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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2024 and 10/02/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a hyphen in “-at least one of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites and the at least one GEO communication satellite” which should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an angle of inclination" in “an angle of inclination of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites of the satellite communication system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites” have a plurality of inclination angles (i.e. each inclination angle corresponding to one of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites). Therefore it is unclear which “an angle of inclination of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites” is being referred to. The same rejection applies to claim 13.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "normal operational conditions" in “a physical antenna mount for securing the electronically steerable satellite antenna in a static physical orientation relative to Earth that does not change under normal operational conditions of the electronically steerable satellite antenna” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal operational conditions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The disclosure provides some examples of such “normal operational conditions”; however, simply providing some examples does not limit the scope of the claim to those examples. The same rejection applies to claim 13.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "an angle of inclination" in “at least in part based on the angle of inclination of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites” have a plurality of inclination angles (i.e. each inclination angle corresponding to one of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites). Therefore it is unclear which “an angle of inclination of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites” is being referred to. The same rejection applies to claim 14.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a first link performance" in “based on a first link performance of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as each of the “the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites” have their own first link performance and therefore it is unclear which “a first link performance of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites” is being referred to. The same rejection applies to claim 19.
All dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7,9-19 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 20200382206 A1), hereinafter Adams, in view of Braun et al. [C. Braun, A. M. Voicu, L. Simić and P. Mähönen, "Should We Worry About Interference in Emerging Dense NGSO Satellite Constellations?," 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN), Newark, NJ, USA, 2019], hereinafter Braun.
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses [Note: what Adams fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
A user terminal of a satellite communication system (see Figs. 13A-13C, further see paragraph 0099, “Referring now to FIGS. 13A, 13B, and 13C, an exemplary user terminal 180 is designed and configured to allow for tilt-ability of the housing 182 for a phased array antenna aperture 154 (see FIG. 9) relative to its mount, such as by a mounting leg 184.”), comprising:
an electronically steerable satellite antenna having a steerable beam (see Figs. 13A-13C, further see paragraph 0099, “Referring now to FIGS. 13A, 13B, and 13C, an exemplary user terminal 180 is designed and configured to allow for tilt-ability of the housing 182 for a phased array antenna aperture 154 (see FIG. 9) relative to its mount, such as by a mounting leg 184.”) for communication with at least one of a plurality of non-geosynchronous earth orbit (non-GEO) communication satellites (see paragraph 0141, “FIG. 19 is a flowchart that illustrates a non-limiting example embodiment of a procedure 300 for determining a tilting angle and tilting direction according to various aspects of the present disclosure. The procedure 300 is an example of a procedure suitable for use with the endpoint terminal 102 shown in FIG. 17 for orienting an endpoint terminal for communicating with a non-GEO satellite constellation”) (see Fig. 14, further see paragraph 0123, “Referring to FIG. 14, a series of adjacently located homes in the Earth's northern hemisphere, each having a user terminal 102 are illustrated. The antenna systems of the user terminals 102 have fields of regard 176 which are shaped in a conical fashion resulting from the maximum angle that the user terminal may steer from the boresight vector 178 to the conical field of regard 176. In addition, the antenna systems of the user terminals 102 are oriented to have a boresight vector substantially vertical (or substantially perpendicular to a tangent to the Earth's mean surface).”);
an offset calculation module to determine an offset angle relative to a zenith direction at the user terminal for the electronically steerable satellite antenna based on a location of the user terminal on Earth and an angle of inclination of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites of the satellite communication system (see Fig. 14, determining the tilt of the electronically steerable antenna to adjust the boresight to 162, further see paragraph 0124, “Shown in phantom in FIG. 14, the user terminals 102 can be tilted northward to generate tilted fields of regard each generating a tilted cone-shaped communication zone 186 having a tilted boresight vector and a tilted field of regard 162.”);
a physical antenna mount for securing the electronically steerable satellite antenna in a static physical orientation relative to Earth that does not change under normal operational conditions of the electronically steerable satellite antenna (see paragraph 0099, “Referring now to FIGS. 13A, 13B, and 13C, an exemplary user terminal 180 is designed and configured to allow for tilt-ability of the housing 182 for a phased array antenna aperture 154 (see FIG. 9) relative to its mount, such as by a mounting leg 184. Such tilt-ability of the phased array antenna aperture 154 allows for not only rain and snow removal and heat dissipation, but also for orientation of the field of regard 160a with the sky for enhanced radio frequency communication with one or more satellites depending on the geolocation of the phased array antenna aperture 154 and the orbit of the satellite constellation.”), wherein the static physical orientation of the electronically steerable satellite antenna secured by the physical antenna mount positions the boresight direction of the electronically steerable satellite antenna at the offset angle (see Fig. 14, where the electronically steerable antenna is secured the physical mount and positions the boresight direction 162 at the offset angle); and
wherein the offset angle is in an equatorial direction toward a communication satellite (see Fig. 14, the offset angle to point boresight at 162 is “an equatorial direction toward satellite 166),
Braun discloses,
an electronically steerable satellite antenna having a steerable beam for communication with at least one of a plurality of non-geosynchronous earth orbit (non-GEO) communication satellites and at least one geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) communication satellite (see Figs. 1 and 2, where the steerable satellite antenna has a steerable beam to communicate with GSO and NGSO satellites),
and wherein the offset angle provides a tilted extent of visibility of the scan angle that includes -at least one of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites and the at least one GEO communication satellite (see Figs. 1 and 2, where the steerable antenna has steerable beams and positions the beam at an offset angle which provides visibility with both the NGSO and GSO satellites (see where the NGSO and GSO satellites are aligned and the beam crosses both satellites)).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Braun into the invention of Adams. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose an electronically steerable antenna to direct beams at towards satellite locations. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide enhanced reliability and improve signal quality and coverage for the steerable antenna.
Regarding claim 2, Adams further discloses
The user terminal of claim 1, wherein the offset angle comprises a longitudinal offset component, and wherein the longitudinal offset component is at least in part based on the angle of inclination of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites (see paragraph 0095, “Referring to the exemplary embodiment in FIG. 14, a phased array antenna aperture 154 can generate a generally conically shaped communication zone 176 having a boresight vector (illustrated as the central longitudinal axis 178 of the conically shaped communication zone 176) and field of regard 160. The field of regard 160 is a function of the angle the phased array antenna can steer from its boresight vector 178. In the case of an electrically steering phased array antenna, the field of regard is a limited field of regard which is less than the total sky view of a particular use at a specific location.”).
Regarding claim 3, Adams discloses [Note: what Adams fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The user terminal of claim 2,
Braun discloses,
wherein the longitudinal offset component is determined to maximize the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites within the tilted extent of visibility (see Fig. 1 where the offset angle is at an angle which maximizes the number of NGSO satellites within the tilted extent of visibility).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Braun into the invention of Adams. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose an electronically steerable antenna to direct beams at towards satellite locations. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide enhanced reliability and improve signal quality and coverage for the steerable antenna.
Regarding claim 4, Adams further discloses
The user terminal of claim 2, wherein the longitudinal offset component is determined as a function of a latitude of the location of the user terminal on Earth (see paragraph 0139, “The endpoint terminal 102 further includes an antenna system tilt determination angle engine 204. The tilt determination angle engine may receive information regarding the latitude location for the endpoint terminal, a longitude location of the endpoint terminal, obstructions, geological features, population density, an altitude of the end point terminal, a load balancing analysis of the satellite constellation, one or more angles of inclination of the satellite constellation, a geographical cell to which the end point terminal belongs, and combinations thereof.”).
Regarding claim 5, Adams further discloses
The user terminal of claim 2, wherein the offset angle comprises a latitudinal offset component, and wherein the latitudinal offset component is determined based on a load balancing policy relative to one or more other user terminal configured for communication with the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites (see paragraph 0139, “The endpoint terminal 102 further includes an antenna system tilt determination angle engine 204. The tilt determination angle engine may receive information regarding the latitude location for the endpoint terminal, a longitude location of the endpoint terminal, obstructions, geological features, population density, an altitude of the end point terminal, a load balancing analysis of the satellite constellation, one or more angles of inclination of the satellite constellation, a geographical cell to which the end point terminal belongs, and combinations thereof.”, further see paragraph 0142).
Regarding claim 6, Adams discloses [Note: what Adams fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The user terminal of claim 1,
Braun discloses,
wherein the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites pool in a pooling region in a direction toward the GEO communication satellite relative to the user terminal (see Fig. 1, where a plurality of NGSO satellites “pool” in a pooling region towards a GSO satellite).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Braun into the invention of Adams. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose an electronically steerable antenna to direct beams at towards satellite locations. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide enhanced reliability and improve signal quality and coverage for the steerable antenna.
Regarding claim 7, Adams discloses [Note: what Adams fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The user terminal of claim 1,
Braun discloses,
wherein the offset angle is at least in part based on a first link performance of the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites and a second link performance of the at least one GEO communication satellite (see Page3, section B. Interferences Mitigation Techniques, “This is a distributed satellite diversity technique which imposes a minimum separation angle between the link of a victim satellite system and all interfering links from other systems. We assume this angle to be at least 5°, which was found in [10] to achieve a good tradeoff between the performance of large and small constellations. Fig. 2(a) shows the link selection between a satellite and a ground station without interference mitigation, and for look-aside. Without interference mitigation, the yellow ground station selects a yellow satellite, such that the separation angle between the victim and the closest interfering satellite in blue is ϕ1. When the look-aside mitigation technique is applied, the yellow ground station selects a yellow satellite separated by ϕ2 > 5◦ from the closest interfering satellite in blue. The link selection process is discussed in more detail in Section III-3”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Braun into the invention of Adams. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose an electronically steerable antenna to direct beams at towards satellite locations. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide enhanced reliability and improve signal quality and coverage for the steerable antenna.
Regarding claim 9, Adams further discloses
The user terminal of claim 1, wherein the scan angle is not greater than about 45 degrees (see paragraph 0093, “FIG. 8 is a graph of main and side lobes of an antenna signal in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. The horizontal axis shows radiated power in dB. The radial axis shows angle of the RF field in degrees. The main lobe or main beam 140 represents the strongest RF field that is generated in a preferred direction by a phased array antenna. In the illustrated case, a desired directivity 142 of the main lobe 140 corresponds to about 20°.”).
Regarding claim 10, Adams further discloses
The user terminal of claim 9, wherein a minimum elevation angle of the steerable beam is not less than about 25 degrees (see paragraph 0076, “Referring to FIG. 6B, an exemplary contour plot of satellite communication coverage is provided. The contour plot shows the mean number of satellites in view. The first and second ground tracks each include 31 satellite revolutions every 2 days. The number of satellites in the two ground tracks is 5026 at altitudes 345.6 and 340.8. The inclinations of the satellite strings are at 53.0 and 48.0. The spacecraft antenna nadir angle is 40.5 degrees, and the user terminal minimum elevation angle is 46.8 degrees.”).
Regarding claim 11, Adams further discloses
The user terminal of claim 1, wherein the scan angle is asymmetric about the boresight direction (see Fig. 8 which discloses the scan angle being asymmetric about the boresight direction).
Regarding claim 12, Adams further discloses
The user terminal of claim 1, wherein the plurality of non-GEO communication satellites comprise low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites (see paragraph 0084, “In accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure, a user terminal is configured for communication with a LEO satellite constellation consisting of satellites which emit or receive radio frequency (RF signals).”).
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 21, the same cited section and rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 22, the same cited section and rationale as claim 10 is applied.
Regarding claim 23, the same cited section and rationale as claim 11 is applied.
Regarding claim 24, the same cited section and rationale as claim 12 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In reference to dependent claims 8 and 20, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claims 8 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WENDLING (US 20190181946 A1) discloses the use of performance link between a user terminal and a satellite to determine the angle of the steerable beam.
Sabripour (US 12463716 B1) discloses the alignment of NGSO and GSO satellites within a scan angle of a user terminal (see Fig. 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648