signals and the determined second plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna (Darapu, Fig. 8, step 805; ¶0090).
Claims 10, 25, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darapu in view of Ray and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0396305 to Dutta et al. (“Dutta”).
As to claim 25 (and similarly applied to claims 10 and 40), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 16.
Darapu in view of Ray does not disclose: wherein the controller is further configured to: transmit a second plurality of signals using the phased array antenna, wherein, to receive the plurality of signals, the controller is configured to receive reflections of the transmitted second plurality of signals.
However, Dutta discloses: wherein the controller is further configured to: transmit a second plurality of signals using the phased array antenna, wherein, to receive the plurality of signals, the controller is configured to receive reflections of the transmitted second plurality of signals (Fig. 10 and ¶¶0117-0121).
Darapu, Ray, and Dutta are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: radio transmission systems, including multi-antenna systems using (e.g., using two or more spaced independent antennas); beam forming; selecting one or more beams from a plurality of beams; transmission in a satellite or space-based system; and/or arrangements for managing radio resources, i.e. for establishing or releasing a connection or handover of resources. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Darapu in view of Ray to incorporate the teachings of Dutta to include: wherein the controller is further configured to: transmit a second plurality of signals using the phased array antenna, wherein, to receive the plurality of signals, the controller is configured to receive reflections of the transmitted second plurality of signals. Doing so would improve wireless communications by allowing "the transmitter UE [to be] able to perform self-interference measurements…which enhance network resource usage and spectral efficiency" (Dutta, ¶0125).
Claims 15, 30, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darapu in view of Ray and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0204250 to Ravishankar et al. (“Ravishankar”).
As to claim 30 (and similarly applied to claims 15 and 45), Darapu in view of Ray discloses the apparatus of claim 29, wherein, to generate the communications performance map, the controller is configured to: generate a first performance map in a global coordinate system based at least in part on the received plurality of signals, the determined plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna, and a first transformation from an antenna coordinate system in the first physical orientation to the global coordinate system (Darapu, ¶0088); generate a second performance map in the global coordinate system based at least in part on the received second plurality of signals, the determined second plurality of directional antenna characteristics of the phased array antenna, and a second transformation from the antenna coordinate system in the second physical orientation to the global coordinate system (Darapu, ¶¶0088-0090).
Darapu in view of Ray does not disclose: generate the communications performance map based at least in part on the first performance map and the second performance map.
However, Ravishankar discloses: generate the communications performance map based at least in part on the first performance map and the second performance map (Figs. 2-4; ¶0031 and ¶¶0043-0046).
Darapu, Ray, and Ravishankar are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: radio transmission systems, including multi-antenna systems using (e.g., using two or more spaced independent antennas); beam forming; selecting one or more beams from a plurality of beams; transmission in a satellite or space-based system; and/or arrangements for managing radio resources, i.e. for establishing or releasing a connection or handover of resources. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Darapu in view of Ray to incorporate the teachings of Ravishankar to include: generate the communications performance map based at least in part on the first performance map and the second performance map. Doing so would improve wireless communications by "mitigat[ing] blockage effects and the duration of interruptions associated with satellite communication systems" (Ravishankar, ¶0002).
References Cited
Dutta, Sourjya et al. (2023). Self-interference management measurements for single frequency full duplex (sffd) communication (US 2023/0396305 A1). Filed 2020-12-10.
Darapu, Ramanamurthy V. et al. (2020). Determining an attenuation environment of a satellite communication terminal (US 2020/0195340 A1). Filed 2020-02-24.
Ravishankar, Channasandra et al. (2020). Systems for mitigating service interrupts in satellite systems (US 2020/0204250 A1). Filed 2019-12-18.
Ray, Gary A. (2018). Phased array beam tracking using beam gain coding (US 2018/0167102 A1). Filed 2016-12-09.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Bennett, ANDREW (2018). Methods and systems using networked phased-array antennae applications to detect and/or monitor moving objects (US 20180170514 A1). Filed 2017-02-20.
Brillant, Avigdor et al. (2024). Devices having a phased-array antenna and calibration method therefor (US 20240145912 A1). Filed 2022-02-08.
Beeler, Michael et al. (2014). System and method for satellite link budget analysis (lba) optimization (US 20140233611 A1). Filed 2014-04-28.
Buer, Kenneth V. et al. (2020). Dynamic signal quality criteria for satellite terminal installations (US 20200267575 A1). Filed 2020-01-21.
Capet, Nicolas et al. (2023). Relay platform for transmitting positioning signals to rovers with an optimized radiation pattern (US 11543536 B2). Filed 2018-12-14.
Choi, Thomas Kyo (2021). Radio transceiver with antenna array formed by horn-antenna elements (US 20210313687 A1). Filed 2020-04-06.
Cummings, Nathan et al. (2018). Phased array antenna pointing direction estimation and control (US 20180115062 A1). Filed 2015-03-24.
Durvasula, Bhanu et al. (2016). Apparatus and method for monitoring operations in a satellite communication system (US 20160165456 A1). Filed 2014-12-09.
Ghassemzadeh, Saeed et al. (2021). Phased array mobile channel sounding system (US 20210036421 A1). Filed 2019-07-31.
Hou, Fenglong et al. (2024). Method capable of reducing frequency interference, and communication satellite system (US 20240137110 A1). Filed 2021-09-29.
Ibanez-Meier, Rodrigo et al. (1999). Method and apparatus to respond to a blockage environment in a communication system (US 5946603 A). Filed 1997-04-25.
Jalali, Ahmad et al. (2016). Beam forming and pointing in a network of unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) for broadband access (US 20160134358 A1). Filed 2015-02-19.
Kang, Youngmyoung (2020). Optimum beam display and guidance method and apparatus (US 20200007209 A1). Filed 2018-02-06.
Khalil, Ahmed I. et al. (2018). Antenna array calibration systems and methods (US 20180062260 A1). Filed 2017-06-01.
Lier, Erik et al. (2015). Receiver dual-reflector antenna system for interference suppression onboard satellite (US 20150123843 A1). Filed 2013-11-06.
Oxford, Thaddeus Dylan et al. (2017). Multiple-assembly antenna positioner with eccentric shaft (US 20170077585 A1). Filed 2015-09-16.
Ramachandran, Iyappan et al. (2022). Techniques for in-orbit calibration of phased array antenna (US 11322838 B1). Filed 2020-05-04.
Salamat, Bahman et al. (2017). Apparatus and method for generating boundaries of satellite coverage beams (US 20170012688 A1). Filed 2015-07-09.
Srinivas, Sharanya et al. (2022). Hybrid in-situ and signal of opportunity calibration for antenna arrays (US 20220247501 A1). Filed 2022-01-31.
Struhsaker, Paul et al. (2020). Methods for formation of antenna array from sub-arrays (US 10756443 B1). Filed 2019-08-30.
Tsuboi, Hideyuki et al. (2022). Interference power estimation method, interference power estimation apparatus and program (US 20220035043 A1). Filed 2019-09-02.
Tang, Yi et al. (2024). Measurement method and device (US 11933828 B2). Filed 2020-12-10.
Tsui, Ernest (2022). Method and system for user equipment (ue) management based on user separability (US 20220279535 A1). Filed 2021-07-15.
Valdes Garcia, ALBERTO et al. (2018). In-field millimeter-wave phased array radiation pattern estimation and validation (US 20180115065 A1). Filed 2016-10-26.
Wang, Arthur W. (2004). Method and apparatus for providing wideband services using medium and low earth orbit satellites (US 6678520 B1). Filed 1999-07-01.
Wang, Jibing et al. (2024). Cellular api for satellite configurations (US 20240188031 A1). Filed 2022-03-09.
Yerramalli, Srinivas et al. (2024). Basis function based beam shape assistance for downlink angle of departure positioning (US 20240063884 A1). Filed 2023-03-09.
Zheng, Jiayu et al. (2023). Communication apparatus and system (US 20230223685 A1). Filed 1900-01-00.
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 SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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 (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (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 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights