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 October 17, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “GPS” and “GNSS” should be spelled out in the claim.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an app” should be spelled out in the claim.
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) 1-22 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 limitation “wherein the server system reads an identify of a recipient device from the packet.” The word “identify” is a verb and is grammatically improper in this context. It appears the applicant intended to recite the noun “identity.” This typographical error creates ambiguity regarding the structural limitation of the data being read by the server.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the server system reads an identify of a recipient device from the packet and operates the transceiver array to modulate the packet by spread spectrum modulation and send the packet to the recipient device via satellite.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the packet” in the claim 1. Regarding Claims 2-22, these claims depend from Claim 1, thus carry the same indefiniteness issues as discussed above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed above.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the hub comprises at least ground-based transceiver device coupled to a local hub computer …” The phrase lacks a proper article or grammatical structure (e.g., “at least a ground-based transceiver device”). This omission renders the exact structural count of the transceiver device indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the hub demodulates the transmission to read a digital packet, wherein a header of the packet identifies the second device as an intended recipient.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the packet” in the claim 7.
Claims 8-19 are rejected for improper hybrid claiming (“mixed mode” claim). Claim 8 recites the limitation “The system of claim 1, further comprising: … an app on the local computing device, the app offering an end-user the ability to use the one device for push-to-talk communication and text messaging.” Claim 8 is directed to a physical hardware “system” (dependent on the satellite communication “system” of Claim 1). However, the limitation introduces a purely software-based component: “an app on the local computing device, the app offering an end-user the ability to use the one device for push-to-talk communication and text messaging”. By reciting a structural hardware system (“at least one device of the plurality of satellite communication devices”) and a non-structural software application module (“an app”) as co-equal limitations within a single system claim, the applicant has improperly mixed multiple statutory categories. Thus, Claim 8 is rejected for improper hybrid claiming (“mixed mode” claim). Claims 9-19 depend from claim 8, thus carry the same issues as described above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “…wherein the app encodes the recipient in bits within the digital packet.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the recipient” in the claim 13.
In Claim 19, the sub-list contains a numbering error, reciting items: “(i)…(ii)…(ii)… (iii)… and (iv).” The duplicate use of the numeral “(ii)” for distinct routing paths introduces substantial clerical confusion, rendering the claim indefinite.
In Claims 2, 3, and 4, the applicant uses the term of degree “about” to define core numerical thresholds (e.g., “about 8 kHz,” “about 25 kHz,” “at least about three packets,”). The term “about” fails to provide a precise, objective, and measurable boundary for these operational radio parameters. Unless the specification sets forth an explicit metric or industry-standard tolerance defining the boundaries of “about 8 kHz,” “about 25 kHz,” or “at least about three packets,” a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) cannot ascertain the literal scope of the claimed spectrum. Therefore, these limitations render the claims indefinite.
Claim 21 recites “wherein each of the plurality of satellite communication devices operates to change a beam using a global positioning system (GPS) coupled to a controller unit within the device”. The phrase “operates to change a beam” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the “satellite communication device” is performing a handover, requesting a beam switch, or merely re-tuning its radio to a different frequency associated with a different beam. Furthermore, it is unclear how the each device, which is typically a passive recipient of a satellite’s broadcast, possesses the functional capacity to “change a beam” of the satellite. Without further functional limitation or clarity as to the scope of this operation, one skilled in the art cannot determine the boundaries of the invention.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the digital packet includes a user ID or group ID as the recipient.” However, claim 1, from which claim 22 depends, recites that the server system “reads an identify of a recipient device from the packet.” It is unclear how the server system processes a “user ID or group ID” when the parent claim is limited to a “recipient device” identity. This terminology creates a contradiction between the parent claim and the dependent claim, rendering the scope of the recipient identification process indefinite.
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, and 5 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 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”) (interpreted as “a 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.) (Examiner’s comments: The ROUTER1 including ARP routing table is interpreted as “a server system having stored therein identities of a plurality of satellite communication devices.” The Physical Addresses in Table 1-4 are interpreted as “identities of a plurality of satellite communication devices.” A plurality of routers (router 2-router N in Fig. 3) is interpreted as “a plurality of satellite communication device”);
a transceiver array communicatively positioned between the server system and a satellite ground station receiving transmissions from a satellite (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 11, 10a, 10b, … 10n in Fig. 3 is interpreted as “a transceiver array”). 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
852
1378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 3 of Buchsbaum, annotated)
, wherein the transceiver array 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 identify of a recipient device from the packet and operates the transceiver array to modulate the packet by spread spectrum modulation and send the packet to the recipient device via satellite (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. ….) (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 “modulate the packet by spread spectrum modulation” as recited in claim 1.
Nardini is directed to systems and methods for low earth orbit (LEO) satellite communication with remote terrestrial communication systems. Nardini teaches the “modulate the packet by spread spectrum modulation” (para [0082] of Nardini: The terrestrial communication systems transmitting signals to the LEO satellite may be located in remote locations where power supply or availability thereof may be limited. The communication protocols employed by the terrestrial communication systems may be specifically selected to reduce the power consumption in transmission, reception and processing of the signals in the LEO satellite. Such communication protocols include, for example, spread spectrum based protocols, including chirp spread spectrum based protocols such as LoRa™ (Long Range).) (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.)
Both references operate within the identical technical field of satellite packet networks utilizing centralized ground servers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to integrate the hardware spread spectrum transceiver array configuration such as LoRa™ taught by Nardini into the server-side ARP routing framework of Buchsbaum. Such a combination is merely the predictable implementation of known wireless modulation hardware into a known network topology to achieve the expected results of enhanced signal robustness and scalable multi-channel packet processing.
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 about 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 about 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: IP backbone Service provider 1), wherein the hub comprises at least ground-based transceiver device (Fig. 5: router 1 and modulator and demodulator array ) coupled to a local hub computer (Fig. 5: IP backbone Service provider 1), wherein the hub is remote from any satellite ground station (Fig. 5: Antenna +RF equipment), wherein the hub is operable to relay a transmission from a first device to a second device of the plurality of satellite communication devices through a satellite using a first channel on a satellite beam for the first device and a second channel on the satellite beam or the second 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.) (Router 3 is interpreted as “a second device of the plurality of satellite communication devices”).
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™.), wherein each satellite channel has a bandwidth of about 25 KHz and wherein the server system is operable to use the transceiver array to simultaneously send multiple signals using one beam of the satellite (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 about 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 fails 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 a digital packet, wherein a header of the packet identifies the second 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 GPS or GNSS on the second device, that the second 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) 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 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 plurality of 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 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 “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 plurality of 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 (‘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.
Claim(s) 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchsbaum, in view of Nardini, and further in view of Harris et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180332064, hereinafter “Harris”).
Regarding Claim 22, Buchsbaum and Nardini teach The system of claim 1, Buchsbaum and Nardini fail to explicitly teach wherein the server system maintains a user ID for each of the stored identities of the plurality of satellite communication devices, each user ID being associated with a user, further wherein the server system allows each user ID to be associated with one or more group IDs and wherein the digital packet includes a user ID or group ID as the recipient.
Harris teaches wherein the server system maintains a user ID for each of the stored identities of the plurality of satellite communication devices, each user ID being associated with a user, further wherein the server system allows each user ID to be associated with one or more group IDs (para [0113] of Harris: As another example, a server file may include the IP address, a hostname, a user ID, a division ID, a department ID, a peer group ID, a device type, etc. for each computing device of the plurality of monitored devices 102 that has a static IP address. The server file may be used to differentiate devices that are associated with a user such as a client computing device from devices that are not associated with a user of the internal network. The devices that are not associated with a user may include devices such as server computing devices, printers, cameras, point of sale devices, routers, etc. The hostname may be the fully qualified domain name associated with the IP address. The user ID defines the user associated with the device and is left blank for devices not associated with a user. Each entity may have its own division ID, department ID, and peer group ID. The division ID defines an organizational division to which the device is associated (e.g., North America). The department ID defines an organizational department to which the device is associated (e.g., automobile sales). The peer group ID defines a peer group to which the device is associated (e.g., database, development).) and wherein the digital packet includes a user ID or group ID as the recipient (para [0173] of Harris: In operation 927, a peer group ID is identified for the username or user ID parsed from the UDP packet.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the server system of Buchsbaum and Nardini to incorporate the user/group ID identification and management scheme disclosed in Harris. The motivation for such a modification would be to implement standard network authentication, role-based access control, and targeted packet routing within the satellite communication system.
Tentative Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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 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, wherein each device can simultaneously send or receive at least about three packets, whereby the transceiver array can operate the plurality of hardware satellite communication devices to simultaneously send or receive dozens or more of the packets.”
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