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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because Claims 30 and 31
Claims “A computer readable medium comprising instructions for configuring one or more processors in a terminal to:” However, the Claims do not define the “A computer readable medium … to be a functional descriptive material encoded on a non-transitory memory/disk/computer-readable medium, and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some non-transitory computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized”). Moreover, a “A computer readable medium … code which run in a transmitting node” is neither a process (“action”), nor machine, nor manufacture, nor composition of matter (i.e., non-transitory”) and therefore non-statutory.
Such Claimed “A computer readable medium … code which run in a transmitting node …” (software) does not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other Claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’ s functionality to be realized.
One ordinary skilled in the art will conclude that a Computer program (905) … code which run in a transmitting node.
Examiner suggests amending the Claim to include “a non-transitory computer readable medium …”.
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 no obviousness.
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, 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 25, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over Gutt et al. (US-20130197860-A1) in view of Haley et al. (WO-2017197433-A1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haley et
al. (WO-2017197433-A1) in view of Gutt et al. (US-20130197860-A1), and further in view of Araki et al. (US-5543813-A).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Gutt et al. (US-20130197860-A1) in view of Haley et al. (WO-2017197433-A1) and further in view of Kwant et al. (US-20180137675-A1) and Katz et al. (US-7440427-B1).
Claim(s) 28-31 (apparatus/CRM) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Gutt et al. (US-20130197860-A1) in view of Haley et al. (WO-2017197433-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gutt discloses a method for estimating a location of a
terminal (user receiver device 120) in a satellite communication system comprising a plurality of LEO satellites and a plurality of terminals, (PARA[008], “ the types of satellites that may be employed for the present disclosure include, but are not limited to, low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites, and/or geostationary earth orbit (GEO) satellites”)
the method comprising: receiving a plurality of transmissions from each of one or more LEO satellites; (PARA[0068]-[0069], Fig. 3, “the processor of the user receiver device 120 calculates a first estimate of the location of the user receiver device 120 to be located at the center of the intersection 320 of the intersection 330 of the spot beams that are radiated by the SAT 1 satellite 100 and the intersection 340 of the spot beams that are radiated by the SAT 2 satellite 300.”) (i.e., receiving spot beam from a plurality of LEO satellites (SAT 1 and SAT 2)); (PARA[0055], “Iridium burst sequences occur every 90 milliseconds in an L-band frame and, thus, the L-Band Frame Count (LBFC) number is effectively a clock with microsecond accuracy. Because the edge of the L band frame (and thus the LBFC)”) (i.e., receiving a plurality of transmissions from a plurality of LEO-type satellites).
obtaining an estimate of a current time and ephemeris of each of the one or more LEO satellites; (PARA[0055], “Because the edge of the L band frame (and thus the LBFC) is accurate at the microsecond level, the ring message acts like and can be used as a very accurate clock that ticks every 90 milliseconds.”) (i.e., the current time estimate); (PARA[0059], “the user receiver device 120 calculates the satellite 100 position by using data from its internal orbital model and using orbital delta corrections that it receives from the satellite 100”; see also PARA[0058]) (i.e., the ephemeris of each LEO satellite).
estimating at least one footprint for each of the plurality LEO satellites from the plurality of transmissions; (PARA[0049], “For any given satellite, if at any time t1, the position and attitude of the satellite relative to the Earth are known, and if the directions of the transmitted antenna spot beams relative to the satellite are known, then the intersection of the center of the spot beams on the surface of the Earth at time t1 can be calculated.”; PARA[0050], “once the user receiver device calculates the location of the projection of the spot beam at time t1, the user receiver device can calculate an estimate of its own location at time t1”) (i.e., the projected spot beam constitutes a “footprint” of the satellite that is estimated from the received transmissions).
determining a location of the terminal by estimating an intersection region of each of the estimated footprints (PARA[0068], Fig. 3, “the processor of the user receiver device 120 calculates a first estimate of the location of the user receiver device 120 to be located at the center of the intersection 320 of the intersection 330 of the spot beams that are radiated by the SAT 1 satellite 100 and the intersection 340 of the spot beams that are radiated by the SAT 2 satellite 300.” see also PARA[0047]) (i.e., the terminal location is estimated within the intersection of the multi-satellite footprints).
However, Gutt does not explicitly disclose that the ephemeris used to compute the footprint is obtained as orbital-element data associated with a current time in the specific manner recited.
Therefore, Haley is added because it provides an alternative mathematical formulation for footprint definition and intersection-based estimation from the same ephemeris and transmission data (Haley, PARA [0060], “the "footprint" of the satellite can be determined. This is the set of positions X(t) on the earth from which (in the absence of obstructions) the satellite is visible… This footprint can easily be modified to account for small uncertainties in the satellite position, timing, and minimum elevation angles required for communication with the satellite”) (i.e., the visibility set X(tj) and its intersection X); (Haley, PARA [0054], “The position estimation processor 40 has available the ephemeris data ”)
Gutt and Haley are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor of estimating the location of ground-based terminal in a LEO satellite communication system without requiring a GNSS/GPS module at the terminal. Gutt states its goal as providing an improvement in navigation system performance when the terminal is located in an attenuated, jammed or occluded environment, PARA[0004] “an improvement in navigation system performance when the user receiver device is located in an attenuated environment, a jammed environment, and /or an occluded environment” and Haley identifies the same need: PARA[0007] “there is thus a need to provide a system and method for remote estimation of the position of a ground-based terminal in a satellite communications system that avoids the requirement of a GPS module in the terminal”. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the Claimed invention, to combine Gutt’s coarse footprint-intersection estimation with Haley’s remote position estimation framework, with a reasonable expectation of success because both systems operate on transmission from the same class of LEO satellites and relay on the same underlying ephemeris data.
Regarding Claim 2, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Gutt further discloses estimating the location within the intersection region, wherein estimating the location comprises estimating a centroid location of the intersection region or the geometric median of the intersection region (PARA[0061], “ In other embodiments, when the user receiver device 120 receives a signal from two or more spot beams 110, the user receiver device 120 calculates the estimate of the location of the user receiver device 120 to be located at the centroid of the centers of the spot beams 110 that it receives a signal from”; PARA[0071], “the processor of the user receiver device 120 calculates the location of the user receiver device 120 to be located at the centroid of the centers of the spot beams that are radiated by the SAT 1 satellite 100 and the centers of the spot beams that are radiated by the SAT 2 satellite 300”) (i.e., the centroid location of the intersection region computed from multiple LEO satellites). The recited geometric median alternative is a well-known central-tendency estimator for a bounded point set or convex region, and its use in place of, or in addition to Gutt’s centroid estimator would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art seeking a location estimate less sensitive to outlier beam-center measurements.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and incorporated herein by references.
Regarding Claim 3, Has been canceled by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 4, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 1
Gutt does not expressly disclose defining the footprint as a convex region formed by the set of surface points having a direct line of sight above a predefined threshold elevation to the LEO satellite. Haley is added.
Haley discloses the footprint of a LEO satellite is estimated as a convex region, wherein the convex region is estimated as the set of points on a reference surface that have a direct line of sight above a predefined threshold elevation to the LEO satellite (PARA[0060], “the "footprint" of the satellite can be determined. This is the set of positions X(t) on the earth from which (in the absence of obstructions) the satellite is visible… This footprint can easily be modified to account for small uncertainties in the satellite position, timing, and minimum elevation angles required for communication with the satellite”) (i.e., the footprint is the set of points on a reference surface having unobstructed line of sight to the satellite, boundary by a minimum/predefined threshold elevation angle. A region that is inherently convex, being the projection onto the earth’s surface of the satellite’s coverage cone bounded by a minimum elevation angle).
Gutt and Haley are analogous art for the reason discussed above with respect to Claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to define Gutt’s spot-beam footprint using Haley’s minimum-elevation-angle visibility criterion, since doing so is simply the application of a known technique (elevation-angle-bounded visibility regions) to a known device (a spot-beam-based geolocation receiver) to yield the predictable result of well-defined, convex footprint boundary.
Regarding Claim 5, Has been canceled by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 6, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Gutt does not expressly discloses defining an error function and using an
optimization method to optimize the error function.
Haley is added and it discloses determining the location of the terminal by estimating the intersection region of each of the estimated footprints comprises: defining an error function which is a measure of the error between an the estimate of the location obtained from an estimate of the footprint and an estimate of a true location; and using an optimization method to optimize the error function to obtain an optimized estimate of the true location of the terminal (PARA[0066], “Define the error functions
PNG
media_image1.png
224
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Equation 10, with corresponding Doppler-rate and delay error functions of equations 11-12”);
PARA[0067],
PNG
media_image2.png
122
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where are non-negative constants which are used to weight the contributions to the global error function” (Equation 13); PARA[0068], “The position estimation processor produces an estimate x.sub.t of the terminal position by solving the following non-linear optimisation problem:
PNG
media_image3.png
45
188
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”)
(i.e., the error function ∆(xt), measuring deviation between quantities predicted at a hypothesized footprint – derived location xt and the measured quantities, minimized via arcmin to obtain the optimized location estimate).
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 12, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Gut discloses measuring Doppler frequency offset (PARA[0088], “Next, the processor of the user receiver device measures the doppler frequency offset of the satellite... Then, the processor of the user receiver device uses the doppler frequency offset to calculate a doppler range estimate”) but does not expressly disclose a non-linear optimization algorithm initialized with the coarse location and refining it by minimizing a Doppler-based error function.
Therefore, Haley is added and it discloses obtaining an estimate of at least the Doppler frequency for each of the received transmissions and to obtain a refined estimate of the location of the terminal by using a non-linear optimization algorithm configured to use the location of the terminal as an initial location and to refine the estimate of the location by minimizing an error function based on at least the estimated Doppler frequencies (PARA[0051], “the communications receiver also produces an associated estimate of the Doppler shift Doppler rate and delay 34”; PARA[0069], “Such algorithms work iteratively, improving an initial guess by considering the gradient of the error function. A good choice for the initial guess is the ground track position of the satellite at time t”; PARA[0068], “The position estimation processor produces an estimate x.sub.t of the terminal position by solving the following non-linear optimization problem:
PNG
media_image4.png
54
182
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”) (i.e., a non-linear optimizer that refines an initial location estimate by minimizing a doppler based error function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Gutt’s coarse footprint-intersection estimate as the initial location for Haley’s Doppler-based non-liner optimization because Haley expressly teaches that the optimizer improves upon an initial guess, and Gutt’s coarse estimate readily supplies that initial guess, with a reasonable expectation of success because both references use the same class of LEO satellite Doppler measurements.
Regarding Claim 13, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 12.
Haley discloses the non-linear optimization algorithm is further configured to use a cost
function based on the error function at each location obtained using at least the estimated Doppler frequencies (PARA[0067], “
PNG
media_image5.png
48
709
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where … are non-negative constants which are used to weight the contributions to the global error function”) (i.e., the weighted total-error cost function, incorporating the Doppler error term …, evaluated at each candidate location xt).
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haley et
al. (WO-2017197433-A1) in view of Gutt et al. (US-20130197860-A1), and further in view of Araki et al. (US-5543813-A).
Regarding Claim 14, Haley discloses A method for estimating a location of a transmitter
by a satellite communication system comprising a plurality of LEO satellites, (PARA[0002], “In a particular form the present disclosure relates system in which estimation is performed remote from the terminal”; PARA[0007], “There is thus a need to provide a system and method for remote estimation of the position of a ground-based terminal in a satellite communication system”) (i.e., a method performed at a location remote from the transmitting terminal), the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more LEO satellites, a plurality of transmissions from a transmitter; (PARA[0049], “The sequence of packets transmitted by the terminal will be indexed by j. Without loss of generality, we will assume that j = 0,1,…,J-1 where J is the number of packets transmitted by the terminal during the satellites pass. The satellite played 24 samples the relevant radio frequency ban via RF front end 25”) (i.e., a LEO satellite receiving a polarity of packets transmission from a transmitter).
obtaining an estimate of a transmission time of each transmission and an ephemeris of each of the plurality of LEO satellites at the transmission time; (PARA[0059], “From satellite ephemeris data 41, the position estimator 40 can determine at least an approximation of the time-varying position vector xs(t) of the low earth orbit satellite. Let tj be the transmission time of packet j = 0,1,…,J”) (i.e., the pre-transmission time tj and the satellite position/ephemeris at the time).
estimating at least one footprint for each of the plurality LEO satellites from the plurality of transmissions; and (PARA[0060], “For a given xs(t), the "footprint" of the satellite can be determined. This is the set of positions X(t) on the earth from which (in the absence of obstructions) the satellite is visible”) (i.e., a footprint X(t) estimated for each LEO satellite from the transmissions).
determining, at a location remote from the transmitter, a location of the transmitter by estimating an intersection region of each of the estimated footprints. (PARA[0034], “A position estimator 40 at the ground station 30 (or a site in communication with the ground station 30) works by comparing the estimates of the terminal’s delay/Doppler/Doppler rate, computed at the ground station 30 to the corresponding hypothesized quantities that would be expected for particular hypothesis for the terminal’s location”; PARA[0060], “This represents the feasible set of choices for the terminal position at time t”) (i.e., the location of the transmitter is determined at the ground station, remote from the transmitter, by reference to the feasible intersection region of the estimated footprints).
Gutt is further relied upon because it independently teaches the underlying footprint- intersection geolocation concept applied by Haley, confirming that estimating a terminal’s location from the intersection of multiple satellite footprints was a known technique.
Araki further confirms the same remote-side, network-based estimation architecture from overlapping satellite spot-beam coverage areas received at the mobile terminal at multiple times (Abstract, “a mobile terminal, when registering its location, receives the spot beam identification information at some moments in time with the predetermined time interval. Then, the mobile terminal transmits the received spot beam identification information and each of their reception time… On the basis of an overlapped area of spot beam coverage areas at time when each of identification information is received by the terminal, a terrestrial network estimates and registers the latest location of mobile terminal”; Embodiment 1, “the computing facility 5 calculates an overlapped area, as indicated by hatching, of the spot beam coverage areas 30-7, 30-7’ and 31-3” and estimates the area 10, which is a little wider than the overlapped area”) (i.e., the terrestrial network computes the location of a mobile transmitter as the overlapped intersection region of multiple LEO-satellite spot-beam coverage areas derived from transmission received over time, at a location remote from the transmitter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the Claimed invention, to apply Gutt’s footprint-intersection technique within Haley’s remote ground-station estimation architecture as further confirmed by Araki’s directly analogous non-geosynchronous satellite terminal location determination system, with a reasonable expectation of success because both references derive footprint from the same type of satellite ephemeris and position data and apply the same intersection-region concept for terminal location estimation.
Regarding Claim 15, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 14.
Gutt discloses estimating the location within the intersection region, wherein estimating the location comprises estimating a centroid location of the intersection region or the geometric median of the intersection region (PARA[0048], “The location of the user receiver device can be estimated to be at the centroid of the centers of the multiple overlapping spot beams”; PARA[0061], “the user receiver device 120 calculates the estimate of the location of the user receiver device 120 to be located at the center of the intersection 150 of the spot beams 110 that it receives a signal from”) (i.e., the centroid estimator applied to the remote transmitter location context of Claim 14). The recited geometric-median alternative is a well-known central tendency estimator and its application in place of a centroid would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 16, Has been canceled by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 17, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 14.
Haley discloses the footprint of a LEO satellite is estimated as a convex region, wherein the convex region is estimated as the set of points on a reference surface that have a direct line of sight above a predefined threshold elevation to the LEO satellite (PARA[0060], “For a given xs(t), the ‘footprint’ of the satellite can be determined. This is the set of positions X(t) on the earth from which (in the absence of obstructions) the satellite is visible… This footprint can easily be modified to account for small uncertainties in the satellite position, timing, and minimum elevation angles required for communication with the satellite”) (i.e., the footprint defined as the visibility set on the earth’s references surface, bounded by a minimum elevation angle to the LEO satellite context of Claim 14). A visibility region on a reference surface bounded by a minimum elevation angle to a single satellite is geometrically convex, being the intersection of a half-space defined by the elevation-angle plane with the reference surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to define the footprint using Haley’s elevation-threshold visibility criterion because it allows the footprint to be computed directly from satellite ephemeris without requiring detailed knowledge of individual antenna beam patterns, with a reasonable expectation of success because both references compute footprints from the same type of satellite position and geometry data.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 18, Has been canceled by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 19, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 14.
Haley discloses defining an error function which is a measure of the error between an the estimate of the location obtained from the estimate of the footprint and an estimate of a true location; and using an optimization method to optimize the error function to obtain an optimized estimate of the true location of the transmitter (PARA[0066]-[0068], quoted above in the rejection of Claim 6) (i.e., the error function and non-liner optimization applied to the remote transmitter-location context of Claim 14)
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 25, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 14.
Haley discloses identifying a transmitter by determining one or more signal characteristics of a received transmission, and determining if the signal characteristics match the signal characteristics of a previously received transmission from the transmitter, and if there is a match then using the received transmission to update the estimation of the location of the transmitter (PARA[0056], “In case of unsynchronized operation… the position estimation processor can instead exploit the stability of these estimates from different packets, i.e. can compare time and/or frequency estimates between packets with different index j”) (i.e., under the broadest reasonable interpretation, comparing the time and/or frequency signal characteristics of a received transmission against those of previously received packets identifies packets originating from the same transmitter based on their characteristic stability, and the compared packets are then used together at the remote position estimator to update the transmitter location estimate).
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 26, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 25.
Haley discloses the transmitter is a terminal in the satellite communication system
(PARA[0046], describing terminal 10 as the transmitting device; PARA[0049], “the sequence of packets transmitted by the terminal will be indexed by j”) (i.e., the transmitter is a system terminal), and the method further comprises obtaining an estimate of at least the Doppler frequency for each of the received transmissions and to obtain a refined estimate of the location of the terminal by using a non- linear optimization algorithm configured to use the location of the terminal obtained by the method of Claim 14 as an initial location and to refine the estimate of the location by minimizing an error function based on at least the estimated Doppler frequencies (PARA[0051], “the communication receiver also produces an associated estimate of the Doppler shift ꞷ0j, Doppler rate v0j, and delay τ0j”; PARA[0068], “the position estimate processor produces an estimate xt of the terminal position by solving the following non-linear optimization problem: xt= argmin Δ(xt)”; PARA[0071], “the approximate position of the terminal may already be known for example from a previously obtained position fix, and this information can be used to rule out the incorrect ambiguity”) (i.e., the coarse location obtained from the footprint intersection method of Claim 14 serves as the previously obtained position fix used to initialize Haley’s non-linear optimization, which refines the estimate by minimizing a Doppler-based error function).
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 27, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 25.
Haley discloses the non-linear optimization algorithm is further configured to use a cost function based on the error function at each location obtained using at least the estimated Doppler frequencies (PARA[0067], “”) (i.e., the weighted total -error coat function, incorporating the Doppler error term Δꞷ0j, evaluated at each candidate location xt during the non-linear optimization).
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Gutt et al. (US-20130197860-A1) in view of Haley et al. (WO-2017197433-A1) and further in view of Kwant et al. (US-20180137675-A1) and Katz et al. (US-7440427-B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Gutt in view of Haley and further in view of Kwant and Katz
discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Gutt discloses estimating the terminal location within the intersection region formed by multiple overlapping spot beam footprints (PARA[0047], “When there is a situation of a user receiver device being located within the intersection of two or more spot beams, the user receiver device's location can be estimated to be at the center of the intersection of the spot beams.”; PARA[0068], “e processor of the user receiver device 120 calculates a first estimate of the location of the user receiver device 120 to be located at the center of the intersection 320 of the intersection 330 of the spot beams that are radiated by the SAT 1 satellite 100 and the intersection 340 of the spot beams that are radiated by the SAT 2 satellite 300.”) and further discloses characterizing that intersection region through a plurality of discrete spot-beam-center points logged in memory over successive transmissions (PARA[0087]-[0088], “ the user receiver device logs in the user receiver device's memory the spot beam identifiers and spot beam centers for successive spot beams… the processor of the user receiver device employs those logged spot beam identifiers and spot beam centers with a beam averaging technique in order to derive a running user receiver device position estimate”). Haley likewise discloses that the terminal position must lie within the intersection region of the estimate satellite footprints (PARA[0060], “For a given xs(t), the ‘footprint’ of the satellite can be determined. This is the set of position X(t) on the earth from which (in the absence of obstructions) the satellite is visible… This represents the feasible set of choices for the terminal position at time t, i.e. we know that xt ϵ X(t). let X = ∩j X(tj)”) (i.e., the terminal is constrained to lie within the abstract intersection region X).
Neither Gutt nor Haley expressly discloses the intersection region is approximated as a polygon. Kwant and Katz are added to supply this limitation.
Kwant discloses representing bounded geographic regions as polygons defined by ordered vertices and computing intersection between such polygons. (PARA[0076], “the list 325 identifies each oriented link that forms the boundary of the polygon 323. For example, the edges 327 of the polygon 323 is represented in the list 325 as sequence of node and shape point segments”; PARA[0066], “when polygons overlap, the boundary of one polygon crosses the boundary of the other polygon. In the geographic database 101, the location at which the boundary of one polygon intersects [the] boundary of another polygon is represented by a node”) (i.e., the polygons representation of a bounded region on a reference surface, define by ordered edges and nodes, used for polygon intersection operations).
Katz further discloses representing bounded geographic regions on the earth’s surface as polygons defined by geographic coordinated of their corners in the context of satellite communication geolocation (Claim 6, “each cell is in the shape of a spherical polygon, defined by the geographical coordinates of its corners, and cells which share more than one point are allocated with different sub set of time slots”) (i.e., the polygon with ordered vertices representation applied in a directly analogous satellite geolocation field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the Claimed invention, to represent the intersection region of Gutt’s overlapping spot beams at the terminal as a polygon defined by ordered vertices per the express teaching of Kwant and Katz. The motivation to do so arises from the express computational efficacy concerns of Gutt (PARA[0004]) and Haley (PARA[0005]), “In such systems it is often described to keep terminal cost, complexity, and power requirements as low as possible to allow widespread and extended use”). Because a polygon representation stores only a finite set of vertex coordinates and enables efficient polygon operations as expressly taught by Kwant. Kwant and Katz together confirm that polygon representation of bounded geographic regions was standard practice across geographic-database and satellite-geolocation fields, with a reasonable expectation of success because Gutt already provides the requisite stored point set at the terminal from which the polygon can be constructed.
Regarding Claim 8, Gutt in view of Haley and further in view of Kwant and Katz
discloses all the limitations of Claim 7.
Gutt discloses computing a centroid of the discrete boundary-defining points characterizing the intersection region (PARA[0048], “The location of the user receiver device can be estimated to be at the centroid of the centers of the multiple overlapping spot beams”; PARA[0061], “the user receiver device 120 calculates the estimate of the location of the user receiver device 120 to be located at the centroid of the centers of the spot beams 110 that it receives a signal from”) (i.e., the centroid computation applied to the discrete points that under the polygon representations adopted in Claim 7 are the polygon vertices).
Kwant further discloses determining the location comprises determining a centroid of the polygon (PARA[0034], “the polygon point is selected as the calculated centroid (e.g., the geometric center of the polygon calculated as the mean point of all the points in all the coordinate directions of the polygon)”; PARA[0086], “the respective polygon points are respective centroids of stored polygons that are precomputed and stored in the geographic database 101”) (i.e., the express computation of the geometric centroid of a polygon as the mean of its coordinate points).
Katz further confirms this technique in a satellite geolocation context, describing the centroid of a spherical polygon on the earth’s surface as the point of intersection of the triangle medians, used as a location estimator for beacons uniformly distributed in the polygon.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 9, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 7.
Gutt discloses storing the vertices of the polygon, and updating estimates of the
vertices of the polygon with each new received transmission from one of the one or more LEO satellites (PARA[0015], “the user receiver device further includes a local clock and memory. The memory is adapted to store successive spot beam identifying information that is recorded over time”; PARA[0087]-[0088], “the user receiver device logs in the user receiver device's memory the spot beam identifiers and spot beam centers for successive spot beams… the processor of the user receiver device employs those logged spot beam identifiers and spot beam centers with a beam averaging technique in order to derive a running user receiver device position estimate”) (i.e., the discrete beam-center points bounding the intersection region are stored in memory and updated with each newly received transmission). The polygon vertices under the construction adopted in Claim 7 are stored in memory and updated at the terminal with each newly received transmission.
Kwant further confirms that polygons are stored via their vertex/node data as standard practice in the geographic data processing art (PARA[0076], quoted above).
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the Claim 7 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 20, Gutt in view of Haley and further in view of Kwant and Katz
discloses all the limitations of Claim 14.
The analysis of Claim 7 applies. Gutt discloses the intersection region is approximated as a polygon through the discrete spot-beam center points that characterize and bound the overlapping beam intersection region and are logged in memory over successive transmission (PARA[0047], “ When there is a situation of a user receiver device being located within the intersection of two or more spot beams, the user receiver device's location can be estimated to be at the center of the intersection of the spot beams”; PARA[0087]-[0088], “the user receiver device logs in the user receiver device's memory the spot beam identifiers and spot beam centers for successive spot beams… the processor of the user receiver device employs those logged spot beam identifiers and spot beam centers with a beam averaging technique in order to derive a running user receiver device position estimate”) (i.e., the ordered set of stored boundary defining points forms a polygon approximating the intersection region). Haleys applies the same footprint-intersection concept in the remote transmitter-location context (PARA[0060], “For a given xs(t), the ‘footprint’ of the satellite can be determined. This is the set of position X(t) on the earth from which (in the absence of obstructions) the satellite is visible… This represents the feasible set of choices for the terminal position at time t, i.e. we know that xt ϵ X(t). let X = ∩j X(tj)”) (i.e., the intersection region X which the remote position estimator selects the transmitter’s location). Kwant (PARA[0076], PARA[0066]) and Katz (Claim 6) supply the polygon with ordered vertices representation of the bounded intersection region, quoted above in the rejection of Claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to represent Haley’s
feasible intersection region X at the remote position estimator as a polygon define by ordered vertices per Kwant’s and Katz’s teachings, for the reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7 and incorporated herein by references. The motivation applies with equal force to the remote estimation context because the computational efficiency benefits of polygon representation apply whether the position estimation is performed at the terminal or at the remote satellite or core network entity.
Regarding Claim 21, Gutt in view of Haley and further in view of Kwant and Katz
discloses all the limitations of Claim 20.
Gutt discloses computing a centroid of discrete boundary-defining points (PARA[0048], [0061], quoted above in the rejection of Claim 8), and Kwant discloses determining the location comprises determining a centroid of the polygon (PARA[0034], quoted above in the rejection of Claim 8) (i.e., the polygon centroid computation applied at the remote position estimator to determine the transmitter location under the polygon representation adopted in Claim 20). Katz further confirms this technique in the analogous satellite geolocation context.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent Claim apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 22, Gutt in view of Haley and further in view of Kwant and Katz
discloses all the limitations of Claim 20.
Gutt discloses storing the vertices of the polygon, and updating estimates of the vertices of the polygon with each new received transmission from the transmitter to one of the one or more LEO satellites (PARA[0015], [0087]-[0088], quoted above in the rejection of Claim 9) (i.e., the discrete beam-center points bounding the intersection region are stored in memory and updated with each newly received transmission). The polygon vertices under the construction adopted in Claim 14 are stored in memory and updated at the terminal with each newly received transmission.
Kwant further confirms that polygons are stored via their vertex/node data as standard practice in the geographic data processing art (PARA[0076], quoted above).
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the Claim 20 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 28-31 (apparatus/CRM) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Gutt et al. (US-20130197860-A1) in view of Haley et al. (WO-2017197433-A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Gutt in view of Haley discloses all the limitations of Claim 1
(Claim 28 has a similar scope to Claim 1).
Gutt discloses a terminal for use in a satellite communication system comprising a plurality of LEO satellites, the method comprising: a receiver for receiving one or more transmissions from one or more of the plurality of LEO satellites; and at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the memory is configured to store ephemeris data for the plurality of LEO satellites, and instructions for configuring the at least one processor to perform the recited methods of Claim 1 (PARA[0110], “User receiver device 1600 may include an antenna 1610, a radio frequency (RF) front end and digitizer 1615, a processor 1620, a clock 1630, a memory 1640, and other components 1650”; PARA[0113], “ Processor 1620 may be implemented as one or more processors that may execute appropriate instructions (e.g., software) stored in one or more memories 1640”; also see PARA[0016] (ephemeris/orbital model, quoted above in Claim 1)) (i.e., the terminal’s receiver, processor and memory storing ephemeris and instruction to perform the method).
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the Claim 1 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 29, (Claim 28 has a similar scope to Claim 14).
Haley discloses a computing apparatus in a LEO satellite or network entity of a satellite communication system comprising a plurality of LEO satellites and a plurality of terminals, the computing apparatus comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store ephemeris data for the plurality of LEO satellites, and to store instructions for configuring the at least one processor to: receive a plurality of transmissions from a transmitter; obtain an estimate of a transmission time of each transmission and an ephemeris of each of the plurality of LEO satellites at the transmission time; estimate at least one footprint for each of the plurality LEO satellites from the plurality of transmissions; and determine, at a location remote from the transmitter, a location of the transmitter by estimating an intersection region of each of the estimated footprints. (PARA[0035], “[T]he entire method could be performed at the satellite (estimation of the delay, Doppler or Doppler rate and then position estimation using this information) provided it has sufficient computing and power resources”; PARA[0053], “[T]he term module encompasses hardware such as application specific integrated circuits (ASICs)… or a processor board with a processor and associated memory (on board or operatively linked) storing executable instructions to implement the method”; PARA[0054], “The position estimation processor 40 has available the ephemeris data (orbital elements) pertaining to the low earth orbit satellite 41”) (i.e., a processor and memory located at the satellite or elsewhere in the network, storing ephemeris data and instructions to perform the location-estimation method). All other limitations have the same scope as Claim 14 and is rejected under the same reasoning as mentioned in Claim 14.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the Claim 14 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 30, (Claim 28 has a similar scope to Claim 1).
Gutt discloses a computer readable medium comprising instructions for configuring one or more processors in a terminal to; receive a plurality of transmissions from each of one or more LEO satellites; obtain an estimate of a current time and ephemeris of each of the one or more LEO satellites; estimate at least one footprint for each of the plurality LEO satellites from the plurality of transmissions; and determine a location of the terminal by estimating an intersection region of each of the estimated footprints (PARA[0116], “Software in accordance with the present disclosure, such as program code and/or data, may be stored on one or more computer readable mediums”) (i.e., a computer readable medium storing the method instruction). All other limitations have the same scope as Claim 1 and is rejected under the same reasoning as mentioned in Claim 1.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the Claim 1 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 31, (Claim 28 has a similar scope to Claim 14).
Haley discloses a computer readable medium comprising instructions for configuring one or more processors to receive a plurality of transmissions from a transmitter; obtain an estimate of a transmission time of each transmission and an ephemeris of each of the plurality of LEO satellites at the transmission time; estimate at least one footprint for each of the plurality LEO satellites from the plurality of transmissions; and determine, at a location remote from the transmitter, a location of the transmitter by estimating an intersection region of each of the estimated footprints (PARA[0022], “The method may also be provided in a processor readable medium for confirming a process to perform the method of the first aspect”) (i.e., a processor readable medium storing instructions for performing the remote transmitter location estimation method). All other limitations have the same scope as Claim 14 and is rejected under the same reasoning as mentioned in Claim 14.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of the Claim 14 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 23, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base Claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent from including all of the limitations of the base Claim and any intervening Claims.
Examiner Notes:
Claims 10 and 23 recite calculating the intersection of the new footprint with each line segment defining the polygon and discarding any vertices in an expanded set that lie outside the new footprint. Neither Gutt, Haley, Kwant, nor Katz discloses or suggests this specific line-segment slipping algorithm. Gutt’s beam-averaging technique (PARA[0087]-[0088]) statistically averages stored location estimates rather than performing geometric slipping of maintained polygon boundary. Haley treats the intersection region X = ∩j X(tj) as an abstract mathematical set (PARA[0060]) rather than as a polygon maintained by incremental line-segment clipping. Kwant teaches a different overlap detection algorithm (PARA[0033], “constructing a convex hull of a union of the candidate polygon and another polygon; (2) for each pocket lid of the convex hull, finding the intersection of the polygons that lies within the pocket”); (PARA[0104]-[0106] (which does not calculate intersections of new-footprint boundaries with polygon line segments and does not discard exterior vertices in the manner recited. Katz’s cell are static geographic partitions that are not incrementally clipped)).
Claims 11 and 24 recite storing a circular buffer of the n footprints of the n previously received transmissions, and updating an estimate of the polygon each time a new transmission from one of the one or more LEO satellites using the footprints stored in the circular buffer. Neither Gutt, Haley, Kwant, nor Katz discloses or suggests a fixed-length circular buffer or a rolling window of exactly the n most recently received footprints. Gutt’s memory (PARA[0015], [0087]) stores “successive” spot beam identifying information without limitation to a fixed size or eviction of older entries, Haley’s intersection region X = ∩j X(tj) is defined over all packets j received during a satellite pass without any circular-buffering or time-windowing mechanism, and Kwant’s geographic database stores all polygons statically without any rolling buffer of most recent entries. The specific design choice of maintaining exactly the n most recent footprints and using only those buffered footprints to update the polygon estimate on each transmission is not taught or suggested by the references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to DIKSHYA KANDEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/DIKSHYA KANDEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 8/25/2026
Prosecution Insights