DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 06/30/2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 37-38, 41, 45-47 have been amended and Claims 32-51 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments, filed on 06/30/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose the limitation “displaying, by a terminal, a first interface comprising identity of a target satellite and first prompt information comprising a manner in which the attitude of the terminal can be adjusted.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
First, the claims do not require concurrent or single-screen display, and the recited ordering matches the combination Applicant describes.
Claim 32 and 47 recites the first interface “comprising’ the identity and the first prompt information; neither “concurrently” nor “simultaneously” appears, and the specification does not define interface” as a single momentary screen state. Applicant’s own characterization of the combination – Anderson’s identity display at or before the point directional prompting begins, together with Wang’s alignment prompt – tracks the claim, which recites displaying the first interface and thereafter receiving the first input for adjusting attitude.
Second, the rejection sets forth articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Wang’s aiming prompt conveys how far the antenna is off target but not which satellite the target azimuth and pitch correspond to. Because geostationary satellites occupy closely spaced slots and present similar look angles form a given location, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to display the selected satellite’s identity, as taught by Anderson, on the interface presenting the aiming prompt, so the operator can confirm the intended target at the moment of alignment and avoid alignment to and transmitting toward a neighboring satellite. This combines two known display elements by known methods to yield the predictable results of an operator-verifiable alignment display.
For the reasons stated above, the Examiner believes the 103 rejection should be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 32-35, 37-39, 43, 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, (CN 111,082,223 A) (claim mapping is based on a machine translation version attached), in view of Anderson (US 2016/0336651 A1), further in view of Reis et al (US 2018/0316416 A1).
Regarding claims 32, 47, Wang teaches a transmission control method/terminal in a satellite communication system, the method comprising:
displaying, by a terminal, rd page, 3rd para: “The alignment module is composed of a graphical prompt unit, a numeric prompt unit, a voice prompt unit, and an information display unit. Graphic prompt unit, used to determine the offset of the axis of the plane of the antenna to be adjusted and the azimuth and pitch of the satellite to be calibrated according to the repeated adjustment of the sensor of the smart terminal. The unit interface consists of a fixed electronic compass graphic and a smart The terminal position moves in a circular configuration, and the displacement distance represents the difference between the azimuth and pitch angle between the antenna to be adjusted and the satellite to be calibrated. When the centers of the two figures coincide, the azimuth angle, pitch angle, and the calculated azimuth angle and pitch angle correspond to each other”);
receiving, by the terminal, a first input for adjusting an attitude of the terminal (page 5, under step 3, “The operator can adjust the angle of the antenna to be adjusted to the theoretical angle according to the prompt in the star module”);
determining, by the terminal, a radiation direction of a satellite antenna within the terminal; and when the terminal determines that the radiation direction of the satellite antenna is aligned with the target satellite (page 3, 3rd para, “The unit interface consists of a fixed electronic compass graphic and a smart The terminal position moves in a circular configuration, and the displacement distance represents the difference between the azimuth and pitch angle between the antenna to be adjusted and the satellite to be calibrated. When the centers of the two figures coincide, the azimuth angle, pitch angle, and the calculated azimuth angle and pitch angle correspond to each other”),
Wang doesn’t explicitly teach that displaying, by a terminal, a first interface comprising identity of a target satellite.
Anderson teaches that displaying, by a terminal, a first interface comprising identity of a target satellite ([0024], “A satellite selection interface 110 may be configured to display option read or retrieved from a satellite database 112. Each option pertains to a specific geostationary satellite”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to display the identity of the selected satellite, as taught by Anderson, on the alignment interface of Wang. Wang’s alignment prompt is computed from the parameters of a particular satellite to be calibrated, but the prompt itself (a compass graphic and a movable circle) does not indicate which satellite the displayed azimuth/pitch target corresponds to. Because geostationary satellites are closely spaced along the arc and present similar look angels from a given location, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to present the identity of the target satellite on the same interface that provides the aiming prompt so that the operator can verify at the moment of aiming that the antenna is being aligned to the intended satellite, thereby avoiding alignment to and transmission toward an incorrect satellite. This is no more than the combination of two known display elements – a satellite identifier and an aiming prompt – arranged on a single interface according to a known method to yield the predictable result of an operator-verifiable alignment display.
Wang in view of Anderson doesn’t explicitly teach when the terminal determines that the radiation direction of the satellite antenna is aligned with the target satellite, sending, by the terminal, a first data packet to the target satellite.
Reis disclose that when the terminal determines that the radiation direction of the satellite antenna is aligned with the target satellite, sending, by the terminal, a first data packet to the target satellite ([0203], “when the antenna of the terminal is appropriately aimed (whether directly at the intended receiver … and transmission may be permitted”, also, see [0043]; it’s noted that only after antenna is aligned with the satellite, data transmission may be performed; also see Fig. 28B).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Reis in the system disclosed by Wang in view of Anderson to ensure that data packets are not lost or intercepted due to signal degradation cause by misalignment. Also the combination would prevents the terminal form wasting power and bandwidth on failed transmission attempts.
Regarding claim 33, 48, the aforementioned references further teach: generating, by the terminal, a prompt indicating a direction to which the terminal is to be directed (Wang, page 3, 3rd paragraph, “Graphic prompt unit, used to determine the offset of the axis of the plane of the antenna to be adjusted and the azimuth and pitch of the satellite to be calibrated according to the repeated adjustment of the sensor of the smart terminal”).
Regarding claim 34, 49, the aforementioned references further teach the target satellite is a satellite selected from a plurality of communication satellites (Anderson, [0024], “A satellite selection interface 110 may be configured to display options read or retrieved from a satellite database 112. Each option pertains to specific geostationary satellite. An operator may select an option”).
Regarding claim 35, 50, the aforementioned references further teach: the first interface further comprises second prompt information comprising a pitch angle deviation and an azimuth angle deviation that are between a radiation direction of a satellite antenna in the terminal and a satellite transmission link direction; and the satellite transmission link direction is a direction from a location of the terminal to a location of the target satellite (Wang, page 4, 1st paragraph, “Determine the azimuth and pitch angle between the antenna to be adjusted and the selected satellite according to the orbit longitude value of the satellite to be aligned; according to the determined azimuth, pitch angle and current position of the antenna to be adjusted. The difference between azimuth and pitch angle gives tips for adjusting the antenna to be adjusted to azimuth, pitch angle and the calculated alignment angle, which avoids the influence of operator subjectivity on satellite antenna alignment and improves the satellite antenna Alignment accuracy and efficiency. At the same time, the alignment direction of the antenna to be adjusted is directly determined according to the difference between the azimuth and pitch angles of the determined antenna to be adjusted and the selected satellite to be calibrated and the current azimuth and pitch angle of the antenna to be adjusted, which improves the satellite antenna Alignment accuracy and precision”).
Regarding claim 37, the aforementioned references further teach: displaying, by the terminal, a second interface displaying the plurality of geosynchronous orbit satellites; determining the target satellite from the plurality of geosynchronous orbit satellites; and displaying, by the terminal, a first mark indicating that the target satellite is selected (Anderson, [0024], “A satellite selection interface 110 may be configured to display options read or retrieved from a satellite database 112. Each option pertains to specific geostationary satellite. An operator may select an option, thereby allowing selected satellite orbital data to be output to a target coordinate generator 114”).
Regarding claim 38, 39, the aforementioned references further teach a service type of the first data packet is a packet communication service the method further comprising: displaying, by the terminal, a third interface comprising first message content and a first sending control, the first data packet comprising the first message content; and receiving, by the terminal, a second input for the first sending control, the displaying, by a terminal, a first interface comprises: displaying, by the terminal, the first interface in response to the second input (Reis, [0043], “Data transmissions 108 (e.g., packets, frames, messages, transmission signals, voice/video/TV/radio signals, etc.) may be exchanged among the nodes/devices of the computer network 100 using predefined communication protocols where appropriate, and such communication may notably be bidirectional or unidirectional”, [0044], “Devices 110 may be any form of electronic device operable to communicate via networks 104. For example, devices 110 may be a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet device, a phone, a smartphone, a wearable electronic device (e.g., a smart watch), a smart television, a set-top device for a television, a specifically designed communication terminal”, it’s noted that it’s inherent that a smartphone have sending control for sending out messages).
Regarding claim 43, the aforementioned references further teach: receiving, by the terminal, a second data packet comprising second message content including short message content sent by other user equipment to the terminal through the target satellite; and displaying, by the terminal, the second message content (Reis, [0043], “Data transmissions 108 (e.g., packets, frames, messages, transmission signals, voice/video/TV/radio signals, etc.) may be exchanged among the nodes/devices of the computer network 100 using predefined communication protocols where appropriate, and such communication may notably be bidirectional or unidirectional”, [0044], “Devices 110 may be any form of electronic device operable to communicate via networks 104. For example, devices 110 may be a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet device, a phone, a smartphone, a wearable electronic device (e.g., a smart watch), a smart television, a set-top device for a television, a specifically designed communication terminal”, it’s noted that it’s inherent that a smartphone can display message content).
Claims 36, 40 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, (CN 111,082,223 A) (claim mapping is based on a machine translation version attached), in view of Anderson (US 2016/0336651 A1), further in view of Reis et al (US 2018/0316416 A1), further in view of Sircar (US 11,012,399 B1).
Regarding claims 36, 51, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations except that: displaying, by the terminal, sending prompt information indicating that the terminal sends the first data packet. Sircar teaches the above limitation (Col 11, lines 13-32). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Sircar in the system disclosed by Wang in view of Anderson and Reis for the purpose of providing real-time feedback to the user regarding the status of data transmission.
Regarding claim 40, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations except that: receiving, by the terminal, a first application layer return notification; and when the first application layer return notification indicates that the first data packet is successfully received, displaying, by the terminal, success prompt information indicating that the first data packet is successfully sent.
Sircar teaches the above limitation (Col 11, lines 38-46, “The provider service 50, on successfully receiving the message, may transmit an acknowledgment to the messaging application executing on the mobile communication device 100, and optionally the messaging application may be configured to augment the display of the message 500c to indicate to the user that the message was successfully sent to the provider service”, also see Fig. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Sircar in the system disclosed by Wang in view of Anderson and Reis for the purpose of providing real-time feedback to the user regarding the status of data transmission.
Claims 41-42, 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, (CN 111,082,223 A) (claim mapping is based on a machine translation version attached), in view of Anderson (US 2016/0336651 A1), further in view of Reis et al (US 2018/0316416 A1), further in view of Santori, JR. et al (US 2010/0169432 A1).
Regarding claims 41, 42, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations except that a service type of a first application layer packet is a mail message download service the method further comprising: displaying, by the terminal, a fourth interface comprising a first receiving control; and
receiving, by the terminal, a third input for the first receiving control, the displaying, by a terminal, a first interface comprising: displaying, by the terminal, the first interface in response to the third input.
Santori teaches that a first application layer packet is a mail message download service the method further comprising: displaying, by the terminal, a fourth interface comprising a first receiving control; and receiving, by the terminal, a third input for the first receiving control, the displaying, by a terminal, a first interface comprising: displaying, by the terminal, the first interface in response to the third input (Fig. 7, [0019]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Santori in the system disclosed by Wang in view of Anderson and Reis for the purpose to provide electronic mail message service to the terminal.
Regarding claims 45, 46, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations except that a service type of a first application layer packet is a mailbox overview query service the method further comprising: displaying, by the terminal, a fourth interface comprising a first receiving control; and
receiving, by the terminal, a fourth input for the first query control, the displaying, by a terminal, a first interface comprising: displaying, by the terminal, the first interface in response to the fourth input.
Santori teaches that a first application layer packet is a mailbox overview query service the method further comprising: displaying, by the terminal, a fourth interface comprising a first receiving control; and receiving, by the terminal, a fourth input for the first receiving control, the displaying, by a terminal, a first interface comprising: displaying, by the terminal, the first interface in response to the fourth input (Fig. 7, [0019]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Santori in the system disclosed by Wang in view of Anderson and Reis for the purpose to provide electronic mail message service to the terminal.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al, (CN 111,082,223 A) (claim mapping is based on a machine translation version attached), in view of Anderson (US 2016/0336651 A1), further in view of Reis et al (US 2018/0316416 A1), further in view of Uchida et al (US 2008/0055659 A1).
Regarding claim 44, the aforementioned references teach all of the limitations except that: displaying, by the terminal, request failure prompt information when the terminal does not receive a second data packet within a preset time threshold, the request failure prompt information indicating failure of the first data packet to send (Fig. 16 and [0132], “If an ACK is not received (S1616: NO) and a NACK is received (S1617: YES) or a timeout occurs (S1618: YES), the transmission-side MFP 101 displays notification of transmission failure”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Uchida in the system disclosed by Wang in view of Anderson and Reis for the purpose of providing real-time feedback to the user regarding the status of data transmission.
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 SIMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3859. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/SIMING LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights