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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “estimating a number of vehicles eligible for a specific service present in the visibility zone using the global data receiver module” is confusing since it is not clear how the estimating is achieved by simply using “the global data receiver module.” In the clean version of the replacement specification filed 8/13/24, paragraph no. 0051 states “As illustrated by block 100, the method 10 comprises estimating a number of vehicles present in the visibility zone Z of the satellite that are eligible for a specific service using the global data receiver module 12. In this respect, it is assumed that the vehicles 2 present in the visibility zone transmit presence signals comprising a particular signature to the satellite 1” (emphasis added). Hence, it appears that an essential limitation (i.e., the feature of receiving, by the global data receiver module, presence signals transmitted by the vehicles in the visibility zone) is missing in claim 1.
The dependent claims 2-7 and 11 fall in view of claim 1.
In independent claim 8, it is not clear if the “activate, depending …” and the “deactivate, depending …” are both required to infringe this claim or if either one is required for infringement purposes. In other words, a conjunction such as “and” or “or” appears to be missing after the limitation “activate, depending on an estimated number of vehicles eligible for the specific service in the visibility zone, the global data receiver module or all or some of the local data receiver modules for reception of data,” and before the limitation “deactivate, depending … for reception of data.” For purposes of applying prior art, an “or” is assumed between the “activate …” and “deactivate …” limitations.
The dependent claims 9-10 fall in view of claim 8.
Also, in claim 9, the same conjunction (and or or) issue exists between the “activate …” and “deactivate …” limitations. For purposes of applying prior art, the conjunction “or” is assumed for these two limitations.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al., US 2020/0076497, (“Agarwal”), in view of Ravishankar et al., US 2021/0092640, (“Ravishankar”), and Sakamoto et al., US 2024/0106524, (“Sakamoto”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Agarwal teaches “A method for controlling a satellite
a global data transmitter module configured to transmit data to all of the visibility zone (Fig. 1, transmit and receive antenna 115a, 115b and their associated transponders shown in Fig. 2; the “visibility zone” reads on, e.g., all of the coverage zones shown in Fig. 1; see also, Fig. 4 which shows a coverage area 410 which also teaches a “visibility zone”),
a global data receiver module configured to receive data from all of the visibility zone (Fig. 1, transmit and receive antenna 115a, 115b and their associated transponders shown in Fig. 2; the “visibility zone” reads on, e.g., all of the coverage zones shown in Fig. 1; see also, Fig. 4 which shows a coverage area 410 which also teaches a “visibility zone”),
a plurality of local data transmitter modules, each local data transmitter module being configured to transmit data in a respective sub-zone of the visibility zone (antenna and transponder elements shown in Figs. 1-2 which transmit data to at least two sub-zones as shown in Figs. 1 and 4; for example, a first sub-zone covered by one of the spot beams 150 and a second sub-zone covered by one or more of the steerable beams 155; see also, Fig. 4 which shows one or more sub-zones included within each coverage area 410),
a plurality of local data receiver modules, each local data receiver module being configured to receive data from a respective sub-zone of the visibility zone (antenna and transponder elements shown in Figs. 1-2 which receive data from at least two sub-zones as shown in Figs. 1 and 4; for example, a first sub-zone covered by one of the spot beams 150 and a second sub-zone covered by one or more of the steerable beams 155; see also, Fig. 4 which shows one or more sub-zones included within each coverage area 410),
and the method comprising:
estimating a number of vehicles eligible for a specific service present in the visibility zone (paragraph no. 0029, “In some implementations, determining the consumption demand includes computing a demand certainty score associated with each candidate coverage zone. For example, for each candidate coverage zone, consumption demand is predicted, along with a score indicating the magnitude of predicted consumption demand and the certainty of the prediction (e.g., based on fluctuations over time, changes in population size and/or demographics in the region, etc.)”; the determination of the consumption demand includes estimating a number of terminals present in the coverage area serviced by the satellite; note that the disclosed terminals in Agarwal implicitly includes vehicles – however, see below for an explicit teaching of “vehicles”), and
activating, depending on the estimated number of vehicles eligible for the specific service in the visibility zone, the global data receiver module or all or some of the local data receiver modules for reception of data” (see, e.g., Fig. 2 which shows the antenna elements and corresponding transponders (120aa, 120ab, etc.); the “activating” of the antenna elements and transponders occurs since, e.g., the transponders must be powered on to receive data transmitted by the terminals in the coverage area shown, e.g., in Fig. 1).
While Agarwal implicitly discloses that vehicles are included within the disclosed user terminals (e.g., user terminals disclosed in paragraph no. 0017), Ravishankar discloses explicitly that automobiles, buses, and autonomous vehicles (“vehicles”) may communicate with a satellite, see paragraph nos. 0048 and 0049.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Agarwal by incorporating the teachings of Ravishankar to enable the satellite to communicate with vehicles as is well known in the art.
Agarwal does not teach but Sakamoto teaches “using the global data receiver module” (see paragraph nos. 0106, 0161 and in particular, 0106, “The estimator 281 estimates the number of terminals that have transmitted signals on the basis of the terminal uplink signals received by the receiver 222 of the terminal communicator 220 via the plurality of antennas 210”; note that the estimator 281 is included in a LEO satellite) as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Agarwal and Ravishankar by incorporating the teachings of Sakamoto to enable the satellite to control a required frequency bandwidth on the basis of a rough estimation result of the number of incoming signals from terminals, as suggested by Sakamoto in paragraph no. 0157.
Regarding independent claim 8, this independent claim is a corresponding apparatus claim of the method claim 1 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to this independent claim.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2 and 9, these limitations are deemed to logically follow from the above rejection of claims 1 and 8 since the satellite of Agarwal transmits data via the antennas and transponders shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 3, these limitations are deemed to logically follow from the above rejection of claim 1 since the satellite of Agarwal transmits data via the antennas and transponders shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 10, Agarwal does not teach but Ravishankar teaches a low earth orbit satellite (see paragraph no. 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Agarwal, Ravishankar, and Sakamoto by incorporating the additional teachings of Ravishankar to enable the use of other known satellites, such as a LEO satellite, as is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “receiving data from the vehicles using the one or more activated receiver modules” is deemed to logically follow from the above rejection of claim 1 since the satellite of Agarwal receives data from the terminals/vehicles using one or more of the transponders shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 7, see Agarwal, paragraph no. 0017 which discloses gateway terminals.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, Ravishankar, and Sakamoto as applied to claims 2, 1, 3 above, and further in view of Linsky et al., US 2004/0198218, (“Linsky”).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Agarwal does not teach “wherein the method further comprises deactivating, depending on the estimated number of vehicles eligible for the specific service in the visibility zone, the global transmitter module or all or some of the local transmitter modules for transmission of data.”
Linsky discloses that a satellite can deactivate its transmitter during certain time periods of transmission of data, see paragraph no. 0043.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Agarwal, Ravishankar, and Sakamoto by incorporating the teachings of Linsky to save power at the satellite, as suggested by Linsky in paragraph no. 0043.
Regarding claim 6, Agarwal does not teach “deactivating, depending on the estimated number of vehicles eligible for the specific service in the visibility zone, the global receiver module or all or some of the local receiver modules for reception of data.”
Linsky discloses that a satellite can deactivate its transmitter during certain time periods of transmission of data, see paragraph no. 0043. Hence, this disclosure in Linsky would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the receiver can also be deactivated during certain time periods for reception of data to further save power at the satellite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Agarwal, Ravishankar, and Sakamoto by incorporating the teachings of Linsky as modified to save power at the satellite, as suggested by Linsky in paragraph no. 0043.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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 TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights