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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 13 April 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 19 and 20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3 March 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberg et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0352971), hereinafter Liberg, in view of Matsumori et al (United States Patent 11677469), hereinafter Matsumori, and Turpin et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0208286), hereinafter Turpin.
Regarding Claim 1, Liberg discloses a receiver system, comprising:
an antenna (Figure 8, antenna 811); and
a processor (Figure 8, processing circuitry 820) configured to:
establish initial contact with a satellite using a wide beam antenna setup for the antenna (paragraphs 0104 and 0106 and 0123-0124 / Figure 7, element 710; the UE makes initial contact with a first cell of a non-terrestrial network (NTN) and is pre-programmed with ephemeris data).
However, while Liberg discloses a plurality of narrow beam antenna setups for the antenna based at least in part on satellite data from the initial contact (paragraphs 0130-0134 / Figure 7, elements 723, 732, 733; based on the UE’s current location and ephemeris data, the UE determines polarization modes and antenna pointing angles in order to search for signals transmitted by the first NTN), Liberg does not disclose wherein the wide beam antenna setup comprises a wide beam cone with a wide beam aperture, and establishing a plurality of narrow beam antenna setups, wherein the narrow beam antenna setups comprise narrow beam cones positioned within the wide beam cone with narrow beam apertures smaller than the wide beam aperture, wherein a narrow beam antenna setup of the plurality of narrow beam antenna setups is used for bidirectional communication, receiving position-navigation-time (PNT) data using the plurality of narrow beam antenna setups, or determin(ing) position coordinates and time information using PNT data received using the plurality of narrow beam antenna setups; and provid(ing) the position coordinates and the time information. In an analogous art, Matsumori discloses this. Specifically, Matsumori discloses a satellite based PNT system where a ground-based terminal performs bidirectional communication with the satellite (Figure 2 – bidirectional links 250A-250E). Further, with reference to Figure 3, Matsumori discloses that the satellite system can transmit optical signals containing PNT information for first, narrow areas over a second, broader area (column 6, line 59-67), where the satellite can vary the beam width in order to allow for either narrower or broader (i.e., wider) beams for carrying the PNT (column 7, lines 13-16). For example, a narrow beam can be used to transmit PNT to a specific group of users or individuals (column 9, lines 49-51). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liberg and Matsumori. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve accuracy and tolerate RF interference (refer to column 4, lines 40-58 of Matsumori).
However, the aforementioned references do not disclose communication with the satellite as the satellite moves. In an analogous art, Turpin discloses this. Specifically, Turpin discloses using narrowband signals to help users of the satellite to help locate and lock onto the satellite for communication purposes (paragraphs 0020 and 0026), where the narrowband signals are received from satellites in orbit (i.e., as the satellite moves) (shown in Figure 4 and described in paragraph 0038). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liberg/Matsumori and Turpin. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a ground station to compute its own location in the event that locating services are offline, jammed, or otherwise unavailable (see paragraph 0011 of Turpin).
Claim 19 is a method comprising the same steps as performed by the receiver in Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasoning as presented above in Claim 1.
Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer instructions to perform the same functions as performed by the receiver in Claim 1. Liberg discloses a device readable medium (Figure 8, 830) storing instructions executed by the processing circuitry (Figure 8, 820), as described in paragraph 0168. Further, Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasoning as presented above in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses the position coordinates and time information are provided to a user (Matsumori at column 9, lines 49-51 - a narrow beam can be used to transmit PNT to a specific group of users or individuals). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Liberg and Matsumori. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve accuracy and tolerate RF interference (refer to column 4, lines 40-58 of Matsumori).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses the plurality of narrow beam antenna setups comprises at least four narrow beam antenna setups (Figure 4B of Liberg, which shows 4 exemplary beam carrier/frequency and polarization modes combinations).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses establishing initial contact comprises receiving the satellite data, wherein the satellite data is for a plurality of satellites (paragraph 0107 of Liberg, wherein the receiver receives data about positions of individual satellites).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses the satellite data comprises one or more of the following: ephemeris data (paragraph 0107 of Liberg, wherein the receiver receives ephemeris data about positions of individual satellites, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), almanac data, first predictive satellite motion models, or second predictive satellite motion models.
Regarding Claim 18, Liberg discloses the antenna comprises an array-fed reflector antenna (paragraph 0158, wherein the antenna can include one or more antennas, or antenna arrays, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), at least one horn antenna, or an array-fed reflector antenna and at least one horn antenna.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberg in view of Matsumori and Turpin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gick et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0350032), hereinafter Gick.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses the limitations of Claim 2, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the position coordinates and time information are provided to the user via a user interface. In an analogous art, Gick discloses this. Specifically, at Figure 9 and paragraph 0061, Gick discloses PNT coordinates are provided to a user interface). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liberg / Matsumori / Turpin and Gick. One would have been motivated to do so in order to process signals that are less susceptible to jamming than wideband signals (paragraph 0009 of Gick).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberg in view of Matsumori and Turpin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farrokhi et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20100283673), hereinafter Farrokhi.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose a narrow beam antenna setup of the plurality of narrow beam antenna setups is configured to receive a signal transmitted at an angle at least 45 degrees above a horizon plane. In an analogous art, Farrokhi discloses this. Specifically, Farrokhi discloses an antenna able to “see” 45 degrees to either side of its horizontal aiming point (paragraph 0068). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combine Liberg/ Matsumori/Turpin with Farrokhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to maintain an up-to-date table of available satellites for positioning information (paragraph 0068 of Farrokhi).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the wide beam antenna setup is configured to receive a signal transmitted at an angle at least 45 degrees above a horizon plane. In an analogous art, Farrokhi discloses this. Specifically, Farrokhi discloses an antenna able to “see” 45 degrees to either side of its horizontal aiming point (paragraph 0068). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combine Liberg/Matsumori/Turpin with Farrokhi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to maintain an up-to-date table of available satellites for positioning information (paragraph 0068 of Farrokhi).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberg in view of Matsumori and Turpin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leiba (United States Patent 10165453). The combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose a narrow beam antenna setup of the plurality of narrow beam antenna setups has a beam angle width of less than 4 degrees. In an analogous art, Leiba discloses this. Specifically, Leiba discloses a beam having a width of less than 4 degrees (column 11, lines 33-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liberg/Matsumori/Turpin with Leiba. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate issues causing by line of sight blockages (column 1, lines 23-30 of Leiba).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberg in view of Matsumori and Turpin as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bush (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20240333398). The combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses the limitations of Claim 8, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the satellite data comprises cryptographic encoding information. In an analogous art, Bush discloses this. Specifically, Bush discloses devices in a wireless communication network receiving quantum encryption keys from a satellite via a quantum channel (paragraph 0068). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liberg/ Matsumori/Turpin with Bush. One would have been motivated to do so in order to restrict eavesdroppers from learning the contents of encrypted messages (paragraph 0048 of Bush).
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberg in view of Matsumori and Turpin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dutta et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20200374976), hereinafter Dutta.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the processor is further configured to determine a direction of an interfering beam. In an analogous art, Dutta discloses this. Specifically, Dutta discloses determining a direction of the source of interference (paragraph 0036). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liberg/Matsumori/Turpin with Dutta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce interference from terrestrial base stations that can affect operation of mobile satellite terminals (paragraph 0006 of Dutta).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori, Turpin, and Dutta further discloses the processor is further configured to generate a spatial null in the direction of the interfering beam (Dutta paragraph 0036, where the DSP Rx subsystem of the satellite terminal generates a spatial null towards the source of interference). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Liberg/Matsumori/Turpin with Dutta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce interference from terrestrial base stations that can affect operation of mobile satellite terminals (paragraph 0006 of Dutta).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori, Turpin, and Dutta further discloses the processor is further configured to generate a plurality of spatial nulls in the direction of a set of strongest interfering beams (Dutta paragraph 0036, wherein the DSP Rx subsystem adaptively points antenna pattern nulls towards the source of the interference). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Liberg/Matsumori/Turpin with Dutta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce interference from terrestrial base stations that can affect operation of mobile satellite terminals (paragraph 0006 of Dutta).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Liberg, Matsumori, Turpin, and Dutta further discloses the direction of the interfering beam is determined based on a scan of received signals (Dutta paragraph 0036, wherein the satellite terminal determines a direction of interference from received signals in order to determine the direction of the interfering beam). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Liberg/Matsumori/Turpin with Dutta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce interference from terrestrial base stations that can affect operation of mobile satellite terminals (paragraph 0006 of Dutta).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberg in view of Matsumori, Turpin and Dutta, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Song et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20250008589), hereinafter Song. The combination of Liberg, Matsumori, Turpin, and Dutta discloses the limitations of Claim 11, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the direction of the interfering beam is received from a database. In an analogous art, Song discloses this. Specifically, Song discloses determining whether a PSS from an NTN base station was detected and storing the determined information (e.g., interfering UE) in an interference management DB (paragraphs 0047-0048 and Figure 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liberg/Matsumori/Turpin/Dutta with Song. One would have been motivated to do so in order to detect and mitigate interference in an NTN network deployment (paragraph 0016 of Song).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberg in view of Matsumori, Turpin and Dutta as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ramabadran et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20250192824), hereinafter Ramabadran. The combination of Liberg, Matsumori, Turpin, and Dutta discloses the limitations of Claim 15, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose generating a spatial null in the direction of a received signal of the scan of received signals and determining whether signal strength of a signal carrying the PNT data improved in response to generating the spatial null. In an analogous art, Ramabadran discloses this. Specifically, Ramabadran discloses determining whether a wideband energy estimate improves after performing a spatial null (paragraph 0097-0098 and Figure 7, steps 708 and 712). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liberg/Matsumori/Turpin/Dutta with Ramabadran. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate the impact of interference on a UE (paragraphs 0021-0022 of Ramabadran).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liberg in view of Matsumori and Turpin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Damnjanovic et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20250126536), hereinafter Damnjanovic. The combination of Liberg, Matsumori and Turpin discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the satellite data, the PNT data, or the satellite data and the PNT data are received from a signal with a frequency of at least 25 GHz. In an analogous art, Damnjanovic discloses satellites communicating via the Ka-band (26.5-40GHz) (paragraph 0089). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liberg/Matsumori/Turpin with Damnjanovic in order to improve throughput in NTN networks (paragraph 0004 of Damnjanovic).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights