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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 9/25/2024 and 1/23/2025 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/25/2024 are accepted.
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 1-24 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, each states “determine whether there exists a current need to decide at least one target beam”. It is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by “decide at least one target beam”. This seems to be a borderline abstract idea, like “thinking about a decision” but not actually performing the step of the decision, but this could simply be due to the confusion in “decide at least one target beam”. Accordingly, it is not clear to the Examiner what step is actually occurring.
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine whether there exists a current need to decide at least one target beam” could simply be there is no need. Continuing, “determining whether a current satellite trajectory information is expired to decide whether to generate a current satellite trajectory information estimate” could be yes or no because it is not clear to the Examiner which answer leads to the generation of “a current satellite trajectory information estimate”.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 are rejected for being dependent upon, inheriting and failing to correct the deficiencies of claims 1 and 13.
With specific note to claims 3 and 15, it is additionally unclear what is meant by “when there does not exist a current need to decide the at least one target beam” as similarly discussed above in regards to claims 1 and 13.
With specific note to claims 9 and 21, it is additionally unclear what is meant by “when there exists a current need to decide the at least one target beam” as similarly discussed in regard to claims 1 and 13. Claims 10-12 and 22-24 are additionally rejected for being dependent upon, inheriting and failing to correct the deficiencies of claims 9 and 21.
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, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haley et al. (US-10,601,497 hereinafter, Haley).
Regarding claim 1, Haley teaches a communication method used in a user terminal (Abstract), the communication method comprising:
determining whether there exists a current need to decide at least one target beam to determine whether to receive a satellite payload communication signal from a satellite payload by the at least one target beam; (Col. 19 lines 35-50) and
determining whether a current satellite trajectory information is expired to decide whether to generate a current satellite trajectory information estimate, (Col. 19 lines 45-47)
wherein, the user terminal controls an antenna of the user terminal to communicate with the satellite payload. (Col. 15 lines 44-52)
Regarding claim 2, Haley teaches when the current satellite trajectory information is expired (Col. 9 lines 60-66), generating a current satellite trajectory information estimate and a confidence of the current satellite trajectory information estimate. (Col. 10 lines 22-31 and Col. 19 lines 51-64)
Regarding claim 4, Haley teaches wherein determining whether the current satellite trajectory information is expired comprises:
determining whether a signal-to-noise ratio of the current satellite trajectory information is less than a signal-to-noise ratio threshold; or
determining that the current satellite trajectory information cannot be smoothly interpreted; (Col. 9 lines 60-64) or
in case that the current satellite trajectory information is smoothly interpreted by the user terminal, a difference between the current satellite trajectory information and a historical satellite trajectory information previously obtained is greater than a threshold.
Regarding claim 6, Haley teaches determining whether there exists a current need to receive the satellite payload communication signal. (Col. 19 lines 35-42)
Regarding claim 8, Haley teaches wherein the user terminal determines whether there exists a current need to decide the at least one target beam within a specified period. (Fig. 2A [220, 222 and 225 or No] and Col. 19 lines 35-39)
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1. Additional structure can be seen in Fig. 4 – communication device [10], antenna Fig. 4 and Col. 15 line 34, radio frequency module coupled to the antenna to control the antenna (Fig. 4 [410] and Col. 15 lines 44-52), baseband module (Col. 15 lines 44-52 and Fig. 4 [410/412/414/416]).
Regarding claims 14, 16, 18 and 20, the limitations of claims 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 2, 4, 6 and 8.
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.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haley in view of Rothaar et al. (US-2019/0379446 hereinafter, Rothaar).
Regarding claim 5, Haley teaches the limitations of claim 1 above including GPS information by the user terminal (Col. 5 lines 37-51) through a downlink signal or a terrestrial network (Col. 5 lines 37-51), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting obtaining a two-line element set (TLE) information from the satellite payload through a downlink signal or a terrestrial network.
In an analogous art, Rothaar teaches a beam splitting handoff system for tracking satellites (Abstract) that includes receiving GPS location information (Page 7 [0088]) and TLE data for predicting satellite position (Page 3 [0039] and Page 5 [0064]) and obtained from the satellite. (Page 5 [0069])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Haley after modifying it to incorporate the ability to receive TLE and GPS data from a satellite of Rothaar since it enables recognizing where an antenna beam should point in order to receive the incoming satellite signal with minimal interruption. (Rothaar Page 5 [0069])
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-10,483,629 to Silva which discloses an antenna beam pointing system for communicating with satellites.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights