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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 27 is 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 27, which depends on claim 1, recites the limitation “per supported beam”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no supported beam(s) in claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets this claim as best understood.
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 1-2, 5, 10, 14-19, 21, 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS document Turpin et al. (US 2020/091622; hereinafter Turpin or “Turp”) in view of IDS document Teshirogi et al. (JPS59111406A; hereinafter Teshirogi or “Tesh”).
Claim 1: Turpin discloses “A multi-beam (fig. 2, beam1 & beam2) antenna array (fig. 1, lens array 100), comprising: a plurality M of individually- steerable antenna elements (fig. 1, lens set 110); and wherein each antenna element comprises a sub-array of radiating elements (fig. 1, feed elements 152)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
415
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “a main array of antenna modules, each antenna module comprising the plurality M of antenna elements; wherein the antenna modules are arranged in the main array with N-fold rotational symmetry; wherein the antenna elements are arranged within each module with M-fold rotational symmetry”.
Although Turpin does not explicitly disclose that the main array 100 comprises antenna modules, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lens array 100 could be considered to be made of antenna modules which can include any number of antenna elements 110. And, as N, is not defined in the claim, if N=1, the antenna modules could be arranged in the main array with 1-fold rotational symmetry which implies no symmetry, as all objects look alike after a rotation of 360 degrees.
Tesh teaches “a main array (fig. 1) of antenna modules (fig. 2, a single module comprising three antenna elements 1a, 1d & 1e) comprising a plurality M of antenna elements (M=3); wherein the antenna modules are arranged in the main array with N-fold rotational symmetry (re fig. 1, if the center of 1j is considered the center of the array, the antenna modules are arranged with 6-fold rotational symmetry); wherein the antenna elements (fig. 2, 1a, 1d, 1e) are arranged within each module with M-fold rotational symmetry (the antenna elements 1a, 1d, 1e are arranged with 3-fold rotational symmetry with respect to a center of equilateral triangle 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin with Teshirogi, wherein a main array of antenna modules, each antenna module comprising the plurality M of antenna elements; wherein the antenna modules are arranged in the main array with N-fold rotational symmetry; wherein the antenna elements are arranged within each module with M-fold rotational symmetry. Doing so allows for simplified matching circuitry and improvements in gain (¶1 of Tesh).
Claim 2: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “wherein each antenna module comprises at least three individually-steerable antenna elements”.
Tesh teaches “wherein each antenna module comprises at least three individually-steerable antenna elements (fig. 2, 1a, 1d, 1e)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi, with Teshirogi, wherein each antenna module comprises at least three individually-steerable antenna elements”. Doing so provides for a triangular geometry which allows for improvements in gain (¶1 of Tesh).
Claim 5: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “wherein the antenna modules have a circular or regular polygonal arrangement”.
Tesh teaches “wherein the antenna modules have a circular arrangement (shown in fig. 1, where antenna modules are arranged in a circle with antenna element 1j at the center of the circle)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi, with Teshirogi, wherein the antenna modules have a circular arrangement. Doing so allows for simplified matching circuitry and improvements in gain (¶1 of Tesh).
Claim 10: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin discloses “wherein the antenna modules are mounted on a substrate (¶42, “The lens sets 110 can also be situated on a substrate or base layer, such as a printed circuit board (PCB)”. Base 202 can also be considered to be a substrate)”.
Claim 14: the modified Turpin teaches antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin discloses “configured such that beams formed by the individually-steerable antenna elements are steered in an analog domain (¶55, “fine pointing of the overall array beam is accomplished with appropriate settings of the time delay or phasing circuits in accordance with criteria well known in the art for either analog or digital components”)”.
Claim 15: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 14.
Turpin discloses “configured such that a beam formed by combining the beams formed by the individually-steerable antenna elements is steered in a digital domain (¶71, “FIG. 11(a) depicts a simplified digital beamforming (DBF) arrangement. The ADC 1106 digitizes the received signal and forms a beam in the digital domain, thereby obviating the need for analog RF phase or time delay devices”)”.
Claim 16: the modified Turpin teaches antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin discloses “wherein the sub-arrays of radiating elements are configured as evenly-spaced feeds (fig. 1, feed elements 152 are evenly spaced) in a regular polygonal grid arrangement (¶37, “The physical arrangement of the feed elements 152 within the feed set 150 may be uniform on a hexagonal or rectilinear grid”)”.
Claim 17: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 16.
Turpin does not disclose “wherein the radiating elements in the sub-arrays are arranged so as to display M-fold rotational symmetry together with the antenna elements within each module”.
However, Turpin teaches (¶43) that a lens set (110) may have two radiating elements (feed elements 152), or another number of feed elements. Also, the radiating elements (152) in fig. 1 are symmetrically arranged. Turpin further teaches (¶37) “the physical arrangement of the feed elements 152 within the feed set 150 may be uniform on a hexagonal or rectilinear grid, or may be nonuniform, such as on a circular or other grid to optimize the cost and radiation efficiency of the lens array 100 as a whole”.
Tesh teaches “wherein the antenna elements within each module are arranged so as to display M-fold rotational symmetry (fig. 2, the antenna elements 1a, 1d, 1e are arranged with 3-fold rotational symmetry with respect to a center of equilateral triangle 3). As there are six radiating elements (2a-2f) shown in fig. 2, Tesh does not explicitly teach “wherein the radiating elements in the sub-arrays are arranged so as to display M-fold rotational symmetry”. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, if three radiating elements were to be used in the antenna array of Tesh, they would be arranged with 3-fold rotational symmetry.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi, with Teshirogi, wherein the radiating elements in the sub-arrays are arranged so as to display M-fold rotational symmetry together with the antenna elements within each module. Doing so provides for cost optimization and radiation efficiency of the antenna array.
Claim 18: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 16.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “wherein the radiating elements in the sub-arrays are arranged so as to not to display M-fold rotational symmetry together with the antenna elements within each module”.
Tesh teaches “wherein the radiating elements in the sub-arrays are arranged so as to not to display M-fold rotational symmetry together with the antenna elements within each module (referring to fig. 2, the radiating elements (2a-2f) are arranged to display 6-fold rotational symmetry and the antenna elements 1a, 1d, 1e are arranged to display 3-fold rotational symmetry)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi, with Teshirogi, wherein the radiating elements in the sub-arrays are arranged so as to not to display M-fold rotational symmetry together with the antenna elements within each module. Doing so provides a radiating element (2) that is not only structurally symmetrical within the antenna element (1), but also structurally symmetrical with the radiating elements in the adjacent antenna elements, so that the amount of coupling between radiating elements is the same, which leads to greatly simplified matching circuits (¶1 of Tesh).
Claim 19: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin discloses “wherein the sub-arrays of radiating elements are configured as non-evenly-spaced feeds (¶37, “The physical arrangement of the feed elements 152 within the feed set 150 may be nonuniform, such as on a circular or other grid”)”.
Claim 21: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 10.
Turpin discloses “wherein the radiating elements (152) in each sub-array are mounted on a printed circuit board (PCB) (¶36, “While depicted as a rectangular patch on a multilayer printed-circuit board (PCB), the feed element 152 may have an alternate configuration (size and/or shape”) that connects to the substrate (base 202) via a connector (support portions are shown under lens set 110 which contact base 202)”.
Claim 25: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 10.
Turpin discloses (fig. 1) “wherein the radiating elements (152) in each sub-array are mounted on the substrate (202)”.
Claim 26: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 25.
Turpin discloses “further comprising front-end RF circuits or amplifiers that are mounted on the substrate (¶45, “The circuitry within the sensing device 304 included in each feed element 152 may contain amplifiers”)”.
Claim 27: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin discloses (fig. 11a), as best understood, “wherein there is one mixer stage channel (1104) and one digital signal processor (DSP) stage channel (1108) per sub-array per supported beam (¶72, “The DAC 1108 converts low frequency (or possibly baseband) bits to an analog intermediate frequency (IF) and is connected to a mixer 1104. The mixer 1104 up-converts the signal from the DAC 1108 to RF, amplifies the signal for transmit, and sends the signals to the feed elements with the appropriate phase (e.g., selected by the transmit digital processor 1112) to form a beam in the desired direction”)”.
Claim 28: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin discloses (figs. 11a & 11b) “configured such that activation of one or more radiating elements (302) within a sub-array controls a radiation pattern of the associated antenna element within the main array (¶72, “The DAC 1108 converts low frequency (or possibly baseband) bits to an analog intermediate frequency (IF) and is connected to a mixer 1104. The mixer 1104 up-converts the signal from the DAC 1108 to RF, amplifies the signal for transmit, and sends the signals to the feed elements with the appropriate phase (e.g., selected by the transmit digital processor 1112) to form a beam in the desired direction”)”.
Claim 29: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin discloses (fig. 3) “further comprising control circuitry (e.g., summer/divider 308a) configured dynamically to activate different numbers of radiating elements within the sub- arrays according to power and performance requirements (¶44, “each summer/divider circuit 308 may be directly connected (e.g., through the shifter 306) to a specific feed element 152 within each feed set 150 or may connected through a switching matrix to allow dynamic selection of a particular desired feed 152 from each lens set 110.”)”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turpin in view of Teshirogi, and further in view of IDS document Hart et al. (WO 2007/036001; hereinafter Hart).
Claim 6: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin does not explicitly teach “wherein the antenna modules are arranged in a plurality of nested, substantially concentric circles or regular polygons”.
Hart teaches a modular antenna array (fig. 3, 100) for use in a satellite system. The array includes a plurality of antenna modules (210-240) arranged in a plurality of nested, substantially concentric circles.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi, with Hart wherein the antenna modules are arranged in a plurality of nested, substantially concentric circles. Doing so allows for different spacings of transmit and receive elements which optimizes antenna performance (p. 15, line 21-).
PNG
media_image2.png
438
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turpin in view of Teshirogi, and further in view of Pietila et al. (US 2017/0054208 A1; hereinafter Pietila).
Claim 7: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “wherein some of the antenna modules are configured as transmit antenna modules and a remainder of the antenna modules are configured as receive antenna modules”.
However, Pietila teaches (fig. 2 and ¶7) a phased antenna array a SATCOM antenna where separate transmit (38) and receive (40) apertures (which could be considered to be separate modules) are mounted side-by-side in a single antenna (32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi with Pietila, wherein some of the antenna modules are configured as transmit antenna modules and a remainder of the antenna modules are configured as receive antenna modules. Doing so prevents the interference of a more powerful transmitting signals from interfering with the relatively weak received signals in a reduced-footprint antenna (¶7).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turpin in view of Teshirogi and Pietila, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0181792; hereinafter Lee).
Claim 8: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 7.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “wherein some of the antenna modules are configured as transmit antenna modules and a remainder of the antenna modules are configured as receive antenna modules, and wherein each substantially concentric circle or polygon comprises only transmit antenna modules or only receive antenna modules”.
However, Pietila teaches (fig. 2 and ¶7) a phased antenna array a SATCOM antenna where separate transmit (38) and receive (40) apertures (which could be considered to be separate modules) are mounted side-by-side in a single antenna (32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi with Pietila, wherein some of the antenna modules are configured as transmit antenna modules and a remainder of the antenna modules are configured as receive antenna modules. Doing so prevents the interference of a more powerful transmitting signals from interfering with the relatively weak received signals in a reduced-footprint antenna (¶7).
Pietila does not teach “and wherein each substantially concentric circle or polygon comprises only transmit antenna modules or only receive antenna modules”.
Lee teaches (fig. 1) a full duplex MIMO antenna which has transmit elements (122) and receive elements (124) arranged in concentric circles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi and Pietila with Lee, wherein each substantially concentric circle or polygon comprises only transmit antenna modules or only receive antenna modules. Doing so provides isolation between the receive and transmit elements without increasing the physical size of the antenna array (¶6). Furthermore, the transmission antenna elements can have a first polarization characteristic, and the reception antenna elements may have a second polarization characteristic that is different from the first polarization characteristic (¶9).
Claim 9: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 8.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “wherein an outermost circle or polygon comprises transmit antenna modules, and wherein an innermost circle or polygon comprises receive antenna modules”.
Lee teaches (fig. 1) a full duplex MIMO antenna which has transmit elements (122) arranged on an outermost circle and receive elements (124) arranged in an innermost circle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi, Pietila and Lee with Lee, wherein an outermost circle or polygon comprises transmit antenna modules, and wherein an innermost circle or polygon comprises receive antenna modules. Doing so allows for the polarization characteristic of the antenna array to be determined according to user preference (¶46).
Claims 12-13 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turpin in view of Teshirogi, and further in view of Warnick (US 2011/0109507).
Claim 12: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 10.
Turpin does not disclose “wherein the substrate comprises a plurality N of tiled sections”.
Warnick teaches (fig. 4) a phased array antenna (400) comprising N tiled sections (104) of substrate (fig. 3, RF circuit board 204) having multiple antenna elements (fig. 3, 202) (as shown in fig. 4, the array can be divided into different numbers of tiled sections to give various values of N).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi, with Warnick wherein the substrate comprises a plurality N of tiled sections. Doing so provides an antenna array that is integrated and modular (¶6) and reduces the amount of circuitry required, reducing costs (¶5).
Claim 13: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 12.
Turpin does not disclose “wherein each of the N tiled sections of substrate has a substantially identical arrangement of antenna modules mounted thereon”.
Although Warnick does not explicitly teach “wherein each of the N tiled sections of substrate has a substantially identical arrangement of antenna modules mounted thereon”, Warnick teaches (¶13) a system including a plurality of phased array antenna tiles, fig. 4 shows identically sized tiles forming each array tile system (400, 410, 420). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the plurality of phased array antenna tiles includes multiple tiles having, for example, the antenna element arrangement shown in fig. 3, as is usual in the antenna art.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi, with Warnick wherein each of the N tiled sections of substrate has a substantially identical arrangement of antenna modules mounted thereon. Doing so allows for easier design of connections, circuitry and other components and for identical tiles which can be connected to form a desired size of array (abstract).
Claim 30: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 12.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “wherein M = 3 and N = 6”.
Tesh teaches “wherein M=3 (fig. 2, 1a, 1d, 1e) and N=6 (in fig. 1, if the center of 1j is considered the center of the array, the antenna modules are arranged with 6-fold rotational symmetry)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi, with Teshirogi, wherein M = 3 and N = 6. Doing so provides a radiating element (2) that is not only structurally symmetrical within the antenna element (1), but also structurally symmetrical with the radiating elements in the adjacent antenna elements, so that the amount of coupling between radiating elements is the same, which leads to greatly simplified matching circuits (¶1 of Tesh).
Claim 31: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 30.
Turpin does not disclose “wherein six antenna modules are provided on each tiled section of the substrate”.
Warnick teaches (fig. 4) a phased array antenna (400) comprising N tiled sections (104) of substrate (fig. 3, RF circuit board 204) having multiple antenna elements (fig. 3, 202) (as shown in fig. 4, the array can be divided into different numbers of tiled sections to give various values of N).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi, with Warnick, wherein six antenna modules are provided on each tiled section of the substrate. Doing so provides an antenna array that is integrated and modular (¶6) and reduces the amount of circuitry required, reducing costs (¶5).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turpin in view of Teshirogi, and further in view of Scarborough et al. (US 2018/0269576; hereinafter Scarborough).
Claim 20: the modified Turpin teaches the antenna array according to claim 1.
Turpin discloses (fig. 1) “wherein each individually-steerable antenna element is a lens antenna (¶36, lens array 100 has a plurality of lens sets 110”)”.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “comprising a dielectric lens”. Scarborough teaches “comprising a dielectric lens (¶67, “Any kind of lens may be used in the array 100, such as a homogeneous dielectric lens”)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna array of Turpin in view of Teshirogi with Scarborough, comprising a dielectric lens. Doing so provides increased antenna gain and cost-effectiveness, as such lenses can be made from inexpensive materials and/or 3D printed.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turpin in view of Tesh, and further in view of IDS document Fotheringham et al. (US 2017/187100; hereinafter Fotheringham or Foth).
Claim 41: Turpin in view of Tesh teaches “A system (fig. 14 of Turpin) comprising a plurality of satellite communications terminals each comprising the multi-beam antenna array of claim 1 (lens arrays 100a, 100b, 100c), each satellite communications terminal having a digital waveform port (fig. 11a shows a digital beamforming arrangement with multiple ports)”.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “the satellite communications terminals are electrically interconnected;
one of the satellite communication terminals is provided with a modem and designated as a primary terminal;
remaining satellite communications terminals of the plurality of satellite communications terminals are designated as secondary terminals and connected to the primary terminal in a tree or cascade manner to accept transmit signals and/or to provide receive signals; and
the primary terminal is configured to combine the signals from the secondary terminals such that the plurality of satellite communications terminals operate together as a single effective terminal”.
However, Turpin does disclose (fig. 13a) that the system (1300) has a modem (1301, 1302).
Foth teaches a modular antenna terminal for use in satellite communications (fig. 1, and fig. 4, 400). Foth teaches “one of the satellite communication terminals is provided with a modem (¶45, “circuitry 124a may include a modem”) and designated as a primary terminal (¶40, “one such device may be designated as a master device”);
remaining satellite communications terminals of the plurality of satellite communications terminals are designated as secondary terminals and connected to the primary terminal in a tree or cascade manner to accept transmit signals and/or to provide receive signals (see fig. 4 for interconnected terminals in a tree/cascade arrangement; ¶40, “In one embodiment, circuitry 180 participates in arbitration or other processes of the antenna assembly to determine which communication device is to control one or more other communication devices of the antenna assembly. One such device may be designated as a master device, where some or all other communication devices of the antenna assembly are to function as slaves of the master device. The designated master device may control beamforming, electronic beam steering, signal tracking and/or other processes of the antenna assembly”); and
the primary terminal is configured to combine the signals from the secondary terminals such that the plurality of satellite communications terminals operate together as a single effective terminal (see ¶49)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Turpin in view of Teshirogi with Fotheringham, wherein the satellite communications terminals are electrically interconnected; one of the satellite communication terminals is provided with a modem and designated as a primary terminal; remaining satellite communications terminals of the plurality of satellite communications terminals are designated as secondary terminals and connected to the primary terminal in a tree or cascade manner to accept transmit signals and/or to provide receive signals; and the primary terminal is configured to combine the signals from the secondary terminals such that the plurality of satellite communications terminals operate together as a single effective terminal”. Doing so provides a system that is flexible in design and resource efficient (¶6) while having a small footprint (¶5).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turpin.
Claim 45: Turpin discloses “A method of operating a multi-beam, multi-link satellite communications terminal (¶52 and fig. 3), comprising: (i) establishing a first link between the terminal and a first satellite by way of a first beam from the terminal (¶52, “The multiple beam array may provide a two-way communications link via a first satellite by activating and pointing a first beam (e.g., the signal being summed or divided by the summer/divider 308 a) to any of a first hub, a first gateway terminal, or a first user (e.g. in a mesh network)”); ii) unlocking a second beam from the terminal, the second beam being directed differently from the first beam (¶52, “The lens array may be remotely commanded to quickly establish a new link via a second satellite, a second hub, a second gateway terminal, or either the first user or a second user”); iii) establishing a second link between the terminal and a second satellite so as to enable increased throughput to the terminal (¶52, “steering the first beam to the second node or by activating a second beam (e.g., the signal being summed or divided by the summer/divider 308 b) to point to the second node while not breaking the connection to the first node. In this manner, the multiple beam lens array permits increased flexibility in satellite resource usage”).
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “by way of a software key”. However, Turpin does teach in ¶52 that the lens array “may be remotely commanded” to quickly establish a new link via a second satellite”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a remote signal sent to the terminal would include instructions including code (i.e., a software key) to activate the second beam.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Turpin wherein the second beam is unlocked from the terminal using a software key. Doing so allows remote reconfiguration of the terminal.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turpin in view of Wexler et al. (“Satellite communications (SATCOM) terminal certification for military applications”, published 1995; hereinafter Wexler).
Claim 46: Turpin discloses “A method of operating a multi-beam satellite communications terminal (¶52 and fig. 3), comprising: i) establishing a link between the terminal and a satellite by way of a first beam from the terminal (¶52, “The multiple beam array may provide a two-way communications link via a first satellite by activating and pointing a first beam (e.g., the signal being summed or divided by the summer/divider 308 a) to any of a first hub, a first gateway terminal, or a first user (e.g. in a mesh network)”); ii) generating a second beam from the terminal and steering the second beam independently of the first beam (¶52, “The lens array may be remotely commanded to quickly establish a new link via a second satellite, a second hub, a second gateway terminal, or either the first user or a second user. This may be accomplished by steering the first beam to the second node or by activating a second beam (e.g., the signal being summed or divided by the summer/divider 308 b) to point to the second node while not breaking the connection to the first node”)”.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose “iii) performing at least one of sky mapping, blockage detection, signals intelligence processing, positioning-navigation-timing, interference detection and mitigation by way of the second beam while maintaining the link by way of the first beam”. However, Turpin does disclose (¶51) that the system of Turpin is capable of forming multiple beams simultaneously, and that “such a multiple beam array may be used to enable communications via alternative carriers and/or to enhance the utilization of satellite capacity and connectivity by allowing dynamic or commendable rerouting of signals among several satellites or terrestrial nodes. For example, a system operator may command the array to change its beam directions to direct the reception and/or transmission of a multiple-beam terminal to different satellites”. That is, Turpin teaches performing a function by way of a second beam while maintaining a link by way of a first beam.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Turpin wherein a function is performed by way of the second beam while maintaining the link by way of the first beam. Doing so allows for enhanced utilization of satellite capacity and connectivity.
Turpin does not explicitly disclose, but Wexler teaches “signals intelligence processing (recently expanding demands for commercial satellite communications (SATCOM) services in support of military Command, Control and Intelligence systems)”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such intelligence systems require signals intelligence processing.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Turpin with Wexler, to include signals intelligence processing. Doing so provides small portable terminals for military applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 44 is allowable.
The following is the Examiner’s statement for reasons of allowance. Upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that the claim is allowable.
The pertinent prior art, as a whole, or in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting the elements and features of the claimed invention(s) as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Turpin discloses a method of operating a multi-beam (fig. 2, beam1 & beam2) antenna array (fig. 1, lens array 100), comprising: a plurality M of individually- steerable antenna elements (fig. 1, lens set 110); and wherein each antenna element comprises a sub-array of radiating elements (fig. 1, feed elements 152); the method comprising: selectively activating the radiating elements by control circuitry (see fig. 3) to generate a beam for transmitting and/or receiving data traffic to/from a satellite by way of a satellite link (fig. 6c).
However, Turpin does not teach, or suggest, the multi-beam antenna array comprising a main array of antenna modules, each antenna module comprising a plurality M of individually-steerable antenna elements, wherein the antenna modules are arranged in the main array with N-fold rotational symmetry, wherein the antenna elements are arranged within each module with M-fold rotational symmetry; ii) monitoring, by the control circuitry, the data traffic and comparing instantaneous data traffic against a capacity of the satellite link; iii) monitoring, by the control circuitry, a quality of the satellite link and a power consumption of the antenna array or the terminal or the system; and iv) dynamically increasing or decreasing, by the control circuitry, a number of activated radiating elements in optimize performance efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845