DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on 7/21/2026.
2. Claims 1-6, 9-18, and 20-23 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant asserts that:
Amended claim 1 recites, inter alia, that the determination of which of the space and ground objects are within a field of view of a receive antenna includes, for a first object, defining a cone of radio frequency emission of the object by a center vector and an edge vector, determining a half cone angle of the cone as an angle from the center vector to the edge vector, and identifying the object as a potential interferer when the half cone angle of the object overlaps a half cone angle of an intended emitter of an intended communication with the receive antenna. Kanner does not anticipate this arrangement.
Paragraph [0020] of Kanner discloses determining an interference event for a period of time during which two satellite systems are separated by less than a threshold conjunction angle relative to an antenna; paragraph [0028] discloses that satellites traveling along respective orbital paths periodically come into view of a ground station. Both paragraphs address an angular separation between two objects as observed from a common antenna; neither defines a cone of emission of an object by a center vector and an edge vector, neither determines a half cone angle as the angle between those two vectors, and neither identifies a potential interferer on the basis of an overlap between the half cone angle of one object and the half cone angle of an intended emitter. A threshold conjunction angle as in paragraph [0020] of Kanner is a measure of separation between two satellites, which is a different parameter than the half cone angle of an emission cone of a single object and is computed from different inputs. The radiation pattern of the antenna at the ground station of paragraph [0041] of Kanner is used to set an acceptable separation distance between two satellites but does not define a cone of emission of a potential interferer by a center vector and an edge vector or test for overlap of that cone with a cone of an intended emitter; that is, a radiation pattern used to set a separation threshold is not the same as an emission cone whose half cone angle is compared against the half cone angle of an intended emitter.
In response to applicant’s argument that the referenced prior arts failed to define a cone of emission of an object by a center vector and an edge vector, neither determines a half cone angle as the angle between those two vectors, and neither identifies a potential interferer on the basis of an overlap between the half cone angle of one object and the half cone angle of an intended emitter. Claim 1 is amended to include the above element.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant further asserts that:
Claim 1 further recites comparing transmission parameters of the set of potential interferers with corresponding parameters for the intended emitter to determine which of the set of potential interferers are expected to generate at least a threshold interference level at the receive antenna relative to the intended emitter. The framework of Kanner determines relevance and interference on the basis of frequency overlap and angular separation. In particular, paragraph [0019] of Kanner discloses comparing known frequencies associated with a first satellite to frequency data for additional satellites to determine relevant satellites operating within a threshold frequency range; paragraph [0020] discloses that a threshold conjunction angle corresponds to an acceptable level of degradation in the signal-to-noise ratio of the signal received by the antenna. These paragraphs, however, describe a frequency-overlap relevance test followed by a geometric separation test; they do not set forth comparing the transmission parameters of a potential interferer against the corresponding transmission parameters of an intended emitter to arrive at a threshold interference level evaluated at the receive antenna relative to that intended emitter. The signal-to-noise degradation in paragraph [0020] is a consequence tied to the angular separation between two satellites rather than an outcome of comparing interferer transmission parameters with the corresponding transmission parameters of an intended emitter as evaluated at the receive antenna. The transmission power of the satellite and the received noise of the antenna are thus inputs to setting a threshold conjunction angle; there is no comparison of interferer parameters against intended emitter parameters to yield a threshold interference level at the receive antenna. That is, aggregating disparate parameters that Kanner uses for angular thresholding does not supply the recited parameter-to-parameter comparison referenced to an intended emitter.
Accordingly, claim 1 as amended is patentable over Kanner for at least the above noted deficiencies and reasons discussed above.
None of the secondary references (Zorba, Young, or Ravishankar) resolve these deficiencies (including half cone overlap determination, and comparison anchored to the intended emitter at the receive antenna). Paragraphs [0048]-[0049] of Zorba, for example, disclose computing a radiation angle from a satellite to a ground location, applying a known antenna radiation pattern to determine a radiated power level, and designing the satellite beams according to a predefined radiation function such as a Bessel function known in advance to the gateway. These paragraphs address modeling of the radiation pattern of beams designed by the system, rather than defining an emission cone of a potential interferer by a center vector and an edge vector and testing that cone for overlap with a cone of an intended emitter. Young similarly discloses, at the page describing the Jacobi- Bessel series, a set of basis functions for representing a reflector antenna pattern using an antenna aperture radius. This is related to representation of an antenna pattern without any relation to the half cone overlap determination as recited in the amended claims. Paragraph [0126] of Ravishankar describes processors including a GPU but again discloses none of the limitations of claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that reference prior arts they do not set forth comparing the transmission parameters of a potential interferer against the corresponding transmission parameters of an intended emitter to arrive at a threshold interference level evaluated at the receive antenna relative to that intended emitter. Kanner paragraph [0019] discloses “In some implementations, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on various other characteristics associated with the satellite and/or antenna, such as the transmission power of the satellite, the received noise of the antenna, and/or other characteristics”.
Applicant further asserts that:
For at least these reasons, none of the cited references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is patentable over the cited references.
For at least similar reasons, the method recited in claim 9 and medium of claim 17 are patentable over the cited references.
Claims 2-6, 10-16, 18, and 20-23 are dependent on an allowable based claim and are thus allowable without more.
In response to applicant’s argument that independent claim 1, 9, and 17 are patentable over cited references. Similarly, claims 2-6, 10-16, 18, and 20-23 are dependent on an allowable based claim and are thus allowable without more. For the foregoing responses, the examiner contends that the rejection to claim 1-6, 9-16, 17-18, and 20-23 are proper.
Applicant further asserts that:
These dependent claims may also be independently patentable. For example, new dependent claim 23 recites updating the geometric calculations on a first schedule and updating the determination of which of the set of potential interferers are expected to generate at least the threshold interference level on a second schedule (with the first and second schedules being different). Kanner does not disclose two different update schedules for these two operations. Paragraph [0034] of Kanner discloses that an orbital analysis system receives orbital data from an orbital database and determines orbital models. Paragraph [0036] of Kanner discloses that a scheduler predicts radio frequency interference events for a period of time during which relevant satellites are within a threshold angle. Neither paragraph discloses performing the geometric calculations on a first schedule while performing the interference-level determination on a second, different schedule. Not only is such an overlap not routine design choice, but further, the decoupled scheduling is associated with a reduction in computation time. One reason for this not apparent in Kanner is that the geometric calculations are performed in advance and the comparison operations are performed on a separate cadence, which provides a technical result (the time reduction) that is simply not apparent in Kanner.
In response to applicant’s argument new dependent claim 23 recites updating the geometric calculations on a first schedule and updating the determination of which of the set of potential interferers are expected to generate at least the threshold interference level on a second schedule (with the first and second schedules being different).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 1-2, 9-10, 15-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanner et al., US Patent Publication No. 20170146664, filed on 11/19/2015 (hereinafter Kanner) in view of Li et al., US Patent Publication No. 20220294525, effectively filed on 6/30/2020 (hereinafter Li).
As for independent claim 1, Kanner discloses a contact planning system comprising:
memory for storing orbit and transmission data (frequency data, orbital data) for a plurality of space and ground objects (for two or more satellites relative to a ground communication station); and a processing system coupled to the memory (one or more memory devices 614 can also store data 618 that can be retrieved, manipulated, created, or stored by the one or more processors ), the processing system configured to:
(Kanner [paragraph 0052] discloses “As shown in FIG. 6, the one or more memory devices 614 can also store data 618 that can be retrieved, manipulated, created, or stored by the one or more processors 612. The data 618 can include, for instance, frequency data, orbital data, and other data. The data 618 can be stored in one or more databases. The one or more databases can be connected to the server 610 by a high bandwidth LAN or WAN, or can also be connected to server 610 through various other suitable networks. The one or more databases can be split up so that they are located in multiple locales.”
Paragraph [0039] discloses “At (402), method (400) can include obtaining orbital data for a plurality of satellite systems. As indicated above, the orbital data may include one or more orbital elements associated with each of the plurality of satellites. For instance, angular positions can be determined for two or more satellites relative to a ground communication station located on the earth.”)
determine which of the space and ground objects are within a field of view of a receive antenna (As satellites 12 and 206 each travel along their respective orbital paths, they may periodically simultaneously come into view of ground station 204) based on geometric calculations, to generate a set of potential interferers (orbital analysis system 314) can be configured to determine or otherwise predict one or more RFI events associated with satellite(s) 302),
(Kanner paragraph [0028] discloses “FIG. 2 further depicts satellite 206. Satellite 206 is traveling in an orbital path relative to the earth 207. As satellites 12 and 206 each travel along their respective orbital paths, they may periodically simultaneously come into view of ground station 204. In such instances, downlink signals received by ground station 204 (e.g. provided by satellite 12) may experience degradation due at least in part to RFI caused by satellite 206.”
Paragraph [0036] discloses “In particular, scheduler 304 (and/or orbital analysis system 314) can be configured to determine or otherwise predict one or more RFI events associated with satellite(s) 302. As indicated, an RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein two or more satellites operating within a threshold frequency range (e.g. relevant satellites) will be within a threshold angle of each other relative to an antenna configured to communicate with at least one of the two or more satellites. For instance, an RFI event can be predicted when two or more relevant satellites will be above a minimum elevation angle relative to a ground station and separated by less than a threshold conjunction angle.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
427
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
compare transmission parameters of the set of potential interferers with corresponding parameters for [[an]] the intended emitter to determine which of the set of potential interferers (transmission frequency of the satellite systems can be used to identify one or more satellites that are relevant to a first satellite system) are expected to generate at least a threshold interference level (the threshold conjunction angle) at the receive antenna relative to the intended emitter (In some implementations, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on various other characteristics associated with the satellite and/or antenna, such as the transmission power of the satellite, the received noise of the antenna, and/or other characteristics. For instance, the antenna can be located at a ground station associated with one of the satellite systems);
(Kanner paragraph [0019] discloses “In some implementations, the data indicative of the transmission frequency of the satellite systems can be used to identify one or more satellites that are relevant to a first satellite system. A relevant satellite can be a satellite system operating within a threshold frequency range of the first satellite system.”
Paragraph [0020] discloses “The potential RFI events can be determined based at least in part on the orbital data and the frequency data. In some implementations, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on various other characteristics associated with the satellite and/or antenna, such as the transmission power of the satellite, the received noise of the antenna, and/or other characteristics. For instance, the antenna can be located at a ground station associated with one of the satellite systems. In particular, the ground station can include one or more computing devices configured to communicate with the first satellite system using RF transmission signals. In this manner, the RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein each satellite system will be visible by the antenna pattern.”)
prepare an avoidance plan (events to be performed) for avoiding interference with potential interferers that are expected to exceed the threshold interference level (In particular, an RFI event can be determined for one or more periods of time during which two or more satellite systems operating within a threshold frequency range from each other (e.g. relevant satellites) are (or are expected to be) separated by less than a threshold distance (e.g. a threshold angle), as determined from the orbital data); and
(Kanner paragraph [0020] discloses “The potential RFI events can be determined based at least in part on the orbital data and the frequency data. In particular, an RFI event can be determined for one or more periods of time during which two or more satellite systems operating within a threshold frequency range from each other (e.g. relevant satellites) are (or are expected to be) separated by less than a threshold distance (e.g. a threshold angle), as determined from the orbital data. For instance, in some implementations, an RFI event can correspond to a period of time when a first satellite and one or more relevant satellites will be separated by less than a threshold conjunction angle relative to an antenna communicating with at least one of the satellite systems.”
Kanner paragraph [0029] discloses “FIG. 3 depicts an overview of an example control system 300 for predicting RFI events according to example embodiments of the present disclosure. The control system 300 can control one or more satellites 302 by analyzing information (e.g., events to be performed, priorities of events, event or satellite constraints, etc.), creating an efficient schedule of events based at least in part on the analyzed information, and commanding the satellites to perform the scheduled events. For instance, satellite(s) 302 may correspond to satellite 12, 206, and/or other satellite.”)
encode signals for transmission to one or more of the space and ground objects for (transmit tasking data indicative of a schedule to one or more satellites)( to a satellite ground communication station) execution of the avoidance plan (schedule of events).
(Kanner paragraph [0031] discloses “Data indicative of the schedule of events can be provided to the satellites 302. For instance, in some implementations, control system 300 can include an array of antennas configured to transmit tasking data indicative of a schedule to one or more satellites. The satellites can receive the transmitted tasking data and perform the requested tasks at designated times in accordance with the tasking data. In some implementations, the tasking data can be dynamically updated based at least in part on updated scheduling information received from the scheduler 304.”
Paragraph [0023] discloses “For instance, for an imaging satellite, events can be any task to be performed by the imaging satellite and can generally include, without limitation, imagery collection, imagery downlink (e.g., to a satellite ground communication station), and/or onboard maintenance.”)
Kanner does not appear to explicitly disclose
the determination including, for a first object of the plurality of space and ground objects: defining a cone of radio frequency emission of the first object by a center vector and an edge vector, determining a half cone angle of the cone as an angle from the center vector to the edge vector, and identifying the object as a potential interferer of the set of potential interferers when the half cone angle of the first object overlaps a half cone angle of an intended emitter of an intended communication with the receive antenna.
However, Li discloses
the determination including, for a first object of the plurality of space and ground objects (FIG. 2 shows the LEO satellite orbit near the equator as shown in FIG. 1 and the GEO satellite orbit): defining a cone of radio frequency emission of the first object by a center vector (FIG.3, 3-640 represents a centerline of beams) and an edge vector (FIG. 3, 3-310-1 represents a biased beam of the LEO satellite k), determining a half cone angle of the cone as an angle from the center vector to the edge vector (FIG.2, 2-510 represents a beam half cone angle φ), and identifying the object as a potential interferer of the set of potential interferers when the half cone angle of the first object overlaps a half cone angle of an intended emitter of an intended communication with the receive antenna (FIG. 3, 3-510 represents a double coverage region formed by the beams of the adjacent LEO satellites at two sides of the ascending node)( Only in the case of double coverage, it may be ensured that even if an LEO satellite turns off beams completely, a seamless coverage region is still formed by LEO satellites adjacent to the LEO satellite).
(Li paragraph [0007] discloses “FIG. 2 shows the LEO satellite orbit near the equator as shown in FIG. 1 and the GEO satellite orbit. It is assumed that an orbital plane of the GEO satellite completely coincides with the equatorial plane. For the convenience of labeling text, the heights of the LEO satellite orbit and the GEO satellite orbit are not drawn strictly according to the scale in FIG. 2, and FIG. 2 only shows the schematic relationship between the LEO satellite orbit and the GEO satellite orbit. In FIG. 2, 2-110 represents the surface of the earth, 2-120 represents an LEO satellite orbit, 2-130 represents a GEO satellite orbit, 2-210 represents an LEO satellite, 2-220 represents a GEO satellite, 2-310 represents unbiased beams, 2-320 represents biased beams, 2-410 represents the radius R.sub.E of the earth, 2-420 represents a height H.sub.LEO of the LEO satellite orbit, 2-430 represents a height H.sub.GEO of the GEO satellite orbit, 2-510 represents a beam half cone angle φ, 2-520 represents a critical bias angle θ.sub.1, 2-530 represents a critical interference avoidance angle β, 2-540 represents an argument ω of a latitude of the LEO satellite, 2-610 represents a coverage region of the unbiased beams, 2-620 represents a coverage region of the biased beams, 2-710 represents a movement direction of the LEO satellite, 2-810 represents the orbital plane of the GEO satellite, coinciding with the equatorial plane, and 2-820 represents an ascending node of the LEO satellite orbit and the equatorial plane.”
Paragraph [0010] discloses “FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram showing a minimum bias angle in a double coverage formed by two adjacent LEO satellites at two sides of an ascending node in a case of symmetrical biased beams. In FIG. 3, the argument of the latitude of each of the two LEO satellites is equal to half of a phase angle of the two adjacent LEO satellites, that is, ±½γ. For the convenience of labeling text, the heights of the LEO satellite orbit and the GEO satellite orbit are not drawn strictly according to the scale in FIG. 3, and FIG. 3 only shows the schematic relationship between the LEO satellite orbit and the GEO satellite orbit. In FIG. 3, 3-110 represents the surface of the earth, 3-120 represents an LEO satellite orbit, 3-130 represents a GEO satellite orbit, 3-210-1 represents an LEO satellite k, 3-210-2 represents an LEO satellite k−1, 3-220 represents a GEO satellite, 3-310-1 represents a biased beam of the LEO satellite k, 3-310-2 represents a biased beam of the LEO satellite k−1, 3-410 represents a phase angle γ of two adjacent LEO satellites, 3-420 represents a critical bias angle θ.sub.2 for forming a double coverage by beams of adjacent LEO satellites at two sides of the ascending node, 3-510 represents a double coverage region formed by the beams of the adjacent LEO satellites at two sides of the ascending node, 3-610 represents an orbital plane of the GEO satellite, assuming that the orbital plane of the GEO satellite coincides with the equatorial plane, 3-620 represents a movement direction of the LEO satellite, 3-630 represents an ascending node of the LEO satellite orbit and the equatorial plane, and 3-640 represents a centerline of beams.”
Paragraph [0011] discloses “In FIG. 3, near the ascending node, after the beams of the LEO satellite k and the beams of the LEO satellite k−1 are respectively biased by θ.sub.2 towards the equator, the coverage region of the beams of the LEO satellite k completely coincides with the coverage region of the beams of the LEO satellite k−1. The argument of latitude of the LEO satellite k is equal to ½γ, and the argument of latitude of the LEO satellite k−1 is equal to −½γ, where γ represents a phase angle of two adjacent LEO satellites. Only in the case of double coverage, it may be ensured that even if an LEO satellite turns off beams completely, a seamless coverage region is still formed by LEO satellites adjacent to the LEO satellite.”
Li discloses that the two satellites are in a double coverage area, thus, turn off communication on one of the satellite will not affect coverage for the overlapped area.)
PNG
media_image2.png
479
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
458
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li with Kanner for the benefit of having a contact planning system to determine the potential interferers using the orbital data, frequency data, and the half cone overlapping between adjacent satellites. Further benefit to combine is to have a planning system using multiple data points to project and predict potential interferers for creating an optimal avoidance plan to prevent RFI.
As for claim 2, the limitations of parent claim 1 has been discussed above. Kanner discloses
the contact planning system wherein
The processing system is further configured to determine whether potential interferer emitted power can interfere with the receive antenna (the RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein each satellite system will be visible by the antenna pattern) based on receive antenna sensitivity and link budget (The threshold conjunction angle can correspond to an acceptable level of degradation in the signal-to-noise ratio associated with the signal received by the antenna) between the receive antenna and the intended emitter (For instance, the antenna can be located at a ground station associated with one of the satellite systems).
(Kanner paragraph [0020] discloses “The potential RFI events can be determined based at least in part on the orbital data and the frequency data. In particular, an RFI event can be determined for one or more periods of time during which two or more satellite systems operating within a threshold frequency range from each other (e.g. relevant satellites) are (or are expected to be) separated by less than a threshold distance (e.g. a threshold angle), as determined from the orbital data. For instance, in some implementations, an RFI event can correspond to a period of time when a first satellite and one or more relevant satellites will be separated by less than a threshold conjunction angle relative to an antenna communicating with at least one of the satellite systems. The threshold conjunction angle can correspond to an acceptable level of degradation in the signal-to-noise ratio associated with the signal received by the antenna. In some implementations, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on a radiation pattern of an antenna associated with one of the satellite systems. In some implementations, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on various other characteristics associated with the satellite and/or antenna, such as the transmission power of the satellite, the received noise of the antenna, and/or other characteristics. For instance, the antenna can be located at a ground station associated with one of the satellite systems. In particular, the ground station can include one or more computing devices configured to communicate with the first satellite system using RF transmission signals. In this manner, the RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein each satellite system will be visible by the antenna pattern.” The antenna radiation pattern is a crucial factor in determining the sensitivity and budget of an antenna system. For a satellite to be visible by the receiving antenna, the transmission power of the satellite over the distance must meet the minimum sensitivity of the receiving antenna. Kanner discloses using an antenna pattern to predict the visibility of the satellite with the sensitivity of the antenna through its radiation pattern.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li with Kanner for the benefit of having a contact planning system to determine the potential interferers using the orbital data, frequency data, and the half cone overlapping between adjacent satellites. Further benefit to combine is to have a planning system using the antenna sensitivity and link budget to project and predict potential interferers for creating an optimal avoidance plan to prevent RFI.
As for independent claim 9, claim 9 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in independent claim 1, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 10, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 10 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 2, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 15, the limitations of parent claim 9 has been discussed above. Kanner discloses the method further comprising
updating geometric calculations and a corresponding set of potential interferers (orbital analysis system 314) can be configured to determine or otherwise predict one or more RFI events associated with satellite(s) 302) periodically on a first schedule. (Scheduler 304 can further be configured to receive orbital trajectory data from orbital analysis system 314)( configured to receive orbital data from an orbital database)
(Kanner paragraph [0034] discloses “ Scheduler 304 can further be configured to receive orbital trajectory data from orbital analysis system 314. In particular, orbital analysis system 314 can be configured to receive orbital data from an orbital database 312. The orbital data can include orbital parameters and/or elements associated with satellite(s) 302 and one or more additional satellites.”
Kanner paragraph [0036] further discloses “In particular, scheduler 304 (and/or orbital analysis system 314) can be configured to determine or otherwise predict one or more RFI events associated with satellite(s) 302. As indicated, an RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein two or more satellites operating within a threshold frequency range (e.g. relevant satellites) will be within a threshold angle of each other relative to an antenna configured to communicate with at least one of the two or more satellites.”
FIG. 3 discloses that the orbital analysis can schedule event base on orbital data from an orbital database)
PNG
media_image4.png
441
519
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for claim 16, the limitations of parent claim 15 has been discussed above. Kanner discloses the method further comprising
detecting transmission parameters (scheduler 304 can further receive frequency data from frequency database 310) of the set of potential interferers periodically (The scheduler 304 receives events from an event system 308, frequency data from a frequency database 310) on a second schedule different from the first schedule. (scheduler 304 can be configured to schedule one or more events for satellite(s) 302 based at least in part on the orbital data and the frequency data)
(Kanner paragraph [0035] discloses “As indicated, scheduler 304 can further receive frequency data from frequency database 310. The frequency data can be indicative of one or more frequencies at which satellite(s) 302 and the one or more additional satellites operate. In this manner, scheduler 304 can be configured to schedule one or more events for satellite(s) 302 based at least in part on the orbital data and the frequency data.”
Paragraph [0030] discloses “The scheduler 304 receives events from an event system 308, frequency data from a frequency database 310, and/or orbital trajectory data for one or more satellites from an orbital analysis system 314. As indicated, the scheduler 304 can produce a schedule of events.”)
As for independent claim 17, claim 17 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in independent claim 1, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 18, limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 2, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 21, the limitations of parent claim 1 has been discussed above. Kanner discloses the contact planning system wherein
for a potential interferer of the set of potential interferers for which frequency information is unavailable (scheduler 304 (and/or orbital analysis system 314) can be configured to determine or otherwise predict one or more RFI events associated with satellite(s) 302), the processing system is configured to prepare the avoidance plan to avoid communication whenever the potential interferer is within the field of view of the receive antenna (an RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein two or more satellites operating within a threshold frequency range (e.g. relevant satellites) will be within a threshold angle of each other relative to an antenna configured to communicate with at least one of the two or more satellites), independent of frequency comparison.
(Kanner paragraph [0036] discloses “In particular, scheduler 304 (and/or orbital analysis system 314) can be configured to determine or otherwise predict one or more RFI events associated with satellite(s) 302. As indicated, an RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein two or more satellites operating within a threshold frequency range (e.g. relevant satellites) will be within a threshold angle of each other relative to an antenna configured to communicate with at least one of the two or more satellites.”)
As for claim 22, the limitations of parent claim 1 has been discussed above. Kanner discloses the contact planning system wherein
The processing system is configured to exclude from the set of potential interferers a second object that is incapable of operating in a frequency of interest of the intended communication with the receive antenna (, an RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein two or more satellites operating within a threshold frequency range (e.g. relevant satellites) will be within a threshold angle of each other relative to an antenna configured to communicate with at least one of the two or more satellites).
(Kanner paragraph [0036] discloses “In particular, scheduler 304 (and/or orbital analysis system 314) can be configured to determine or otherwise predict one or more RFI events associated with satellite(s) 302. As indicated, an RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein two or more satellites operating within a threshold frequency range (e.g. relevant satellites) will be within a threshold angle of each other relative to an antenna configured to communicate with at least one of the two or more satellites.”
Kanner discloses RFI event can be predicted for two or more satellites operating within a threshold frequency range. Therefore, satellite that is incapable of operating in the frequency of interest are not part of the RFI event calculation.)
As for claim 23, the limitations of parent claim 1 has been discussed above. Kanner discloses the contact planning system of claim 1, wherein
The processing system configured to update (Scheduler 304): the geometric calculations on a first schedule (In particular, orbital analysis system 314 can be configured to estimate or predict the position and/or velocity of a satellite at any given previous or future time based at least in part on the orbital elements), and the determination of which of the set of potential interferers (In particular, scheduler 304 (and/or orbital analysis system 314) can be configured to determine or otherwise predict one or more RFI events associated with satellite(s) 302) are expected to generate at least the threshold interference level (within a threshold angle) on a second schedule (In this manner, scheduler 304 can be configured to schedule one or more events for satellite(s) 302 based at least in part on the orbital data and the frequency data) different from the first schedule (or orbital analysis system 314) can be configured to determine or otherwise predict one or more RFI events).
(Kanner paragraph [0034] discloses “Scheduler 304 can further be configured to receive orbital trajectory data from orbital analysis system 314. In particular, orbital analysis system 314 can be configured to receive orbital data from an orbital database 312. The orbital data can include orbital parameters and/or elements associated with satellite(s) 302 and one or more additional satellites. For instance, the one or more additional satellites may be controlled by the same entity, or by one or more different entities. Orbital analysis system 314 can be configured to determine an orbital model for the satellites 302 and the one or more additional satellites based at least in part on the orbital data. In particular, orbital analysis system 314 can be configured to estimate or predict the position and/or velocity of a satellite at any given previous or future time based at least in part on the orbital elements.”
Paragraph [0036] discloses “In particular, scheduler 304 (and/or orbital analysis system 314) can be configured to determine or otherwise predict one or more RFI events associated with satellite(s) 302. As indicated, an RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein two or more satellites operating within a threshold frequency range (e.g. relevant satellites) will be within a threshold angle of each other relative to an antenna configured to communicate with at least one of the two or more satellites.”
Paragraph [0035] discloses “As indicated, scheduler 304 can further receive frequency data from frequency database 310. The frequency data can be indicative of one or more frequencies at which satellite(s) 302 and the one or more additional satellites operate. In this manner, scheduler 304 can be configured to schedule one or more events for satellite(s) 302 based at least in part on the orbital data and the frequency data.”)
Claims 3-6, 11-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanner in view of Li in view of Zorba Barah et al, US Publication No. 20100303002, effectively filed on 10/15/2007 (hereinafter Zorba) in view of Young et al., "An overview of beam modeling techniques for future radio telescopes," , IEEE paper published in 2013 (hereinafter Young).
As for claim 3, the limitations of parent claim 2 has been discussed above. Kanner discloses the contact planning system wherein
The processing system is further configured to determine whether potential interferer emitted power can interfere with the receive antenna (An RFI event can then be determined for a period of time wherein the two or more satellites will be within the threshold conjunction angle (as predicted by the orbital models)) (power level of the antenna radiation pattern) based on a
(Kanner [0041] discloses “( At 406),( method 400) can include determining one or more expected RFI events based at least in part on the orbital data and the frequency data. For instance, in some implementations, the determined orbital models of relevant satellites can be analyzed to identify one or more periods of time wherein two or more relevant satellites will be separated by less than a threshold distance. In particular, an RFI event can correspond to a period of time wherein the orbital data and/or orbital models associated with the two or more satellites indicate that two or more satellites will each be visible by an antenna configured to communicate with at least one of the two or more satellites. In this manner, a threshold conjunction angle can be determined relative to the antenna. The threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on a radiation pattern of the antenna. An RFI event can then be determined for a period of time wherein the two or more satellites will be within the threshold conjunction angle (as predicted by the orbital models). The threshold conjunction angle can be determined to correspond to a distance between the satellites required to achieve an acceptable signal as received by the antenna. For instance, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on a directivity of the antenna radiation pattern, a power level of the antenna radiation pattern, and/or various other suitable factors.”)
Kanner does not appear to explicitly disclose
the Bessel.
However, Zorba discloses
the Bessel (the Bessel functions)( predefined radiation function).
(Zorba Page 16, line 1-25 discloses “with the calculated radiation angle0 and the antennas radiation pattern (which is known) corresponding to that radiation angle e, it is possible to know the radiated power level from each satellite beam at each ground location. The satellite beams are designed according to a predefined radiation function. Non-limiting examples of radiation functions are the Bessel functions. One of these Bessel functions is shown in figure 2. According to this predefined radiation function, the gateway2 knows in advance the radiation pattern. Thus, it is possible to calculate the influence (in terms of power) that a beam emitted towards a point within a cell Ci has on any point within a different cell Cj.”)
Zorba does not appear to explicitly disclose
using a detected antenna size of the potential interferer.
However, Young discloses
using a detected antenna size (antenna aperture radius) of the potential interferer.
(Young [page 656] discloses an antenna aperture radius is a parameter of the Jacobi-Bessel series to determine the reflector antenna pattern.)
PNG
media_image5.png
235
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Young, Zorba, Li, with Kanner for the benefit of having the Bessel model to determine the potential interferer based on the size of the antenna with predefined pattern of radiates at each satellite or base station. Further benefit an ability to determine the link budget of a given antenna without any training transmission process.
As for claim 4, the limitations of parent claim 3 has been discussed above. Kanner discloses the contact planning system wherein
The processing system is further configured to determine whether potential interferer (An RFI event can then be determined for a period of time wherein the two or more satellites will be within the threshold conjunction angle (as predicted by the orbital models)) emitted power (threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on a directivity of the antenna radiation pattern, a power level of the antenna radiation pattern, and/or various other suitable factors.) can interfere with the receive antenna based on antenna information of the potential interferer (The threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on a radiation pattern of the antenna)(acceptable signal as received by the antenna).
(Kanner paragraph [0041] discloses “At (406), method (400) can include determining one or more expected RFI events based at least in part on the orbital data and the frequency data. For instance, in some implementations, the determined orbital models of relevant satellites can be analyzed to identify one or more periods of time wherein two or more relevant satellites will be separated by less than a threshold distance. In particular, an RFI event can correspond to a period of time wherein the orbital data and/or orbital models associated with the two or more satellites indicate that two or more satellites will each be visible by an antenna configured to communicate with at least one of the two or more satellites. In this manner, a threshold conjunction angle can be determined relative to the antenna. The threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on a radiation pattern of the antenna. An RFI event can then be determined for a period of time wherein the two or more satellites will be within the threshold conjunction angle (as predicted by the orbital models). The threshold conjunction angle can be determined to correspond to a distance between the satellites required to achieve an acceptable signal as received by the antenna. For instance, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on a directivity of the antenna radiation pattern, a power level of the antenna radiation pattern, and/or various other suitable factors.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Young, Zorba, Li with Kanner for the benefit of having the antenna information to determine a predefined radiated patterns from the satellites. Further benefit to have the information in the orbital and frequency data to reduce processing power in satellites.
As for claim 5, the limitations of parent claim 4 has been discussed above. Kanner discloses the contact planning system wherein
The transmission parameters (frequency data) include one or more of frequency (a threshold frequency range), beamwidth and transmit power for the potential interferers and the intended emitter (In some implementations, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on various other characteristics associated with the satellite and/or antenna, such as the transmission power of the satellite, the received noise of the antenna, and/or other characteristics).
(Kanner paragraph [0020] discloses “The potential RFI events can be determined based at least in part on the orbital data and the frequency data. In particular, an RFI event can be determined for one or more periods of time during which two or more satellite systems operating within a threshold frequency range from each other (e.g. relevant satellites) are (or are expected to be) separated by less than a threshold distance (e.g. a threshold angle), as determined from the orbital data. For instance, in some implementations, an RFI event can correspond to a period of time when a first satellite and one or more relevant satellites will be separated by less than a threshold conjunction angle relative to an antenna communicating with at least one of the satellite systems. The threshold conjunction angle can correspond to an acceptable level of degradation in the signal-to-noise ratio associated with the signal received by the antenna. In some implementations, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on a radiation pattern of an antenna associated with one of the satellite systems. In some implementations, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on various other characteristics associated with the satellite and/or antenna, such as the transmission power of the satellite, the received noise of the antenna, and/or other characteristics. For instance, the antenna can be located at a ground station associated with one of the satellite systems. In particular, the ground station can include one or more computing devices configured to communicate with the first satellite system using RF transmission signals. In this manner, the RFI event can be predicted for a period of time wherein each satellite system will be visible by the antenna pattern.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Young, Zorba, Li with Kanner for the benefit of having the parameters such as frequency, beamwidth, and transmission power in the orbital/frequency data. Further benefit with the design and deployment of satellites and ground stations.
As for claim 6, the limitations of parent claim 5 has been discussed above. Kanner discloses the contact planning system wherein
for a potential interferer having an unknown frequency, the processing system is configured to determine transmit power (the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on various other characteristics associated with the satellite and/or antenna, such as the transmission power of the satellite, the received noise of the antenna, and/or other characteristics) to interfere at each possible frequency range (A relevant satellite can be a satellite system operating within a threshold frequency range of the first satellite system).
(Kanner paragraph [0019] discloses “In some implementations, the data indicative of the transmission frequency of the satellite systems can be used to identify one or more satellites that are relevant to a first satellite system. A relevant satellite can be a satellite system operating within a threshold frequency range of the first satellite system. For instance, one or more known frequencies associated with the first satellite can be compared to the frequency data for a plurality of additional satellites to determine the relevant satellites. In example embodiments, the first satellite and the additional satellites may be controlled by a single entity or may be controlled by multiple entities. Orbital data may then be identified or otherwise obtained for the relevant satellites. An expected orbital trajectory can then be determined for the relevant satellites based at least in part on the orbital data. The orbital trajectories can be compared to an expected orbital trajectory of the first satellite system to determine or predict one or more potential radio frequency interference (RFI) events.”
Paragraph [0020] discloses “ In some implementations, the threshold conjunction angle can be determined based at least in part on various other characteristics associated with the satellite and/or antenna, such as the transmission power of the satellite, the received noise of the antenna, and/or other characteristics.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Young, Zorba, Li with Kanner for the benefit of having the system using the frequency within the frequency range to determine the RFI event. Further benefit the design and deployment of satellites and ground stations with optimize frequency assignment to prevent RFI event.
As for claim 11, limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed above. Claim 11 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 3, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 12, limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed above. Claim 12 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 4, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 13, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 13 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 5, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 14, limitations of parent claim 9 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 6, and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 20, limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 5 and claim 6, and is rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)467-6390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/JOSEPH KHANH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights