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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2 and 14 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 (respectively) of U.S. Patent No. 11994595. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2 and 14 of the instant only differ from claims 1 and 13 (respectively) in that claims 2 and 14 do not include the wherein clause “wherein determining the direction of incidence of each of the signals with respect to the boresight direction of the electronically steerable satellite antenna comprises electronically steering the beam of the electronically steerable satellite antenna to scan over a range of azimuth angles and a range of elevation angles.”. but broadening does not overcome anticipation. In re Cyclobenzaprine, 676 F.3d at 1074 (“Anticipation does not require that the prior art reference be enabling as to every conceivable embodiment.”). Hence, instant claims 2 and 14 are anticipated by patented claims 1 and 13.
Examiner notes that, a voicemail message requesting a electronic Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection was left on 7/31/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 2, 9-11, 14, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Omi et al (US 20240038076 A1; hereafter Omi).
Regarding claim 2, a method for determining a set physical orientation of an electronically steerable satellite antenna (see Omi, ¶0028, “In some examples the antenna 152 may include a phased array of antenna elements, and a positioner 153 for pointing the beam 155 towards the target satellite 110 may include an electronic beamformer (not shown) that forms the beam,”) for use in a satellite communication system, the method comprising:
determining a location of the electronically steerable satellite antenna relative to Earth; (see Omi, ¶0032, “… the location of the antenna 152 (e.g., provided as an approximation from a GPS location of the antenna system or from a GPS location of another point of the mobile vehicle 102),” Antenna location can be based of GPS location of antenna system.)
receiving a plurality of signals from at least two different respective satellites; (see Omi, para 0143, “… may direct alignment calibration procedures to the same target satellite 110, or a plurality of target satellites 110. Further, the alignment calibration procedure manager 620 may direct alignment calibration procedures to include transmitting signals from the antenna 152, receiving signals at the antenna 152, or a combination thereof.”)
electronically steering a beam of the electronically steerable satellite antenna to determine a direction of incidence of each of the plurality of signals with respect to a boresight direction of the electronically steerable satellite antenna; (see Omi, ¶0031-0034, “By sweeping the beam 155 in different directions while communicating with the target satellite 110, the alignment calibration controller can determine an orientation of the beam 155 associated with a peak value of the measured signal characteristic … the azimuth and elevation that result in the antenna 152 receiving the strongest signal are used as the peaked orientation of the beam,”)
and calculating a set physical orientation of the electronically steerable satellite antenna relative to the Earth based on the location of the electronically steerable satellite antenna and the directions of incidence of each of the signals from the satellites, (see Ref 1, para 0062, 0099, “… the global reference frame 410, which remains fixed in attitude with respect to earth”, “The operations may be performed according to a global reference frame 410…” Method allows for orientation to be calculated relative to the Earth.)
wherein the satellites from which the plurality of signals are received are in known orbital locations relative to the Earth, and (see Ref 1, para 0032, “… the location of the target satellite 110 (e.g., as provided by a previously determined orbital position…”)
wherein the set physical orientation comprises an azimuth angle, an elevation angle, and a rotation of the boresight direction of the electronically steerable satellite antenna relative to the Earth. (see Omi, para 0056, “… the antenna 152-c includes an array 310 of antenna elements that may be a direct radiating two-dimensional array resulting in a boresight of the antenna 152-c being normal to a plane containing the antenna elements of the array 310. Alternatively, the array 310 of antenna elements can be arranged (e.g., in a non-planar arrangement) or fed (e.g., by a beamformer) in a different manner such that the direction of highest gain of the antenna 152-c is not normal to the antenna elements of the array 310.” And ¶0188 For beam localization, the plane which is orthogonal to boresight is defined by azimuth and elevation axis)
Regarding claim 14, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding 9, the method of claim 2, Omi discloses wherein the electronically steerable satellite antenna comprises a phased array satellite antenna. (see Omi, ¶0026 “…Alternatively, the antenna 152 may be a different type of antenna, such as a reflector antenna, a phased array antenna, a slot array antenna, etc.”).
Regarding claim 21, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 2, wherein the direction of incidence of each of the plurality of signals is determined based on a signal strength indication of the signal relative to the range of azimuth angles and the range of elevation angles. (see Omi, ¶0031-0034, “By sweeping the beam 155 in different directions while communicating with the target satellite 110, the alignment calibration controller can determine an orientation of the beam 155 associated with a peak value of the measured signal characteristic … the azimuth and elevation that result in the antenna 152 receiving the strongest signal are used as the peaked orientation of the beam,” Method includes steering beam to find best antenna azimuth and elevation, which are two angles that form the direction of incidence with respect to the boresight direction.)
Regarding claim 22, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding 11, the method of claim 2, Omi doesn’t specifically disclose wherein at least one of the two different respective satellites comprises a geosynchronous satellite.
Cross discloses wherein at least one of the two different respective satellites comprises a geosynchronous satellite (see Cross, ¶0040, “…In alternative embodiments, one or both of the target satellite 110 and the non-target satellite 120 can be a non-geostationary satellite, such as a LEO or MEO satellite.”)
Regarding claim 23, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 11.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 15, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omi further in view of Cross et al (US 20210006326 A1; hereinafter “Cross”).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2, Omi doesn’t specifically disclose wherein a beam pattern emission profile for the electronically steerable satellite antenna is asymmetric.
Cross discloses wherein a beam pattern emission profile for the electronically steerable satellite antenna is asymmetric (see Cross, ¶(0024 “…The beam of the antenna 152 has an asymmetric beam pattern at some or all of the pointing directions towards the target satellite 110…”)
Cross and Omi are in the same field of endeavor, and given that each Cross and Omi are communicating with satellites, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna beam of Omi to have an asymmetric antenna beam, thereby providing greater directed coverage.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 3, further comprising: steering the beam of the electronically steerable satellite antenna to communicate a signal between the electronically steerable satellite antenna and a target satellite; and (see Omi, ¶[0068]) and also see (Cross, “In one embodiment, a method is described that includes pointing a beam of an antenna on a mobile vehicle in a target direction at a target satellite and communicating a signal with the target satellite via the antenna.”) detecting an interference event based on the beam pattern emission profile for the electronically steerable satellite antenna in the set physical orientation, wherein the interference event comprises emissions from the electronically steerable satellite antenna reaching a predetermined level with respect to a non-target satellite. (see Omi, ¶[0137]), also (see Cross, para 0005, “…The method further includes determining that an amount of interference in a non-target direction reaches a threshold due to the wide beamwidth axis of the asymmetric beam pattern.”)
Regarding claim 16, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 4, further comprising: modifying a transmission of the electronically steerable satellite antenna in response to the interference event. (see Omi, ¶(0137), also see Cross ¶[0005], “…The method further includes, in response to the determination, adjusting pointing of the beam to an offset direction away from the non-target direction and further communicating the signal with the target satellite via the antenna.”)
Regarding claim 18, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 4, Omi doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the interference event is with respect to a non-target satellite geosynchronous orbit.
wherein the interference event is with respect to a non-target satellite geosynchronous orbit (see Cross, ¶0040, “…In alternative embodiments, one or both of the target satellite 110 and the non-target satellite 120 can be a non-geostationary satellite, such as a LEO or MEO satellite.”).
See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 4, Omi doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the interference event is with respect to a non-target satellite in low earth orbit.
Cross discloses wherein the interference event is with respect to a non-target satellite in low earth orbit. (see Cross ¶0040, “…In alternative embodiments, one or both of the target satellite 110 and the non-target satellite 120 can be a non-geostationary satellite, such as a LEO or MEO satellite.”)
See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omi further in view of Whelan et al (US 9625573 B2; hereinafter “Whelan”) (from Applicant’s IDS therefore copy not provided).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 2, Omi fails to specifically discloses wherein at least one of the two different respective satellites comprises a low earth orbit satellite and the known orbital location relative to the Earth is based on ephemeris data of the low earth orbit satellite at a time reference corresponding to receipt of a signal from the low earth orbit satellite.
In the same filed of endeavor, Whelan discloses wherein at least one of the two different respective satellites comprises a low earth orbit satellite and the known orbital location relative to the Earth is based on ephemeris data of the low earth orbit satellite at a time reference corresponding to receipt of a signal from the low earth orbit satellite. (see Whelan, ¶ 0052, “…In this figure, a user receiver device receives the satellite ephemerides data from a low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite 1010.”)
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Omi by providing ephemeris data as disclosed by Whelan, thereby creating a more efficient process.
Regarding claim 24, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 12.
Claims 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omi further in view of Marcel Lamboley (FR 2839411 A1; hereinafter “Lamboley”).
Regarding claim 13, the method of claim 2, Omi fails to specifically disclose wherein the calculating the set physical orientation comprises resolving the azimuth angle, the elevation angle, and the rotation to within not more than about 1 degree of error.
In the same field of endeavor, Lamboley discloses wherein the calculating the set physical orientation comprises resolving the azimuth angle, the elevation angle, and the rotation to within not more than about 1 degree of error (see Lamboley, page 6 lines 5-10, …..The mechanical assembly is studied to allow a rotation in elevation and azimuth in a precise way: the direction error must be at least an order of magnitude lower than the spatial resolution of the shooting system, that is to say 0.25 milliradian with a matrix of 300x400 square pixels of 14 microns ….).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Omi by providing the precise alignment of Lamboley, thereby creating a more accurate process.
Regarding claim 25, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 13.
Claim 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omi in view of Cross further in view of David Keith Mesecher (US 20090023383 A1; hereinafter “Mesecher”).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 4, the combination of Omi and Cross fail to specifically disclose wherein the interference event is based on a side lobe emission apart from a main beam emission of the beam pattern emission profile.
In the same field of endeavor, Mesecher discloses wherein the interference event is based on a side lobe emission apart from a main beam emission of the beam pattern emission profile (see Mesecher, ¶0023 This adaptive process creates an optimal array response in which the main lobe 132 of the beam 130 is automatically steered in the direction of the pilot signal 134. Sidelobe nulls are automatically steered in the direction 136 of an interferer "I".).
Given that Mesecher is directed towards managing interference in a satellite communication system and given that each of Omi are directed towards managing satellite systems, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Omi and Cross with the sidelobe mitigation process of Mesecher, thereby creating a more efficient communication system.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations have been addressed in the cited sections of the rejection of claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5144. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PM M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-8004. 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.
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights