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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a predictive calculator processing unit”, “an antenna instruction processing unit”, and “a receiver processing unit” in claim 1, and “a signal gap processing unit” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 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.
As explained above, the claimed “a predictive calculator processing unit”, “an antenna instruction processing unit”, and “a receiver processing unit” in claim 1, and “a signal gap processing unit” in claim 2 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited functions. Figure 1 only shows black boxes for each recited unit. Claims 1 and 2 fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 USC 112(b). Claims 3-14 which depend directly or indirectly on claims 1 and 2 are rejected for the same reason.
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, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silva (US Patent No. 10,483,629).
Regarding claim 15, Silva teaches a method (col. 8, lines 12-16) comprising:
receiving position information of one or more airborne receivers (col. 7, lines 58-67, col. 8, lines 26-45);
determining future position information of the one or more airborne receivers as a function of time based on the received position information (col. 8, lines 37-53);
determining beamforming antenna parameters (col. 8, lines 49-53);
generating beamforming instructions based on the beamforming antenna parameters (col. 8, lines 61-64);
generating a beam at a specified time based on the beamforming instructions to enable communication with at least one of the one or more airborne receivers (col. 8, lines 61-64);
receiving airborne receiver data from the at least one of the one or more airborne receivers (col. 8, line 65-col.9, line 12; col. 8, lines 1-11); and
generating output data based on the airborne receiver data (col. 8, line 12-col.9, line 14, claim 1; e.g., predicted satellite position vector, ranger vector, beamforming parameters, receive and process ephemeris updates, etc.).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 relates to an apparatus including various units configured to perform the method recited in claim 15. As Silva discloses at least a processor unit (110 in Figs. 2a-2c), the processor unit inherently includes various modules that meet the claims units. Silva also discloses a beamforming antenna (130, 140, 340 in Figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Silva discloses that one or more airborne receivers include satellites orbiting earth and their orbital and velocity information (500 in Fig. 2a-2c; col. 3, line 45-col. 4, line 17, col. 7, lines 58-67).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Silva teaches determining the beamforming antenna parameters to enable forming a beam to enable communication with a predetermined number of airborne receivers at the specified time (col. 1, lines 45-59, col. 8, lines 61-64; i.e., enable communication with a satellite in a satellite system is comprised of a plurality of satellites in a constellation).
Regarding claim 9, as explanation applied to claim 15 above, Silva teaches the output data maybe position information such as predicted satellite position vector or ranger vector.
Regarding claims 10, wherein the future position information includes elevation and azimuth information (col. 8, line 51).
Regarding claim 12, wherein at least one of the beamforming antenna parameters and the beamforming instructions include at least one of phase, amplitude, and frequency information for one or more antenna elements of the beamforming antenna (col. 2, lines 41-47, also see claim 1; phased array antenna).
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 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva (US Patent No. 10,483,629).
Regarding claim 7, Silva teaches a satellite system that is comprised of a plurality of satellites in a constellation, but does not specifically the number of airborne receivers (satellites) is at least four. However, it has been held "[W}here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to enable communication with at least four satellites so as to get the optimum performance of the system.
Regarding claim 13, Silva does not mention the one or more of antenna elements of the beamforming antenna comprises three or fewer radiating elements. However, it is known that using more than three radiating elements is restricted by International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Official notice is taken here and this is also confirmed/mentioned in [0013] of the instant specification. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use three or fewer radiating elements so as to comply with the Regulations.
Regarding claim 14, Silva teaches receiving ephemeris updates to determine position (col. 7, lines 58-61, col. 8, lines 37-64), but does mention Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). However, Silva repeatedly mentions GPS (e.g., col. 2, line 54, col. 8, line 33, col. 9, line 67). The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a widely known GNSS owned by the United States government. Official notice is taken here and this is also confirmed/mentioned in [0012] of the instant specification. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize the satellite system of Silva is a GNSS so as to use GPS.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofude et al. (US 2025/0046993, Ofude hereinafter) in view of Silva (US Patent No. 10,483,629).
Regarding claim 15, Ofude teaches a method comprising:
receiving position information of one or more airborne receivers ([0035], S4 in Fig. 6);
determining future position information of the one or more airborne receivers as a function of time based on the received position information ([0036] lines 1-12, S5 in Fig. 6);
determining antenna parameters ([0037]);
generating antenna instructions based on the parameters (lines 1-7 in [0038], S6 in Fig. 6; i.e., speed command);
controlling the antenna orientation toward the direction of one or more the airborne receivers based on the antenna instructions (lines 7-11 in [0038], S7 in Fig. 6);
receiving airborne receiver data from the at least one of the one or more airborne receivers ([0035]; Ofude teaches a satellite tracking method (line 1 in [0004]) that receives position information period periodically (line 8-10 in [0036]); and
generating output data based on the airborne receiver data ([0036-0038]; e.g., future satellite position, antenna prediction value, speed command, etc.).
Ofude teaches controlling the orientation of the antenna by mechanically rotating the motors of the antenna ([0038], but does not mention controlling orientation by beamforming.
Silva teaches a hybrid type antenna that have transmit and receive beamforming capabilities and mechanical steering (col. 9, lines 37-39). The orientation of the antenna may be controlled by:
determining beamforming antenna parameters based on future position of the airborne receiver (col. 8, lines 49-53);
generating beamforming instructions based on the beamforming antenna parameters (col. 8, lines 61-64);
generating a beam at a specified time based on the beamforming instructions to enable communication with at least one of the one or more airborne receivers (col. 8, lines 61-64).
It is known beamforming provides high gain in the desired direction. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the antenna orientation by the beamforming steps taught by Silva in the system of Ofude so as to maximize transmit/receive efficiency.
Regarding claim 1, Ofude/Silva teaches a predictive calculator unit (3022 in Fig. 4 of Ofude), an antenna instruction processing unit (303 in Fig. 3 of Ofude), a beamforming antenna (305 in Fig. 3 of Ofude, 130 and 140 in Fig. 2a of Silva) and a receiver processing unit (302 in Fig. 3 of Ofude) to perform the method steps of claim 15.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Silva discloses that one or more airborne receivers include satellites orbiting earth and their orbital and velocity information (500 in Fig. 2a-2c; col. 3, line 45-col. 4, line 17, col. 7, lines 58-67) and Ofude teaches that the satellite is in a GNSS ([0029]).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Silva teaches determining the beamforming antenna parameters to enable forming a beam to enable communication with a predetermined number of airborne receivers at the specified time (col. 1, lines 45-59, col. 8, lines 61-64; i.e., enable communication with a satellite in a satellite system is comprised of a plurality of satellites in a constellation).
Regarding claim 7, Ofude disclose a plurality of first and second satellites, (Fig. 1) and Silva teaches a satellite system that is comprised of a plurality of satellites in a constellation, but Ofude/Silva do not specifically the number of airborne receivers (satellites) is at least four. However, it has been held "[W}here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to enable communication with at least four satellites so as to get optimum performance of the system.
Regarding claim 9, as explanation applied to claim 15 above, Ofude teaches the output data maybe future position information.
Regarding claims 10, wherein the future position information includes elevation and azimuth information (col. 8, line 51 in Silva).
Regarding claim 12,Silva teaches that at least one of the beamforming antenna parameters and the beamforming instructions include at least one of phase, amplitude, and frequency information for one or more antenna elements of the beamforming antenna (col. 2, lines 41-47, also see claim 1; phased array antenna).
Regarding claim 13, Ofude/Silva do not mention the one or more of antenna elements of the beamforming antenna comprises three or fewer radiating elements. However, it is known that using more than three radiating elements is restricted by International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Official notice is taken here and this is also confirmed/mentioned in [0013] of the instant specification. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use three or fewer radiating elements so as to comply with the Regulations.
Regarding claim 14, Ofude discloses calculating future position of a satellite in GNSS from past satellite position information and the latest satellite position information ([0029] and lines 6-12 in [0036]). Silva teaches receiving ephemeris updates to determine position (col. 7, lines 58-61, col. 8, lines 37-64). The combined teaching would meet the claimed GNSS almanac.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 17, 19 and 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hsiung (US 6,377,211), Mitola, III (US 2014/0266872), McNabb et al. (US 6,016,120), Saldanha Trvarea (US 12,461,250), Reis (US2021/0258775) and Chang (US 2012/051284) all relate to controlling antenna directions and satellite position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chieh M Fan whose telephone number is (571)272-3042. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00 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.
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.
/CHIEH M FAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2632