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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilbert-Eyres et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Gilbert-Eyres”) (US 2024/0313850 A1) and in view of Phillips (US 2024/0429598 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gilbert-Eyres discloses a system for enhanced satellite communication coverage via an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
A satellite-facing antenna included on the UAV (18) to point in a direction toward an antenna (36) on the satellite (see at least paragraphs 0006, and 0031), wherein the satellite-facing antenna included on the UAV (e.g, satellite-facing antenna 34) exchanges the wireless signals with the antenna (36) on the satellite (see Fig. 1; paragraph 0031), wherein the satellite-facing antenna included on the UAV is located on upper portion of the UAV (18); an UAV controller (40) that is coupled to the at least one satellite-facing antenna included on the UAV (see at least Fig. 1; paragraph 0034).
Gilbert-Eyres is merely missing to disclose the features of “a plurality of reflector plates for collecting signals to the antenna, the reflector plates installed separated from one another.”
Phillips discloses a system in which the UAV (106) (see paragraphs 0025 and 0026) comprises the antenna (104) that transmits and receives signals from the satellite (108), wherein the antenna (104) includes a reflector antenna.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gilbert-Eyres’s system with the teachings as taught by Phillips to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of receiving GPS signal to provide precise position data essential for navigation.
Regarding claims 2, and 3, Phillips teaches that the antenna (104), which is shown in figure 1, includes a reflector antenna (see paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 4, Gilbert-Eyres teaches that the UAV controller (40) is mounted on the body where the antenna (34) is located, wherein the UAV controller (40) is configured to control the fly of the UAV (see paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 5, Gilbert-Eyres discloses and suggests the features of “the control unit controls the flight of the drone such that the drone moves only within an allowable range determined according to a target flight” (see paragraph 0042, one drone is moving, and the other drone may remain in the same altitude but adjust x, y, pitch, yaw position to track the moving drone).
Regarding claim 6, Gilbert-Eyres also describes that the UAV controller (40) continue to facilitate the operation when the UAV controller (40) lacks capabilities to identify the satellite (14) (see paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 7, Gilbert-Eyres further discloses that the UAV controller (40) controls the flight by adjusting a pitch, a roll, and a yaw for orienting the UAV to point towards the satellite (see at least abstract, and paragraph 0035).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US-20200158822-A1 by Owens et al. which discloses an aerial vehicle system in which the UAV, which is described as a drone, comprises one or more processing unit for receiving a reflection signal from one or more antenna; US-2025/0253544-A1 by Zhu et al. which discloses an antenna array; GB-2589867-A by Baddoo et al. which discloses an aeronautical electronically steered antenna system.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Vivek D Koppikar, can be reached on (571) 272-5109.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667