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 statements (IDSs) submitted on August 3, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 07/09/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 15-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 15-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/09/2026 regarding the rejection to the claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments were drawn to features amended from dependent claim 4 to independent claim 1, which have been addressed in the instant office action with previously identified prior arts by mapping the relevant teachings for more clarification thereof that read on said added features, thus rendering Applicant’s arguments moot.
Applicant argues that the combination of Buchsbaum et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20030204617, hereinafter “Buchsbaum”) and Nardini et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230179286, hereinafter “Nardini”) fails to teach the features “wherein the transceiver array comprises a plurality of hardware satellite communication devices, wherein each device of the plurality of hardware satellite communication devices comprises a microcontroller unit coupled to a transceiver unit” and “wherein each device of the plurality of hardware satellite communication devices can simultaneously send or receive at least three digital packets, whereby the transceiver array can operate the plurality of hardware satellite communication devices to simultaneously send or receive dozens or more of the digital packets” of amended Claim 1. The Examiner disagrees.
Buchsbaum explicitly discloses a satellite ground station architecture utilizing a transceiver array (a bank of modulators 11, 12a-12n and demodulators 10a-10n, 13a-13n) coupled to a router/server system to handle multiple satellite communication links. See Fig. 3 and para [0030] of Buchsbaum: “However, as illustrated in FIG. 3, when using a point-to-multipoint connection, n+1 modulators 11, 12 a, 12 b . . . 12 n and 2 n demodulators 10 a, 10 b . . . 10 n, 13 a, 13 b . . . 13 n are required. While FIG. 3 illustrates the present invention for n=3, the present invention is not limited thereto, and may contain any number n of remote ISP's connected to the backbone.” Fig. 3 of Buchsbaum is reproduced herein below.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 3 of Buchsbaum)
Buchsbaum, therefore, explicitly teaches “wherein the transceiver array comprises a plurality of hardware satellite communication devices” as recited in amended Claim 1.
Nardini explicitly discloses a hardware communication device structure comprising a reconfigurable digital logic processing device (114, functioning as a controller/MCU) coupled to spread spectrum receiver integrated circuits 260 may be LoRa™ receiver ICs, such as Semtech™ SX1301 or SX1302 ICs, for example (See Fig. 2 and para [0101] of Nardini). Fig. 2 of Nardini is reproduced hereinbelow.
PNG
media_image2.png
662
1040
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
692
1050
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 2 of Nardini)
Furthermore, Nardini discloses a channelizer (310) that separates received signals into 8 independent channels, where each channel corresponds to an independent channel of data modulated using a spread spectrum protocol such as LoRa™. See Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0012] (“wherein the at least one processor is configured to dynamically reconfigure the reconfigurable digital logic processing device to perform directional beamforming based on the orbital schedule by applying different transfer functions to signals simultaneously received or transmitted by multiple antenna elements of the antenna array over time.”) and [0105] of Nardini (“the channelizer may separate the signal into 8 channelized signals, for example. The channelized signals are transmitted to multiple beamforming blocks 320”). This explicitly meets the limitation of a single hardware device being able to “each device of the plurality of hardware satellite communication devices can simultaneously send or receive at least three digital packets.” Turning to the instant application, the Specification of the instant application also discloses that “the digital packet is modulated on to a waveform, e.g., by chirp spread spectrum modulation such as LoRa, and sent/received using an antenna.” (see page 31 of the Specification of the instant application, lines 5-6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to integrate the multi-channel hardware modules (digital logic controller coupled to transceiver ICs) of Nardini into the scalable transceiver array architecture of Buchsbaum. Implementing Nardini’s 8-channel processing modules as the individual units within Buchsbaum’s array to collectively process “dozens or more of the packets” is a routine scale-out design choice. Such a combination merely utilizes known multi-channel transceiver hardware in a known parallel array configuration to achieve the predicable result or maximizing network traffic capacity and scalability.
Therefore, amended claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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(s) 1 and 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “… can simultaneously send or receive” and “… can operate.” The term “can” introduces ambiguity regarding the structural and functional limitations required by the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim requires each device to be actively configured or capable of performing the following instruction (send or receive), or if it merely recites a latent, optional, or potential capability that the devices may possess without requiring any actual structural or functional interconnection during operation.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the remote device and second remote device can exchange messages by each of the following routings according to availability of system components...” The term “can” introduces ambiguity regarding the structural and functional limitations required by the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether the claim requires the remote device and second remote device to be actively configured or capable of performing a specific message exchange under certain operating conditions (i.e., mandatory functional capability), or if it merely recites a latent, optional, or potential capability that the devices may possess without requiring any actual structural or functional interconnection during operation.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a second remote device of the plurality of satellite communication devices.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the plurality of satellite communication devices” in the claim 19.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 15-16, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchsbaum et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20030204617, hereinafter “Buchsbaum”) in view of Nardini et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230179286, hereinafter “Nardini”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Buchsbaum unless otherwise mentioned.
With respect to independent claim 1:
Regarding Claim 1, Buchsbaum teaches A satellite communication system (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
a server system having stored therein identities of a plurality of remote satellite communication devices (para [0018]: (b) encapsulating and transporting, via the satellite, the IP packet in a frame having the MAC address of the destination router in accordance with a static entry in an address resolution protocol (ARP) table,) (Fig. 2 and para [0029]: By the use of transparent satellite modulators, demodulators and routers (such as those provided by Nortel Networks), an asymmetric point-to-multipoint scenario is enforced for the media access control (MAC) layer of the remote ISP via an address resolution protocol (ARP) table (i.e., in the layer 2 protocol). The routers 6, 7 a . . . 7 n in the present invention include at least an IP routing table and the aforementioned ARP routing table (see Tables 1-4) …) (para [0033]: Further, the core router 6 (also referred to as “router 1”) has a specific path configured for each remote ISP in accordance with the remote ISP networks for which that core router 6 is responsible. Each remote router (e.g., 7 a) has a default path pointing to the core router to 6 reach the IP backbone service provider 1.) (Examiner’s comments: The routers 6, 7 a . . . 7 n including ARP routing table are interpreted as “a server system having stored therein identities of a plurality of remote satellite communication devices.” The Physical Addresses in Table 1-4 are interpreted as “identities of a plurality of remote satellite communication devices.” A plurality of remote ISP's 2 a . . . 2 n (in Fig. 3) is interpreted as “a plurality of remote satellite communication devices”);
a transceiver array communicatively positioned between the server system and a satellite ground station receiving transmissions from a satellite, wherein the transceiver array comprises a plurality of hardware satellite communication devices, (Fig. 3 and para [0030]: In contrast to the related art high speed SCPC system, the present invention, illustrated in FIG. 2, only requires n+1 total carriers 4 b, 4 d, 4 f, 8 to connect the IP backbone service provider 1 with n remote ISPs 2 a . . . 2 n, where n represents the number of remote ISP's connected to the IP backbone service provider 1. A related art satellite network would require 2 n modulators and 2 n demodulators when using separate point-to-point connections. However, as illustrated in FIG. 3, when using a point-to-multipoint connection, n+1 modulators 11, 12 a, 12 b . . . 12 n and 2 n demodulators 10 a, 10 b . . . 10 n, 13 a, 13 b . . . 13 n are required (The combination of satellite modulators/demodulators is interpreted as “a transceiver array comprises a plurality of hardware satellite communication devices”). While FIG. 3 illustrates the present invention for n=3, the present invention is not limited thereto, and may contain any number n of remote ISP's connected to the backbone.) (Fig. 3 and para [0034]: In the exemplary description of the present invention illustrated in FIG. 3, receivers 9 a, 9 b . . . 9 n (interpreted as “a satellite ground station receiving transmissions from a satellite”) are used, corresponding to remote ISP networks 2 a, 2 b . . . 2 n.). Fig. 3 of Buchsbaum is reproduced herein below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
626
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 3 of Buchsbaum)
(The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Nardini.),
wherein each device of the plurality of hardware satellite communication devices is operable to receive a modulated signal from the satellite via the satellite ground station, demodulate the signal into a digital packet, and send the digital packet via internet protocol (IP) to the server system (para [0029]: By the use of transparent satellite modulators, demodulators and routers (such as those provided by Nortel Networks), an asymmetric point-to-multipoint scenario is enforced for the media access control (MAC) layer of the remote ISP via an address resolution protocol (ARP) table (i.e., in the layer 2 protocol).) (para [0046]: The modulator 12 b sends the IP packet to the satellite 3, which in turns broadcasts the IP packet. In this example, only router 1 has a demodulator (e.g., 10 b) tuned to the transmitting frequency of router 3. Router 1 checks the MAC address, and determines that the frame is addressed to router 1 (interpreted as “send the digital packet via internet protocol (IP) to the server system”). Next, router 1 checks the IP packet against its IP routing table, and terrestrially forwards the IP packet to network A (i.e., IP backbone service provider).),
wherein the server system reads an identity of a recipient device from the digital packet and operates the transceiver array to modulate the digital packet by (para [0040]: At step S 3, the incoming IP packet that is outbound from the IP backbone service provider 1 is checked against the ARP table of router 1 (shown in Table 1),) (para [0046]: … Router 1 checks the MAC address, and determines that the frame is addressed to router 1 …) (para [0047]: If the IP packet was intended for one of the other ISP's sharing the link instead of network A, then router 1 would send the IP packet over the 45 Mbit/s carrier with the corresponding MAC address (e.g., MAC address for router 2 or router 4) so that the IP packet reaches its destination (i.e., remote ISP network 2 a or 2 n) (interpreted as “send the packet to the recipient device via satellite”), using the method illustrated in Figure and described above.) (para [0041]: … The modulator 11 is transparent to the IP packet, and modulates the base band signal to send the IP packet to the satellite 1. As a result, at step S7 the satellite 3 broadcasts the signal containing the IP packet over a satellite footprint, where the remote ISP's 2 a . . . 2 n are located. ….), and
(The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Nardini.).
Buchsbaum discloses passing the addressed packet frame through a terrestrial modulator to be broadcasted via a transparent bent-pipe satellite down to the destination remote receiver (see Buchsbaum, paragraphs [0018, 0041, and 0047]). However, Buchsbaum fails to teaches the “wherein each device of the plurality of hardware satellite communication devices comprises a microcontroller unit coupled to a transceiver unit,” “modulate the packet by spread spectrum modulation,” and “wherein each device of the plurality of hardware satellite communication devices can simultaneously send or receive at least three digital packets, whereby the transceiver array can operate the plurality of hardware satellite communication devices to simultaneously send or receive dozens or more of the digital packets” as recited in amended Claim 1.
Nardini is directed to systems and methods for low earth orbit (LEO) satellite communication with remote terrestrial communication systems.
Nardini explicitly discloses a hardware communication device structure comprising a reconfigurable digital logic processing device (114, functioning as a controller/MCU) coupled to spread spectrum receiver integrated circuits 260 may be LoRa™ receiver ICs, such as Semtech™ SX1301 or SX1302 ICs, for example (See Fig. 2 and para [0101] of Nardini : the reconfigurable digital logic processing device 114 (among other operations) channelizes the DIF2 signal into a plurality of spread spectrum modulated signals (interpreted as “modulate the packet by spread spectrum modulation”) suitable for processing by spread spectrum receiver integrated circuits (ICs) 260. In some embodiments, the spread spectrum modulated signals may be signals encoded according to the LoRa™ protocol and the spread spectrum receiver integrated circuits 260 may be LoRa™ receiver ICs, such as Semtech™ SX1301 or SX1302 ICs, for example.).
Furthermore, Nardini discloses a channelizer (310) that separates received signals into 8 independent channels, where each channel corresponds to an independent channel of data modulated using a spread spectrum protocol such as LoRa™. See Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0012] (“wherein the at least one processor is configured to dynamically reconfigure the reconfigurable digital logic processing device to perform directional beamforming based on the orbital schedule by applying different transfer functions to signals simultaneously received or transmitted by multiple antenna elements of the antenna array over time.”) and [0105] of Nardini (“the channelizer may separate the signal into 8 channelized signals, for example. The channelized signals are transmitted to multiple beamforming blocks 320”). This explicitly meets the limitation of a single hardware device being able to “each device of the plurality of hardware satellite communication devices can simultaneously send or receive at least three digital packets.” Turning to the instant application, the Specification of the instant application also discloses that “the digital packet is modulated on to a waveform, e.g., by chirp spread spectrum modulation such as LoRa, and sent/received using an antenna.” (see page 31 of the Specification of the instant application, lines 5-6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to integrate the multi-channel hardware modules (digital logic controller coupled to transceiver ICs) of Nardini into the scalable transceiver array architecture of Buchsbaum. Implementing Nardini’s 8-channel processing modules as the individual units within Buchsbaum’s array (See Fig. 3, n+1 modulators 11, 12 a, 12 b . . . 12 n and 2 n demodulators 10 a, 10 b . . . 10 n, 13 a, 13 b . . . 13 n) to collectively process “dozens or more of the packets” is a routine scale-out design choice. Such a combination merely utilizes known multi-channel transceiver hardware in a known parallel array configuration to achieve the predicable result or maximizing network traffic capacity and scalability
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding Claim 2, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 1, Nardini further teaches wherein the spread spectrum modulated signal uses 8 KHz of spectrum or less (para [0107] of Nardini: After beam levelling, the levelled beam signals are processed by beam base band down-conversion blocks 340. The beam base band down-conversion blocks 340 convert the levelled beamformed signals to a lower frequency signal at a lower sampling rate to meet the requirements of downstream signal processing components. The downstream signal processing components may include components that expect a spread spectrum modulated digital signal, for example a signal according to the LoRa™ protocol. In some embodiments, the beam base band down-conversion blocks 340 may generated a LoRa™ based signal 370 as output.) (para [0108] of Nardini: The reconfigurable digital logic processing device 114 also comprises diodes 305 and low pass filters 308 corresponding to each input point 301, 302, 303 and 304. In some embodiments, the low pass filters 308 pass signals with a frequency lower than 1 kHz or lower than 10 kHz, for example. The low pass filters 308 are configured to have a cut-off frequency significantly lower than the lowest frequency of the signals received or transmitted by the antenna array 117. In some embodiments, the low pass filters 308 may have a cut off frequency of around 5-6 kHz. The signals processed by the low pass filters 308 are added using a summing block 360 and a summed signal 365 is generated. The summed signal serves as an input to drive the automatic gain control loop 270 of FIG. 2 in embodiments that rely on the automatic gain control loop 270 for signal levelling.) (Examiner’s note: Nardini explicitly teaches a satellite communication processing device wherein data channel are modulated using a “spread spectrum protocol, for example such as LoRa™” (see paragraphs [0105-0107] of Nardini). Furthermore, in describing the signal filtering and digital processing constraints, Nardini explicitly discloses that the processing filters pass signals with a frequency “lower than 1 kHz or lower than 10 kHz” and specifically configuration where the filters have “a cut off frequency of around 5-6 kHz” (see para [0108] of Nardini). Therefore, Nardini explicitly teaches the claimed feature “wherein the spread spectrum modulated signal uses 8 KHz of spectrum or less”.)
Regarding Claim 5, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 1, Buchsbaum further teach further comprising a hub (Fig. 5: Router 1), wherein the hub comprises at least transceiver array (Fig. 5: modulator and demodulator array 11, 10a-10n) coupled to a local hub computer (Fig. 5: Router 2-Router N), wherein the hub is remote from the satellite ground station (Fig. 5: Antena +RF equipment), wherein the hub is operable to relay a transmission from a first remote device of the plurality of remote satellite communication devices to a second remote device of the plurality of remote satellite communication devices through a satellite using a first channel on a satellite beam for the first remote device and a second channel on the satellite beam or the second remote device (para [0039]: it is assumed that router 1 of the IP backbone service provider 1 in FIG. 3 terrestrially receives an IP packet from network A (i.e., Internet core), addressed to network C.) (para [0040]: At step S 3, the incoming IP packet that is outbound from the IP backbone service provider 1 (interpreted as “a transmission from a first device”) is checked against the ARP table of router 1 (shown in Table 1), and in step S4 it is determined that the IP packet that matches a static route pointing to an address of router (i.e., 192.168.3.3) is the next hop. Next, since router 1 knows that router 3 is directly connected, router 1 checks the ARP table and determines that in order to send IP packets to router 3's address (192.168.3.3), the layer 2 encapsulation has a MAC address of 31-33-33-33-33-33, as shown in Table 1.) (para [0041]: The modulator 11 is transparent to the IP packet, and modulates the base band signal to send the IP packet to the satellite 1. As a result, at step S7 the satellite 3 broadcasts the signal containing the IP packet over a satellite footprint, where the remote ISP's 2 a . . . 2 n are located. Accordingly, respective receivers 9 a . . . 9 n of the remote ISP's 2 a . . . 2 n receive the IP packet step S8.) (para [0043]: … router 3 inspects the frame and realizes that the MAC address corresponds to its interface (Table 3). At this point, router 3 takes the IP packet from the layer 2 frame (i.e., strips the encapsulating frame from the IP packet) and checks the IP packet against its IP routing table. Router 3 finds a match, because the IP packet is meant for one of the networks in its remote ISP network. Then, router 3 terrestrially forwards the IP packet to its final destination.) (The remote ISP 2b is interpreted as “a second device of the plurality of remote satellite communication devices”).
Regarding Claim 8, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 1, further comprising: Nardini further teaches
a remote device of the plurality of remote satellite communication devices (Fig. 1 and para [0084] of Nardini: The remote terrestrial communication system 120 comprises a sensor device network 122 that may be configured to wirelessly communicate with a terrestrial gateway 121(interpreted as “a remote device”)… The terrestrial gateway device 121 also serves as an information relay device between devices (the devices is interpreted as “plurality of remote satellite communication devices”) in the sensor device network 122 and the LEO satellite 110.)), the remote device comprising (i) a transceiver unit operable to transmit a message to the satellite (para [0082] of Nardini: The terrestrial communication systems transmitting signals to the LEO satellite), (ii) a controller unit coupled to the transceiver unit and operable to control operations of the transceiver unit, (para [0084] of Nardini: The terrestrial gateway device 121 receives and stores information (interpreted as “operable to control operations of the transceiver unit”) transmitted by the sensor devices of the sensor device network 122.) and (iii) a connection subsystem that communicatively couples the remote device with a local computing device that is proximal to the remote device (para [0084] of Nardini:… The terrestrial gateway device 121 receives and stores information transmitted by the sensor devices of the sensor device network 122 (interpreted as “a local computing device that is proximal to the remote device”). The terrestrial gateway device 121 also serves as an information relay device between devices in the sensor device network 122 and the LEO satellite 110.)
Regarding Claim 9, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 8, Buchsbaum teaches wherein information identifying the remote device is stored within the server system (para [0033]: As shown in Tables 1-4, each router 6, 7 a, 7 b . . . 7 n has the typical routing entries necessary for Internet connection. Further, the core router 6 (also referred to as “router 1”) (interpreted as “server system”) has a specific path configured for each remote ISP in accordance with the remote ISP networks for which that core router 6 is responsible. Each remote router (e.g., 7 a) has a default path pointing to the core router to 6 reach the IP backbone service provider 1.).
Regarding Claim 10, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 8, Nardini further teaches wherein the local computing device is operable to send the digital packet via a personal area network (PAN) connection to the remote device (Fig. 1 and para [0084] of Nardini: The remote terrestrial communication system 120 comprises a sensor device network 122 (interpreted as “local computing device”) that may be configured to wirelessly communicate with a terrestrial gateway 121 (interpreted as “a remote device”)… The terrestrial gateway device 121 receives and stores information transmitted by the sensor devices of the sensor device network 122 (interpreted as “digital packet via a personal area network (PAN) connection to the remote device”). The terrestrial gateway device 121 also serves as an information relay device between devices in the sensor device network 122 and the LEO satellite 110.).
Regarding Claim 15, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 8, Buchsbaum further teaches wherein the remote device and a second remote device of the plurality of remote satellite communication devices are both registered in the server system and wherein, when the remote device and the second remote device are within a beam of the satellite, the remote device and the second remote device can send messages to each other via only the satellite without the message passing through the server system, the transceiver array, or a terrestrial hub (para [0053]: Further, it is necessary to disable the keep-alive packets, because the address resolution protocol (ARP) and keep alive packets do not work when outbound and inbound packets do not traverse the same physical interface. Thus, only for router 1 to router 2 would ARP work with keep-alive packets. Therefore, at router 1, separate entries are necessary for traffic to routers 2, 3 and 4 (see Table 1). At routers 2, 3 and 4, a single static MAC entry is necessary for the router to know what MAC address to use when encapsulating IP packets as shown in Tables 2-4. This MAC to IP static resolution is configured once, and involves one entry for the core router and one remote router for each new remote ISP that shares the link (interpreted as “the remote device and the second remote device can send messages to each other via only the satellite without the message passing through the server system, the transceiver array, or a terrestrial hub”).
Regarding Claim 16, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 8, Buchsbaum further teaches wherein the one device and the recipient are both registered in the server system (para [0053]: Further, it is necessary to disable the keep-alive packets, because the address resolution protocol (ARP) and keep alive packets do not work when outbound and inbound packets do not traverse the same physical interface. Thus, only for router 1 to router 2 would ARP work with keep-alive packets. Therefore, at router 1, separate entries are necessary for traffic to routers 2, 3 and 4 (see Table 1). At routers 2, 3 and 4, a single static MAC entry is necessary for the router to know what MAC address to use when encapsulating IP packets as shown in Tables 2-4. This MAC to IP static resolution is configured once, and involves one entry for the core router and one remote router for each new remote ISP that shares the link) and Nardini further teaches wherein, when the one device is within a beam of the satellite and when the recipient has a smartphone within a cellular network, the one device sends a message via the satellite to through the server system, onto the cellular network and to the recipient smartphone (para [0083] of Nardini: The LEO communication system 100 comprises one or more LEO Satellites 110; one or more remote terrestrial communication systems 120, and at least one ground station 130 in communication with a network 150 through which a client device 140 may interact with the communication system 100. One goal of the communication system 100 is to make the data gathered by the remote terrestrial communication system 120 (interpreted as “the one device is within a beam of the satellite”) readily available (although at high latency) to the client device 140, while dealing with the communication constraints of conveying information from remote locations through the LEO satellite 110 to the client device 140 (interpreted as “the recipient smartphone”).).
Regarding Claim 18, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 8, Buchsbaum further teaches wherein the remote device and a second remote device of the plurality of remote satellite communication devices are both registered in the server system (para [0053]: Further, it is necessary to disable the keep-alive packets, because the address resolution protocol (ARP) and keep alive packets do not work when outbound and inbound packets do not traverse the same physical interface. Thus, only for router 1 to router 2 would ARP work with keep-alive packets. Therefore, at router 1, separate entries are necessary for traffic to routers 2, 3 and 4 (see Table 1). At routers 2, 3 and 4, a single static MAC entry is necessary for the router to know what MAC address to use when encapsulating IP packets as shown in Tables 2-4. This MAC to IP static resolution is configured once, and involves one entry for the core router and one remote router for each new remote ISP that shares the link) and
Nardini further teaches wherein, when the one device and second device are within a cellular network, the devices communicate via the cellular network (para [0083] of Nardini: The LEO communication system 100 comprises one or more LEO Satellites 110; one or more remote terrestrial communication systems 120, and at least one ground station 130 in communication with a network 150 through which a client device 140 may interact with the communication system 100. One goal of the communication system 100 is to make the data gathered by the remote terrestrial communication system 120 (interpreted as “the one device”) readily available (although at high latency) to the client device 140, while dealing with the communication constraints of conveying information from remote locations through the LEO satellite 110 to the client device 140 (interpreted as “second device are within a cellular network”).).
Claim(s) 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchsbaum, in view of Nardini, and further in view of Alminde et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180227041, hereinafter “Alminde”).
Regarding Claim 3, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 1, Nardini further teaches wherein the satellite communicates with the satellite communication devices by a plurality of beams (para [0105] of Nardini: The DIF2 signal is transmitted to a channelizer 310 to channelize the received signal into a number of separate channels. In some embodiments, the channelizer may separate the signal into 8 channelized signals, for example. The channelized signals are transmitted to multiple beamforming blocks 320. A separate beamforming block 320 is provided for each channel. Each beamforming block 320 processes the channelized signals received from each antenna element of the antenna array … In FIG. 3, the beamformed signals are labelled 1A, 1B . . . NA, NB. Each beamformed signal corresponds to an independent channel of data modulated using a spread spectrum protocol, for example such as LoRa™.), (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Alminde) (para [0016] of Nardini: The directional beamforming and/or beam-nulling may be performed simultaneously across multiple frequency channels. The directional beamforming and/or beam-nulling may be performed simultaneously in multiple different directions.) (Examiner’s note: Regarding the “bandwidth of 25 KHz”, Nardini teaches that its underlying digital logic device incorporates low pass filters configured to pass data signals with a frequency “lower than 10 kHz.” To prevent adjacent channel interference and accommodate essential hardware frequency drift tolerances, it is standard engineering practice to encapsulate a 5 to 10 kHz baseband signal (including necessary guard bands) into an industry-standard physical channel bandwidth of 25 kHz.) (see para [0021] of Alminde)
Alminde, in para [0021] of Alminde, discloses that the LEO satellite is further adapted for receiving a signal from a control tower, and to re-transmit said signal to an aircraft at a narrow transmission bandwidth of 8.33 kHz in regions where aviation VHF channels are operated with nominally 25 kHz separation. This will minimize the interference of the signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA implementing the multi-channel spread spectrum framework of Nardini within the routing network of Buchsbaum to adopt the industry-standard 25 kHz nominal channel spacing and sub-channel allocation architecture taught by Alminde. Such an integration represents a routine application of known frequency-spacing rules to achieve expected interference-reduction benefits.
Claim(s) 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchsbaum, in view of Nardini, and further in view of Medford et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070174875, hereinafter “Medford”).
Regarding Claim 6, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 5, Buchsbaum and Nardini fail to teach wherein the hub communicates the transmission via chirp spread spectrum modulation, phase shift keying, frequency shift keying, or amplitude shift keying modulation with the satellite in an L-band or C-Band.
In analogous art, Medford, in para [0018] of Medford, discloses that “[t]he satellite signal 104 can be, for example, a M-phase shift keying PSK (M-PSK) signal, such as a quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK) or octal phase shift keying (OPSK) signal. In an illustrative embodiment, the satellite signal 104 can be received at the dish via C-band transport frequencies (3700 MHz-4200 MHz) or Ku-band transport frequencies (11,700 MHz-12,200 MHz), and the LNB converter 103 can convert the satellite signal 104 to L-band transport frequencies (500 MHz-1500 MHz).”
Buchsbaum, Nardini, and Medford operate within the identical technical field of satellite packet networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to integrate a satellite using C-band or L-band carrier frequencies via a Phase Shift Keying (PSK) modulation taught by Medford into the hardware spread spectrum transceiver array configuration of the combination of Buchsbaum and Nardini. The integration of Medford’s standard M-PSK signaling and C/L-band dual transport infrastructure into the Buchsbaum’s routing hub constitutes a routine selection of known telecommunication parameters to achieve predictable data transmission.
Claim(s) 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchsbaum, in view of Nardini, and further in view of Ma et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230198610, hereinafter “Ma”).
Regarding Claim 7, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 5, Buchsbaum teaches wherein the hub demodulates the transmission to read the digital packet, wherein a header of the digital packet identifies the second remote device as an intended recipient (para [0040]: At step S 3, the incoming IP packet that is outbound from the IP backbone service provider 1 is checked against the ARP table of router 1 (shown in Table 1) (The ARP table is interpreted as “a database”),) (para [0046]: … Router 1 checks the MAC address, and determines that the frame is addressed to router 1 …) (para [0047]: If the IP packet was intended for one of the other ISP's sharing the link instead of network A,), and wherein the hub verifies, optionally using a database and/or global positioning system (GPS) or global navigation satellite system (GNSS) on the second device, that the second remote device is within the satellite beam.
Ma discloses wherein the hub verifies, optionally using a database and/or GPS or GNSS on the second device, that the second device is within the satellite beam (para [0140] of Ma: At 435, the satellite 120-b, the network node 405, or both, may be configured to determine a position (e.g., geographical position) of the UE 115-b. In particular, the satellite 120-b may be configured to determine a position of the UE 115-b based on the uplink reference signals received at 430, and corresponding timing advance values used for the respective uplink reference signals.) (Examiner comments: The claimed feature “optionally using a database and/or GPS or GNSS on the second device” does not constitute a mandatory structural or functional limitation required to patentably distinguish the claim over the prior art. The baseline mandatory requirement of Claim 7 is that “the hub verifies that the second device is within the satellite beam.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the combination of Buchsbaum and Nardini by using the features of Ma to verify that the second device is within the satellite beam. Such an integration represents a routine application of known positioning method to achieve expected uplink positioning benefits.
Claim(s) 11, 12, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchsbaum, in view of Nardini, and further in view of Kakinada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200178237, hereinafter “Kakinada”).
Regarding Claim 11, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 10, Nardini teaches: wherein the one remote device: receives the digital packet via the PAN connection digital packet via a personal area network (PAN) connection to the remote device (Fig. 1 and para [0084] of Nardini: The remote terrestrial communication system 120 comprises a sensor device network 122 (interpreted as “local computing device”) that may be configured to wirelessly communicate with a terrestrial gateway 121 (interpreted as “a remote device”) ; generates, using a modulation technique selected from the group consisting of chirp spread spectrum modulation, phase shift keying, and amplitude shift keying by the transceiver unit, an RF signal that contains the digital packet ; and sends the RF signal via an L-Band to the satellite (para [0107] of Nardini: After beam levelling, the levelled beam signals are processed by beam base band down-conversion blocks 340. The beam base band down-conversion blocks 340 convert the levelled beamformed signals to a lower frequency signal at a lower sampling rate to meet the requirements of downstream signal processing components. The downstream signal processing components may include components that expect a spread spectrum modulated digital signal, for example a signal according to the LoRa™ protocol. In some embodiments, the beam base band down-conversion blocks 340 may generated a LoRa™ based signal 370 as output.), (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Kakinada)
In analogous art, Kakinada teaches wherein the one remote device:
receives the digital packet via the PAN connection (para [0196] of Kakinada: the UE (interpreted as “one remote device”) the establishes one or more communication sessions with one or more IoT end devices 309 b via the indigenous PAN (‘personal area network (PAN)’, see para [0033] of Kakinada) (e.g., BLE. Z-Wave, or 802.15.4) interface of the UE,);
sends the RF signal via an L-Band to the satellite (See appendix I of Kakinada: APPENDIX I, LTE frequency bands - TS 36.101 (Rel. 14 Jun. 2017)… 1600 L-band…) (Examiner’s note: The combination of Buchsbaum and Nardini teaches sending an RF signal to a satellite. The selection of an L-Band frequency for such satellite transmission is a well-known design choice in the art, see the appendix I of Kakinada),
also wherein the PAN connection uses a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) connection (para [0196] of Kakinada: the UE (interpreted as “one remote device”) the establishes one or more communication sessions with one or more IoT end devices 309 b via the indigenous PAN (e.g., BLE. Z-Wave, or 802.15.4) interface of the UE,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to combine the BLE-based PAN communication teachings of Kakinada with the satellite communication device of Buchsbaum and Nardini. Kakinada teaches the advantages of bridging short-range, low-power IoT devices-which lack long-range connectivity due to inherent power and size limitations-to a broader network by utilizing a local PAN (e.g., BLE) to collect data and subsequently encapsulating and formatting the data for transmission over a longer-range backhaul network. A POSITA would have been highly motivated to integrate the BLE PAN receiver interface of Kakinada into the remote satellite communication terminal of Buchsbaum and Nardini to allow the terminal to function as a local IoT gateway.
Regarding Claim 12, Buchsbaum, Nardini, and Kakinada teach The system of claim 11, Buchsbaum teaches wherein the satellite sends the RF signal to the satellite ground station, wherein the transceiver array relays the digital packet to the server system (Fig. 3 and para [0032]: Within the satellite link…)(Fig. 3 and para [0034]: receivers 9 a, 9 b . . . 9 n are used, corresponding to remote ISP networks 2 a, 2 b . . . 2 n. However, the present invention is not limited thereto, and any number of receivers and remote ISP networks may be used. Each of the receiving IP addresses is assigned a fictitious (i.e., dummy) address, because each receiver must have a unique IP address for each port. While a number n of demodulators 10 a, 10 b . . . 10 n is required at the IP backbone router 6, as in the related art, the present invention only requires a single modulator 11 at the IP backbone service provider 1.).
Regarding Claim 17, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 15, wherein the remote device performs chirp spread spectrum modulation on the digital packet that includes bits identifying the second device and sends the modulated digital packet via the L-band to the satellite (para [0107] of Nardini: After beam levelling, the levelled beam signals are processed by beam base band down-conversion blocks 340. The beam base band down-conversion blocks 340 convert the levelled beamformed signals to a lower frequency signal at a lower sampling rate to meet the requirements of downstream signal processing components. The downstream signal processing components may include components that expect a spread spectrum modulated digital signal, for example a signal according to the LoRa™ protocol. In some embodiments, the beam base band down-conversion blocks 340 may generated a LoRa™ based signal 370 as output.) (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Kakinada), (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Kakinada)
In analogous art, Kakinada teaches wherein the one remote device:
sends the modulated digital packet via the L-band to the satellite (See appendix I of Kakinada: APPENDIX I, LTE frequency bands - TS 36.101 (Rel. 14 Jun. 2017)… 1600 L-band…) (Examiner’s note: The combination of Buchsbaum and Nardini teaches sending an RF signal to a satellite. The selection of an L-Band frequency for such satellite transmission is a well-known design choice in the art, see the appendix I of Kakinada)
wherein the satellite performs a bent-pipe return to pass the modulated digital packet via the L-band to the second remote device, wherein the second remote device reads the bits identifying the second remote device and passes the digital packet via BLE to a second smartphone (para [0196] of Kakinada: the UE (interpreted as “second smartphone”) the establishes one or more communication sessions with one or more IoT end devices 309 b via the indigenous PAN (e.g., BLE. Z-Wave, or 802.15.4) interface of the UE,);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to combine the L-Band frequency for satellite transmission communication teachings of Kakinada with the satellite communication device of Buchsbaum and Nardini in order to passes the digital packet via BLE to a second smartphone. A POSITA would have been highly motivated to integrate the BLE receiver interface of Kakinada into the remote satellite communication terminal of Buchsbaum and Nardini to allow the terminal to function as a local IoT gateway.
Claim(s) 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchsbaum, in view of Nardini, and further in view of Darby, III (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170310382, hereinafter “Darby”).
Regarding Claim 20, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 1, Buchsbaum and Nardini fail to teach wherein one or more of the plurality of remote satellite communication devices are installed on vehicles of a fleet, wherein the server system tracks locations of the vehicles of the fleet using GPS information from the one or more of the plurality of remote satellite communication devices.
Darby is directed to terrestrial-orbital network-systems and methods, involving and accommodating the use of Low Earth-Orbiting Satellites (LEOSATs). Darby teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of remote satellite communication devices are installed on vehicles of a fleet (para [0025] of Darby: (3) an interconnected (wirelessly or otherwise) plurality of geographically and spatially distributed “Terrestrial Participation Devices” (TPDs) (interpreted as “remote satellite communication devices”)). A TPD may be comprised of (but not limited to) a smartphone-controlled hand-portable satellite base station or ground station. In one embodiment, the TPDs may be comprised of a stationary, portable, mobile, or self-mobile base station or ground station capability, including but not limited to automobiles, boats, planes, trains, drones, cruise missiles, tanks, jeeps, personnel back packs, or robots.), wherein the server system tracks locations of the vehicles of the fleet using GPS information from the one or more of the plurality of remote satellite communication devices (para [0025] of Darby: The CC (computational cloud (“CC”), interpreted as “the server system”) of the preferred embodiment further comprises functionality such that said CC's Module 2 is comprised of programming and functionality allowing it to serve as a manually or automatically entered or developed TPD data registry or data base containing the geographic coordinates for the a priori known, or automatically determined stationary location of each of the said TPD(s) participating in said ESG-Grid. Where TPD(s) are further comprised of sub-functions to provide Global Positioning Coordinates (GPS), or where said GPS coordinates may be manually or automatically stored at said TPD(s), said TPD(s) report to said Module 2 over the Internet, accessing Module 2 via Module 4, wherein Module 4 serves as the CC's Internet Interfacing Module. Said Module 2 optionally may have all of the ESG-Grid's participating TPD's locations manually or automatically stored via automatic or manual TPD report.).
Buchsbaum, Nardini, and Darby operate within the closely related technological domains of wireless packet transmission networks, satellite-linked terminal communication, and mobile asset monitoring. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the combination of Buchsbaum and Nardini by using the features (tracking of TPD (‘remote satellite communication devices’) using GPS information) of Darby. Combining these element yields nothing more than predictable results: utilizing the satellite network to transport the well-known telematics and GPS data packet mandated by Darby represents a routine data-payload mapping. The vehicle-mounted deployment and server-side tracking logic involve no unexpected technical friction or synergistic effects beyond the individual capabilities of each known block.
Tentative Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 appears to contain allowable subject matters underlined below pending on satisfactory of overcoming above 112 rejection and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the respective base claims and any intervening claims.
“wherein the remote device and a second remote device of the plurality of satellite communication devices are both registered in the server system and wherein the remote device and second remote device can exchange messages by each of the following routings according to availability of system components:
(i) the remote device to the second remote device via single 8 KHz channel through one satellite acting as a bent pipe;
(ii) the remote device to the second device via a terrestrial hub using two 8 KHz channels;
(iii) first smartphone paired to the remote device to second smartphone paired to the second remote device via cellular network;
(iv) the remote device to the second remote device through the satellite ground station, the transceiver array, and the server system; and
(v) the remote device to the second smartphone paired to the second remote device by sending pre-programmed message stored in memory of the one device to the satellite.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 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, Derrick W 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights