DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on December 10, 2025. The Remarks of December 10, 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Drawings are considered and the replacement sheets to Figs. 19-22 are accepted. There are no further objections to the Drawings.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Specification are considered and the respective amendments are accepted. There are no further objections to the Specification.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-20 are considered and the respective amendments to the claims are accepted. The 112 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-20 are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 103 rejections of the claims are considered. The examiner finds the applicant arguments persuasive. Regarding the amendments to claim 1, the examiner agrees that incorporating the entirety of allowable claim 3 as well as dependent claim 2 overcomes the 103 rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims. Regarding the amendments to claim 35, the amendments overcome the 103 rejection of the claim and its dependent claims. The applicant’s amendments to claim 35 necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-20, and 36-37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 13): “targets,” should be amended to “targets;”;
Claim 1 (line 14): “wherein the controller is configured to:” should be deleted;
Claim 1 (line 16): “the first reflector; and” should be amended to “the first reflector;”;
Claims 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 19 (line 1): “An antenna system according to claim 1” should be amended to “The antenna system according to claim 1”;
Claim 20 (line 1): “An antenna system according to claim 19” should be amended to “The antenna system according to claim 19”;
Claim 36 (line 1): “An antenna system according to claim 35” should be amended to “The antenna system according to claim 35”;
Claim 37 (line 3): “an antenna system according to claim 35” should be amended to “the antenna system according to claim 35”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreutel et al. (US 3852763 A, hereinafter Kreutel) in view of Wyler (US 20110171901 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
655
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 35, Kreutel (Fig. 4; col. 7, lines 43-59) discloses an antenna system comprising: a ring-shaped toroidal reflector (5); and a feed disposed inside the reflector and arranged to face the reflector and illuminate a respective region of the reflector with a respective beam (regarding the feed, see annotated Fig. 4 in Kreutel below).
Kreutel does not disclose a plurality of feeds, wherein the reflector is fixed relative to the plurality of feeds.
Wyler (Fig. 7) teaches an antenna system comprising a plurality of feeds (600-1 to 600-16) and a reflector (410), wherein the reflector is fixed relative to the plurality of feeds, and each of the plurality of feeds is arranged to face the reflector and illuminate a respective region of the reflector with a respective beam.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the feed in Kreutel with the plurality of feeds as taught by Wyler. This modification would provide the antenna system with the means for tracking a satellite without requiring any moving parts, while conducting high-bandwidth communication with the satellite (see Wyler, [0050]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Kreutel as applied to claim 35 in view of Cuchanski et al. (US 20140028514 A1, hereinafter Cuchanski).
Regarding claim 36, the modified Kreutel teaches the antenna system according to claim 35 as addressed above.
The modified Kreutel does not explicitly teach a plurality of RF switches connected to the plurality of feeds and a controller configured to control the RF switches so as to selectively activate a particular feed of the plurality of feeds to illuminate a respective region of the reflector.
Cuchanski teaches (Fig. 4, [0032]) a plurality of RF switches (A-D) connected to a plurality of feeds (421-425).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kreutel by adding a plurality of switches connected to the feeds as taught by Cuchanski. This modification would allow for activating an optimal feed of the plurality of feeds (see Cuchanski, [0032], lines 4-6).
The so modified Kreutel does not teach a controller configured to control the RF switches so as to selectively activate a particular feed of the plurality of feeds to illuminate a respective region of the reflector.
Wyler (Figs. 3 and 6-7, [0007-0008, 0010, 0047, 0049]) teaches a controller (316 in Fig. 3) configured to control at least one switch (see [0008, 0010]) so as to selectively activate a particular feed of the plurality of feeds to illuminate a respective region of the reflector (Fig. 7 shows as an example feeds (600-1), (600-11), and (600-16) illuminating respective regions of the reflector (410)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kreutel by adding a controller as taught by Wyler configured to control the RF switches so as to selectively activate a particular feed of the plurality of feeds to illuminate a respective region of the reflector. This modification would provide the antenna system with the means for tracking a satellite without requiring any moving parts, while conducting high-bandwidth communication with the satellite (see Wyler, [0050]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statham (RainCube: Mission Overview of the First Radar in a CubeSat, Small Spacecraft Community of Practice, February 16, 2022) in view of the modified Kreutel as applied to claim 35.
PNG
media_image2.png
704
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, Statham teaches (figure on p. 4) a satellite comprising: a body; and an antenna system comprising a reflector and a feed, wherein part of the body is disposed inside the reflector, and the feed of the antenna system is disposed on the outside of the body to produce a spot beam on the Earth's surface in use (regarding the satellite, the reflector, the feed, and the part of the body disposed inside the reflector, see annotated figure on p. 4 in Statham below).
Statham does not teach the antenna system according to claim 35.
The modified Kreutel teaches the antenna system of claim 35 as addressed above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Statham by substituting the antenna system with the antenna system according to claim 35. This modification would provide the predictable result of a satellite comprising: a body; and an antenna system according to claim 35, wherein part of the body is disposed inside the reflector, and the plurality of feeds of the antenna system are disposed on the outside of the body to produce multiple spot beams on the Earth's surface in use via the multiple feeds in the antenna system of the modified Kreutel as applied to claim 35. The modification would provide multiple spot beams due to the multiple feeds in the antenna system of claim 35, which would allow communicating with different regions on the Earth's surface, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Cardiasmenos et al. (US 6204822 B1) and Goyette et al. (US 20160172756 A1) teach some elements of the claimed invention including:
a reflector arrangement comprising a first reflector having a curved shape defined with respect to a first reference point, and a second reflector having a curved shape defined with respect to a second reference point, the second reference point being different from the first reference point;
a first feed arranged to illuminate the first reflector with a first beam;
a second feed arranged to illuminate the second reflector with a second beam;
one or more first actuators arranged to move the first feed;
one or more second actuators arranged to move the second feed; and
a controller configured to control the one or more first actuators and the one or more second actuators to move the first feed and the second feed so as to continuously track a moving target or continuously scan a number of targets.
However, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by Applicant. Specifically, none of the cited prior art references teaches or suggests controlling the one or more first actuators to move the first feed from the first end position back to the first start position while the second feed is moving from the second start position to the second end position; or controlling the one or more second actuators to move the second feed from the second end position to the second start position while the first feed is moving from the first start position to the first end position.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845