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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 12, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maheswaranathan; Gaithri US PUB 20170171803 A1 (hereinafter Mahes), in view of Besquin; Alan et al. US PGPUB 20240356578 A1.
Regarding claim 1. Mahes teaches A device for communicating via satellite, the device comprising:
a transceiver unit operable to transmit a signal from the device to a satellite ( [0009] In more embodiments, the plurality of communication interfaces is selected from the group consisting of a cellular communication interface, a satellite interface, and a Wi-Fi communication interface.),
a controller unit coupled to the transceiver unit and operable to control operations of the transceiver unit; ([0053] In general, as shown, the networked device 100 of FIG. 1 includes a processing system 110 that includes one or more processors 111, such as Central Processing Units (CPUs), Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), and/or Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), a memory controller 112, memory 113, which may include software 114 (operating systems and/or applications), and other components that are not shown for brevity, such as busses, etc. The processing system may also include storage 115. ) and
a personal area network (PAN) connection that communicatively couples the device with a proximal mobile computing device, ( [0063] In some embodiments of the present invention, the device 100 of FIG. 1 can be connected to other devices, designated 100-X. In one embodiment, device 100-1 may be connected to another device 100-2 via a network 170, as shown in FIG. 2A. … The network 170 may also include wireless components, such as cellular (LTE, etc.), satellite (Iridium, etc.), short-range (Bluetooth®, etc.), or proximity (Near-field) communication technologies.)
Mahes does not teach the signal comprising a packet encoded by modulation of a carrier wave
wherein the transceiver unit modulates the carrier wave with the packet and sends the signal to the satellite within a designated band of spectrum.
However, Besquin teaches
the signal comprising a packet ([0078] In another embodiment, if the packets are transmitted over a mesh network, then a receiving node transmits the acknowledgement message or signal. In yet another embodiment, if the packets are transmitted over a satellite network, then the satellite work (e.g., IRIDIUM) transmits the acknowledgment message or signal.) encoded by modulation of a carrier wave ([0100], a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism)
wherein the transceiver unit modulates the carrier wave with the packet and sends the signal to the satellite ([0100] a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism) within a designated band of spectrum. ([0079] In one embodiment, the signals are transmitted over one or more of the industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) bands.)
in order to improve network resilience in remote areas ([0051])
Mahes and Besquin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of satellite transmission in Besquin in order to improve network resilience.
Regarding claim 2. Mahes and Besquin teach The device of claim 1, Mahes does not teach wherein the modulating uses a modulation technique selected from the list consisting of: chirp spread spectrum modulation, phase shift keying, and amplitude shift keying.
However, Besquin teaches
wherein the modulating uses a modulation technique selected from the list consisting of: chirp spread spectrum modulation, phase shift keying, and amplitude shift keying. ([0077] However, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that chirp spread modulation and LoRa are not the only standards by which signals are able to be transmitted according to the present invention. For example, in one embodiment, frequency shift keying (FSK) is used to transmit image and/or video data. In one embodiment, different methods are used to transmit different types of payloads. For example, in one embodiment, FSK is used specifically to transmit video data and/or image data, while text data is transmitted using a different technique (e.g., chirp spread modulation).)
in order to improve network resilience in remote areas ([0051])
Mahes and Besquin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of satellite transmission in Besquin in order to improve network resilience.
Regarding claim 3. Mahes and Besquin teach The device of claim 1, Mahes teaches wherein the transceiver unit comprises a plurality of independently-operable transceiver sub-units that include (i) a high-rate general purpose transceiver; (ii) a high-rate push-to-talk (PTT) transceiver, and (iii) a low rate general purpose transceiver. ([0009] In more embodiments, the plurality of communication interfaces is selected from the group consisting of a cellular communication interface, a satellite interface, and a Wi-Fi communication interface.
[0014] In extended embodiments, the wireless connection is selected from the group consisting of: cellular, satellite, short-range, and proximity.)
Regarding claim 4. Mahes and Besquin teaches The device of claim 1, Mahes doesn’t teach wherein when the device is paired with the proximal mobile computing device, the device mediates data exchange or push-to-talk functionality between the smartphone and another device, via the satellite.
However, Besquin teaches wherein when the device is paired with the proximal mobile computing device, ([0051] FIGS. 1A-1D illustrate a network node device according to one embodiment of the present invention. The network node device is operable to connect or pair with at least one user device (e.g., a smart phone, a tablet, a computer, a smart watch, etc.) such that it is able to receive data or commands from the at least one user device and transmit data to the at least one user device.) the device mediates data exchange or push-to-talk functionality between the smartphone and another device, via the satellite. ([0051] The network node device is also able to receive signals over a first network (e.g., a satellite network, a cellular network, etc.) and transmit corresponding signals to other network node devices within a mesh network.)
in order to improve network resilience in remote areas ([0051])
Mahes and Besquin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of satellite transmission in Besquin in order to improve network resilience.
Regarding claim 5. Mahes and Besquin teach The device of claim 1, Mahes teaches wherein when the device is paired with the proximal mobile computing device, the device mediates text message transmission and/or receipt via the proximal mobile computing device. ([0065] Examples of this method for establishing configuration settings on the M2M device or portable user device 100-1 include but are not limited to the use of Short Message Service (SMS) messages, e-mail, and forward command over the air over wireless communication technologies such as satellite or cellular or Wi-Fi.)
Regarding claim 6. Mahes and Besquin teach The device of claim 1, Mahes does not teach wherein the chirp spread spectrum waveform conforms to the LoRa standard or another defined standard for “internet-of-things” (IoT) communication.
However, Besquin teaches
wherein the chirp spread spectrum waveform conforms to the LoRa standard or another defined standard for “internet-of-things” (IoT) communication. ([0072] In one embodiment, the present invention is operable to utilize chirp spread spectrum techniques, such as LoRa, in order to transmit signals within the mesh network.)
in order to improve network resilience in remote areas ([0051])
Mahes and Besquin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of satellite transmission in Besquin in order to improve network resilience.
Regarding claim 8. Mahes and Besquin teach The device of claim 1, Mahes does not teach further comprising a memory subsystem and a global positioning system (GPS) or a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) unit coupled to the controller unit, wherein the controller unit uses coordinates from the GPS/GNSS unit and data stored in the memory subsystem to identify a beam of the satellite that is available for communication between the device and the satellite.
However Besquin teaches
a memory subsystem and a global positioning system (GPS) or a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) unit coupled to the controller unit, wherein the controller unit uses coordinates from the GPS/GNSS unit and data stored in the memory subsystem to identify a beam of the satellite that is available for communication between the device and the satellite. ([0056] In one embodiment, the network node device includes at least one chip 108 operable to communicate with at least one global navigation satellite system (GNSS) in order to generate position data for the network node device. In one embodiment, the at least one GNSS includes the global positioning system (GPS). In one embodiment, the at least one GPS chip 108 is able to transmit a precise signal to the at least one microcontroller 110, wherein the precise signal is synchronized with the GPS time.)
in order to improve network resilience in remote areas ([0051])
Mahes and Besquin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of satellite transmission in Besquin in order to improve network resilience.
Regarding claim 9. Mahes and Besquin teach The device of claim 8, Mahes does not teach wherein the controller unit implements a frequency changing algorithm to set a transmission (Tx) and/or a reception (Rx) frequency based on a frequency indicated as available from a connected computing system or an internal data base stored and pre-configured in the device.
However, Besquin teaches wherein the controller unit implements a frequency changing algorithm to set a transmission (Tx) and/or a reception (Rx) frequency based on a frequency indicated as available from a connected computing system or an internal data base stored and pre-configured in the device. ([0053] In one embodiment, the at least two LoRa radios 106 transmit signals at different frequency ranges. In another embodiment, a first LoRa radio 106 is used to facilitate private communication channels between two individual nodes within the mesh network, while the second LoRa radio is used as the main channel for communicating with the wider mesh network, allowing a private channel without causing noise or data loss on the main channel. For example, in one embodiment, a first LoRa radio 106 transmits data in a frequency range of 902-928 MHz and a second LoRa radio transmits data in a frequency range of 863 to 870 MHz. In one embodiment, each of the at least two LoRa radios 106 are capable of adjusting the data rates used for transmissions, trading off higher data rates for shorter ranges, depending on the situation. In one embodiment, the at least two LoRa radios 106 include SX1262 LoRa Connect transceivers.)
in order to improve network resilience in remote areas ([0051])
Mahes and Besquin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of satellite transmission in Besquin in order to improve network resilience.
Regarding claim 13. Mahes and Besquin teach The device of claim 8, Mahes does not teach wherein the device sends the message to the satellite with a signal-to-noise ratio margin of at least 22 dB.
However, Besquin teaches wherein the device sends the message to the satellite with a signal-to-noise ratio margin of at least 22 dB. ((0075) LoRa, however, demonstrates surprising resilience even at SNRs of about-20 dB, meaning situations where is the noise levels are much greater than the signal power.)
in order to improve network resilience in remote areas ([0051])
Mahes and Besquin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of satellite transmission in Besquin in order to improve network resilience.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahes and Besquin as applied to claim 2 and 8 above, and further in view of Piesinger; Gregory H. US PGPUB 20120051405 A1.
Regarding claim 7. Mahes and Besquin teach The device of claim 2, Mahes does not teach
wherein the PAN connection communicates with the proximal mobile computing device via a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) antenna and/or a wired connection, wherein the controller unit receives—from an app on the proximal mobile computing device—the content in a digital packet that includes at least source, destination metadata and payload data,
However, Besquin teaches
wherein the PAN connection communicates with the proximal mobile computing device via a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) antenna and/or a wired connection, ([0060] In order to connect with external networks, the network node devices connect with external nodes. Such external nodes are able to include those routers, modems, beacons, radio towers, satellites, and/or other network enabled devices that form part of a network outside of the mesh network, including networks of the same type (e.g., other BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY networks))
in order to improve network resilience in remote areas ([0051])
Mahes and Besquin are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of satellite transmission in Besquin in order to improve network resilience.
Mahes and Besquin do not teach
wherein the controller unit receives—from an app on the proximal mobile computing device—the content in a digital packet that includes at least source, destination metadata and payload data, wherein the transceiver unit encodes and encrypts the digital packet and sends the message to the satellite within the L-Band.
However, Piesinger teaches
wherein the controller unit receives—from an app on the proximal mobile computing device—(Fig. 2, PDA connected to satellite modem with bluetooh link) ) the content in a digital packet that includes at least source, destination metadata and payload data, ([0045] For mobile originated (MO) messages, the source encoder would be part of FA software 210 and would source encode user text messages (prior to encryption for encrypted messages) and send them to satellite modem 15. The source decoder would be either part of custom software in VA server 40 or would be part of email recipients 60 application. In both cases, source encoded messages would be source decoded back into original text messages. Encrypted messages would first be decrypted and then source decoded on email recipients 60 PDA.)
wherein the transceiver unit encodes and encrypts the digital packet and sends the message to the satellite within the L-Band. ([0032] Bluetooth module 125 converts bluetooth command and message signals sent and received over wireless bluetooth link 45 to serial buss 132 data for ISU 100. Status lights 130 provide the user with visual information concerning the status of battery 110, ISU 100, and bluetooth module 125. Iridium antenna 105 is connected to ISU 100 and communicates over L-band link 50 with Iridium satellite 25.)
in order to reduce security risks of data communications ([0037])
Mahes and Piesinger are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of encryption in Piesinger in order to reduce data communication security risks.
Regarding claim 14. Mahes and Besquin teach The device of claim 8, Besquin teaches wherein the controller unit comprises a microcontroller unit (MCU) and the transceiver units comprise a LoRa transceiver ([0050] In one embodiment, the present invention includes a plurality of network node devices that collectively form a mesh network. The mesh network preferably transmits signals between network nodes via LoRa, with the individual network node devices connected to user devices via BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY and configured such that each network node device in the network acts as external network backhauls (e.g., satellite backhauls, cellular backhauls, etc.), without a single central backhaul node.)
However, Mahes and Besquin do not teach the transceiver connected via a transmission channel to an L-Band antenna within the device.
However, Piesinger teaches the transceiver connected via a transmission channel to an L-Band antenna within the device. ([0032] Bluetooth module 125 converts bluetooth command and message signals sent and received over wireless bluetooth link 45 to serial buss 132 data for ISU 100. Status lights 130 provide the user with visual information concerning the status of battery 110, ISU 100, and bluetooth module 125. Iridium antenna 105 is connected to ISU 100 and communicates over L-band link 50 with Iridium satellite 25.)
in order to reduce security risks of data communications ([0037])
Mahes and Piesinger are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of encryption in Piesinger in order to reduce data communication security risks.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahes and Besquin as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Panasik, Carl M. et al. US PGPUB 20030122711 A1.
Regarding claim 11. Mahes and Besquin teach The device of claim 8, they don’t teach wherein when the device is operable to send its location and/or a pre-programmed message saved in the memory subsystem to a destination via the satellite when the device is operating in a standalone mode.
However, Panasik teaches
when the device is operable to send its location and/or a pre-programmed message saved in the memory subsystem to a destination via the satellite ([0015] This solution does not require a local receiver to correct for long distance propagation dispersion, particularly for the satellite relay, as the digital radio satellites are already synchronized to GPS time.)
when the device is operating in a standalone mode. ([0053] Within each of concepts A & B, there are three methods of calculating location position: 1) the handset in a standalone mode measures the time difference of arrival from three or more synchronized transmitters; the handset has a lookup table of the transmitter locations and uses that information to compute latitude and longitude)
in order to improve location accuracy in urban environment ([0014])
Mahes and Panasik are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of satellite relayed location technique in Panasik in order to improve location accuracy in urban environment.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahes and Besquin as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of SATO; Tetsuro et al. US PGPUB 20240214761 A1.
Regarding claim 12. Mahes and Besquin teaches The device of claim 8, but they don’t teach wherein a converted, spread spectrum message occupies less than about 8 KHz of bandwidth.
However, Sato teachs
wherein a converted, spread spectrum message occupies less than about 8 KHz of bandwidth.( [0132] Therefore, in a case where the frequency band of the spread spectrum signal is 0 kHz to 8 kHz) in order to improve noise resistance ([0098])
Mahes and Sato are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of spread spectrum message in Sato in order to improve noise resistance.
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahes and Besquin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nonaka; Ryoichi US PGPUB 20070106454 A1.
Regarding claim 22. Mahes and Besquin teaches The device of claim 1, but it does not teach wherein communication via the device operates at a data rate from about 1 kbs to about 120 kbs.
However, Nonaka teaches wherein communication via the device operates at a data rate from about 1 kbs to about 120 kbs. ([0037] the low bandwidth channel supports data rates of about 1 Kbps to about 120 Kbps.)
In order to balance navigation messages with efficiency with only essential data ([0006])
Mahes and Nonaka are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Mahes with the technique of essential data message in Nonaka in order to balance navigation messages with efficiency with only essential data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHAOHUI YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7527. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM M-F.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571 270-1096. 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.
/ZHAOHUI YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights