Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/869,212

SATELLITE MODEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 25, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, HOANG V
Art Unit
2845
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fleet Space Technologies Pty Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
1248 granted / 1374 resolved
+22.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1398
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
44.9%
+4.9% vs TC avg
§102
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§112
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1374 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Objections Claims 5 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, line 2, the term “polarized” should be “polarized”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 15, line 2, the term “antennae” should be “antennas”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abdullah et al, hereinafter Abdullah, (“An Improved S-Band CubeSat Communication Subsystem Design and Implementation”, IEEE Access, Vol 9, 2021, 17 March 2021, pages 45123-45136). (Applicant’s cited prior art). Regarding claim 1, Abdulla (Figures 2 and 3) teaches a satellite modem (CubeSat) comprising: a housing (section II, implicitly taught that CubeSat has a housing); a processor (Figure 2, FPGA board) in the housing; a memory (Figure 2, FPGA board, sections II & V) in the housing and accessible by the processor; a communications module (RF board, section V) in the housing and responsive to the processor to communicate with a local external device; an antenna mounting structure (Figure 2, antenna boards connected to power board) mounted in the housing; a transmit patch antenna (Figure 3, section III) disposed on the antenna mounting structure and configured to transmit uplink data from the local external device to a satellite; a receive patch antenna (Figure 3, section III) disposed on the antenna mounting structure and configured to receive downlink data from the satellite; and a power input connection (Figure 2, power amplifier) on the housing to receive power from an external power source and to supply power from the external power source to the processor, the communications module, the transmit patch antenna, and the receive patch antenna, wherein the transmit patch antenna and the receive patch antenna are configured to have a passive gain of 3.0 to 5.5 dBi (Tables 1 and 3), and wherein the processor is configured to operate the transmit patch antenna and the receive patch antenna in full duplex (inherently taught with multiple antenna configuration). Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Abdullah (abstract, lines 9-11) teaches that the transmit patch antenna is configured to operate at a different frequency range to the receive patch antenna. Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Abdullah (section II, lines 6-7) wherein the transmit patch antenna and the receive patch antenna are right hand polarised. Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Abdullah (section II, lines 9-10) teaches that the transmit patch antenna is configured to operate in the band 2.2GHz to 2.29 GHz which is in at least one of an L band and an S band frequency range. Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Abdullah (section II, line 8) teaches that the receive patch antenna is configured to operate in the band 2.025 GHz to 2.11 GHz which is in an S band frequency range. Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Abdullah (Figure 6) teaches that the transmit patch antenna and the receive patch antenna are printed onto the antenna mounting structure. Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, Abdullah (Figure 3A) teaches that the transmit patch antenna and the receive patch antenna have an approximate square shape. Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, Abdullah (abstract, line 6) teaches that the transmit patch antenna and the receive patch antenna are passive antennas. Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 1, Abdullah (Figure 2, section V) further teaches a signal generator (RF board) configured to generate a radiofrequency signal, and an up- converter (RF board) to shift the generated radiofrequency signal from a first transmit band to a higher second transmit band. Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 1, Abdullah (Figure 2, section V) further teaches a down-converter (RF board) to shift a received radiofrequency signal from a first receive band to a lower second receive band, and a demodulator (RF board) to demodulate the shifted received radiofrequency signal. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 3, 4, 8, 11-14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdullah. Regarding claim 3, Abdullah teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, wherein the transmit patch antenna is configured to operate at a frequency range of about 2.2 GHz to 2.29 GHz instead of 1970 MHz to about 2010 MHz. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for a skilled artisan to configure the transmit patch antenna to operate at a frequency of 1970 MHz to about 2010 MHz to satisfy a specific application. Regarding claim 4, Abdullah teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, wherein the receive patch antenna is configured to operate at a frequency range of about 2.025 GHz to 2.11 GHz instead of 2170 MHz to about 2200 MHz. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for a skilled artisan to configure the receive patch antenna to operate at a frequency of 2170 MHz to about 2200 MHz to satisfy a specific application. Regarding claim 8, Abdullah teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, wherein the transmit patch antenna and the receive patch antenna are formed of substrate Rogers RO4003C. Abdullah does not explicitly mention that the substrate is a hydrocarbon ceramic laminate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the transmit patch antenna and the receive patch antenna are formed of a hydrocarbon ceramic laminate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding claims 11 and 13, Abdullah teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 10, except explicitly mention that two opposing corners of the approximate square shape of the transmit patch antenna and receive patch antenna are cut off at a 450 angle resulting in opposing cut edges, and wherein the cut edges have a length of about 4.525 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to cut off the two opposing corners of the approximate square shape of the transmit patch antenna at a certain angle wherein the cut edges have a length of about 4.525 mm in order to accommodate space for coupling fasteners or bolts. Regarding claim 12, Abdullah teaches the claimed invention except explicitly mention that the transmit patch antenna has a length and a width of 38.9mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the dimension of the transmit patch antenna to have a length and a width of 38.9mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 14, Abdullah teaches the claimed invention except explicitly mention that the receive patch antenna has a length and a width of 35.45mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the dimension of the receive patch antenna to have a length and a width of 35.45mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 18, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to also include a global positioning system (GPS) module in the housing and responsive to the processor to allow the processor to determine a geospatial position of the satellite modem. Regarding claim 19, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the housing to include a base and a cover coupled to the base, and mounting feet for mounting the housing to an external surface. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Torabi et al (US 2019/0097299) discloses a satellite modem and antenna assembly. Winfield et al (US 2017/0041088) discloses a satellite modem and antenna system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. 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. /HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 25, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603423
Radome Design
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597716
ANTENNA MODULE FOR A DEVICE IN MOTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597693
ROOF ANTENNA MODULE COMPRISING A SPECIFIC COOLING OF A CONTROL DEVICE ON A VEHICLE ROOF, ARRANGEMENT, MOTOR VEHICLE, AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597699
ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING ANTENNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586913
WAVEGUIDE ANTENNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.3%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1374 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month