This invention relates to Air-To-Ground (ATG) communications and, in particular, to a communication system that provides communication devices, which are served by a communication network located on an aircraft, with high speed Air-To-Ground communications service by the reuse of the radio frequency spectrum presently used by Geostationary Satellite Services extant in the volume of space in which the aircraft operates.
It is a problem in the field of Air-To-Ground (ATG) communications, such as between aircraft and ATG ground stations, to provide sufficient bandwidth to carry the communications between the communication devices, which are served by a communication network (wired or wireless) located on the aircraft, and ATG ground stations which are connected to terrestrial communication networks. The collection of ATG ground stations used for this purpose implement a traditional cellular network, with each ATG ground station consisting of a “cell site.” There are limited choices of spectrum which are available for this purpose, which choices are also limited by the ability to implement the corresponding radio frequency antennas on the aircraft.
The typical ATG cellular communications network consists of a number of terrestrial (ground) ATG base stations, each of which provides a radio frequency coverage area in a predetermined volume of space, radially arranged around the cell site transmitting and receiving antennas. This terrestrial base station uses antenna patterns which are less sensitive to the reception of ground-originating or ground-reflected signals and which antenna patterns are primarily focused on the area between the horizon and zenith. The terrestrial base stations are geographically distributed, generally following a typical cellular communications network layout. Terrestrial base stations can also be co-located near airports to enable network coverage when aircraft are on the ground; in this case, the antenna patterns are optimized for terrestrially-located aircraft. The boundaries of the coverage area of each terrestrial base station are substantially contiguous with that of neighboring sites so that the composite coverage of all of the terrestrial base stations in the ATG cellular communications network generally provides coverage over the targeted area. Terrestrial base stations may provide either a single omni-cell of coverage using transceiver(s) associated with a single transmit-and-receive antenna system or multiple sectors within the area of coverage of the site, each with associated transceivers and the associated transmit-and-receive antennas. The advantage of the latter arrangement, with multiple sectors per terrestrial base station, is to allow provision of increased call and data traffic handling capacity in the coverage area of that terrestrial base station.
The present radio frequency spectrum which is available for this purpose limits the total available traffic handling capacity in any single cell. Thus, the radio frequency communications link between the aircraft and the terrestrial base stations of the ATG cellular communications network has limited capacity and, as passengers utilize the aircraft network for Internet browsing and broadband file downloads, the channel capacity becomes exhausted before the demand is served in its entirety. More advantageous spectrum choices are presently unavailable, because they are dedicated for pre-existing uses, such as satellite communications.
The above-described problems are solved and a technical advance achieved in the field by the present Spectrum Sharing Between An Aircraft-Based Air-To-Ground Communication System And Existing Geostationary Satellite Services (termed “Spectrum Sharing System” herein) which implements spectrum reuse between aircraft-based Air-To-Ground (ATG) communication systems and Geostationary Satellite Service systems. This is accomplished by managing the radio frequency transmissions in the volume of space in which the aircraft operates, with interference between the Spectrum Sharing System and the Geostationary Satellite Service system being reduced by implementing reversed uplink and downlink radio frequency paths in the common spectrum. The Spectrum Sharing System also avoids interfering with Geostationary Satellite Services' earth stations which are pointed towards the satellites' orbital arc by relying upon a combination of the earth stations' highly directive antenna patterns and the Spectrum Sharing System ground station antenna pattern, and to avoid interfering with satellites in their orbital arc by assuring that power levels radiated in that direction by the Spectrum Sharing System ground stations are below the level that would create interference.
The present Spectrum Sharing System thereby provides increased bandwidth to provide communication devices, which are served by a communication network located on an aircraft, with high speed Air-To-Ground communications service, since the selected frequencies provide greater bandwidth than those presently in use in ATG communications or can be used to supplement the ATG frequencies presently in use. Interference between the Spectrum Sharing System and the Geostationary Satellite Service system is reduced by implementing reversed uplink and downlink radio frequency paths in the common spectrum. Furthermore, one of the conditions for mitigation of interference between the two systems is that the transmission of the Spectrum Sharing System ground station is outside of the main beams of the Geostationary Satellite Service earth station antennas. This means that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the Spectrum Sharing System ground station needs to be transmitting in a southerly direction into the back lobe of the earth station antenna of the Geostationary Satellite Service system, which is transmitting in a southerly direction toward the Geostationary satellites; and in the Southern Hemisphere, the Spectrum Sharing System ground station needs to be transmitting in the northerly direction into the back lobe of the earth station antenna of the Geostationary Satellite Service system, which is transmitting in a northerly direction toward the Geostationary satellites.
As shown in
Radio Frequency Spectrum Sharing Plan
Interference from the Spectrum Sharing System 11 to the Geostationary Satellite Service system 13 is more significant than the interference in the opposite direction due to the differences in signal power and the highly directional antenna patterns used in the Geostationary Satellite Service system 13. There are two primary cases of this interference between Spectrum Sharing System 11 and Geostationary Satellite Service system 13 as is illustrated in
Interference Between Spectrum Sharing System and the Geostationary Satellite Service
The interference in Case 1, where the aircraft radio frequency transmissions on frequency F2 interfere with the satellite received radio frequency signals, is relatively low. On the ground, Geostationary Satellite Service signals on frequency F1 are extremely weak unless received by an accurately pointed high gain antenna, such as that used by the earth station 13G of the Geostationary Satellite Service system 13. Geostationary Satellite Service earth station antennas are usually high gain antennas that radiate only through a very narrow beam upwardly directed toward the satellite 14 with which the Geostationary Satellite Service earth station 13G communicates. With a minimum precaution in the location of the Spectrum Sharing System ground stations 11G, this interference can be easily avoided.
From the interference mitigation standpoint, use of antennas with highly discriminating patterns on both ends of the Spectrum Sharing System spectrum would be highly beneficial. Additional techniques that may be used for interference mitigation are:
As an example, when viewed from the continental US, the orbit of a geostationary satellite is in a southerly direction. All of the Geostationary Satellite Service earth station antennas, therefore, are pointing towards the south. Depending on the latitude of the earth station, only a portion of the geostationary arc of the satellite is visible. The situation is illustrated in
Consider an earth station at the latitude/longitude location given by a pair of coordinates (LES, lES). Coordinate LES is the earth station latitude, while lES is the earth station longitude. Using simple geometry, one can easily demonstrate the following relationships:
Quantities AZE and AZW are azimuth angles from the earth station towards far east and far west points on the visible portion of the geostationary arc. These two angles provide maximum theoretical range of directions where the earth station antenna may point. In practical scenarios, the range is always narrower than what is provided by equations (3) and (4).
As an illustration, Table 1 provides values for lE, lW, AZE, and AZW for two earth stations. The first one is located in Melbourne, Fla., while the second one is in Chicago, Ill. In the Melbourne area, the azimuth for the earth station antennas must fall within the range of from 95.51° to 273.49°. For the Chicago earth stations, the pointing range extends from 99.33° to 269.67°.
Referring back to the radio frequency reuse scenario presented in
The power spectrum density of the interference from the Spectrum Sharing System ground station transmission at the back lobe of the earth station antenna may be calculated as:
SI=SATGGATG(θ)−PLdB=EiRP/W−PLdB (6)
One may assume that the impact of the Spectrum Sharing System ground station transmission becomes negligible when the SI in equation (6) falls below the noise floor by a certain threshold. That is:
EiRP/W[dBm/MHz]≦10 log(kT)+PLdB−TdB+90 (7)
Table 2 is generated using equation (7) and assuming TdB=3 dB. The table specifies the maximum Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EiRP) per MHz allowed for the ground-to-air transmission. The use of the table is illustrated through a following simple example.
Consider a Spectrum Sharing System ground station in a location that is 20 km away from the closest Geostationary Satellite Service earth station. The allowed ground station power spectrum density is 23 dBm/MHz (i.e., 200 mW/MHz). Assuming the Spectrum Sharing System uplink operation is 20 MHz of the spectrum, the overall EiRP is 36.04 dBm (4 W).
(*)The EiRP values are calculated assuming 20 MHz channel
Based on Table 2, the allowed power spectral density for Spectrum Sharing System uplink transmission is relatively low. The table assumes that there is no additional attenuation from the back lobe of the earth station antennas. Also, the table is derived assuming no discrimination from the Spectrum Sharing System ground station antenna. In the practical implementation, these additional factors should be evaluated on the basis of required data rates and Spectrum Sharing System cell site link budgets.
Evaluation of the Interference from Aircraft-Based Transmissions to the Satellite Receiver
From the standpoint of the satellite receiver, the energy transmitted from the Spectrum Sharing System aircraft adds to the noise temperature of the satellite receiver antenna. The satellite receiver antenna is pointing toward the earth, which has a nominal noise temperature of 290K. Therefore, as long as the power spectrum density produced by the Spectrum Sharing System aircraft transmission is significantly smaller than the power spectrum density of the thermal noise generated by the earth's radiation, the impact of the spectrum sharing is negligible. The power spectral density of the Spectrum Sharing System aircraft transmission depends on the EiRP of the aircraft, the bandwidth of the Spectrum Sharing System service, and the number of aircraft that are operating at any given time within the main beam of the satellite antenna.
The power spectral density of the thermal noise received by the satellite antenna may be calculated as:
The power spectral density of the interference to the satellite receiver that is caused by the transmission from the Spectrum Sharing System aircraft may be estimated as:
Where n is the number of aircraft within the main beam of the satellite antenna, SA is the radiated power spectral density of a single aircraft and the Free Space Path Loss (FSPL) in the linear domain.
By converting equation (9) into log domain, one obtains:
NA[dBW/Hz]=10 log(n)+SA[dBW/Hz]−FSPLdB (10)
Let TdB be a threshold value that specifies the difference between the power spectral densities of thermal noise and the interference caused by operating Spectrum Sharing System aircraft. In other words:
TdB=N0[dBW/Hz]−NA[dBW/Hz] (11)
By combining equations (10) and (11), one obtains the limit on transmit power spectrum density of a single aircraft:
SA[dBm/MHz]=N0[dBW/Hz]+FSPLdB−10 log(n)−TdB+90 (12)
Equation (12) is used to generate the family of curves presented in
Use of the Curves in
Consider a case when the Spectrum Sharing System is operating on 1,000 aircraft within the volume of space covered by the satellite receiver antenna. Assume that the protection threshold is set to Tadd=20 dB, and that all of the aircraft are in the main beam of the satellite receiver antenna. According to
One point to note is that the presented analysis is on the worst case side. There are additional factors that would reduce the interference from the Spectrum Sharing System aircraft to the satellite receiver. Some of those factors, which were neglected in the analysis, may be listed as follows:
Spectrum sharing between the Spectrum Sharing System and the Geostationary Satellite Service is possible. However, to make the sharing technically feasible, careful management of the interference between the Spectrum Sharing System ground station and the Geostationary Satellite Service earth station receiver side is required.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3659085 | Potter et al. | Apr 1972 | A |
4115777 | Taylor | Sep 1978 | A |
4654867 | Labedz et al. | Mar 1987 | A |
5042027 | Takase et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5123112 | Choate | Jun 1992 | A |
5212804 | Choate | May 1993 | A |
5408515 | Bhagat et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5432841 | Rimer | Jul 1995 | A |
5459469 | Schuchman et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5519761 | Gilhousen | May 1996 | A |
5543779 | Aspesi et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5555444 | Diekelman et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5590395 | Diekelman | Dec 1996 | A |
5651050 | Bhagat et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5659304 | Chakraborty | Aug 1997 | A |
5678174 | Tayloe | Oct 1997 | A |
5740535 | Rune | Apr 1998 | A |
5754959 | Ueno et al. | May 1998 | A |
5805683 | Berberich, Jr. | Sep 1998 | A |
5822680 | Stuart et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5826188 | Tayloe et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832380 | Ray et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5848359 | Furtaw | Dec 1998 | A |
5887258 | Lemozit et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5950129 | Schmid et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5956644 | Miller et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5995805 | Ogasawara et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5995833 | Zicker | Nov 1999 | A |
6002944 | Beyda | Dec 1999 | A |
6009330 | Kennedy, III et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6040781 | Murray | Mar 2000 | A |
6055425 | Sinivaara | Apr 2000 | A |
6104926 | Hogg et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6144338 | Davies | Nov 2000 | A |
6195529 | Linz et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6263206 | Potochniak et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263371 | Geagan, III et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6304762 | Myers et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314286 | Zicker | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6317435 | Tiedemann, Jr. et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324398 | Lanzerotti et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6353734 | Wright et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6392692 | Monroe | May 2002 | B1 |
6393281 | Capone et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6418327 | Carey et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430412 | Hogg et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6545601 | Monroe | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6546426 | Post | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6567052 | Wang et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6570851 | Koskelainen et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6577419 | Hall et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6580915 | Kroll | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6615052 | Parmenter | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6690928 | Konishi et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6735438 | Sabatino | May 2004 | B1 |
6735500 | Nicholas et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6735633 | Welch et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6741841 | Mitchell | May 2004 | B1 |
6754489 | Roux | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757712 | Bastian et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6760778 | Nelson et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6788935 | McKenna et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6799037 | Mielke et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6880750 | Pentel | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6889042 | Rousseau et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6892068 | Karabinis et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6944169 | Yoshizawa et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
7050755 | Kline | May 2006 | B2 |
7062268 | McKenna | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7107062 | Cruz et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7280535 | Bergman et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7346677 | Mohaban et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
8060083 | Malosh | Nov 2011 | B2 |
20020010633 | Brotherston | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020045444 | Usher et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020059614 | Lipsanen et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020090931 | Papineau et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020123344 | Criqui et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020155833 | Borel | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030032426 | Gilbert et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046701 | O'Donnell | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030050746 | Baiada et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055975 | Nelson et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030084108 | Syed | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093187 | Walker | May 2003 | A1 |
20030103521 | Raphaeli et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20040063433 | Garrison | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040102156 | Loner | May 2004 | A1 |
20040137840 | La Chapelle et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040142658 | McKenna et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040203918 | Moriguchi et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050053026 | Mullan et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050071076 | Baiada et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050216938 | Brady et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050221875 | Grossman et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060009262 | Hamm | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060048196 | Yau | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060064746 | Aaron et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060199532 | Soliman | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20070021117 | McKenna et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070042772 | Salkini et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070064604 | Chen et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070087756 | Hoffberg | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070105600 | Mohanty et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070161347 | Ma et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070274294 | Sasaki et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070281682 | Raju et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080070601 | Brueckheimer et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080090546 | Dickinson et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080274734 | Kostanic et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090016339 | Tanizawa et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20100013703 | Tekawy et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO-0146822 | Jun 2001 | WO |
WO-2006128946 | Dec 2006 | WO |
WO-2008048742 | Apr 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 07/847,920, Final Office Action dated Aug. 22, 1995, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 07/847,920, Final Office Action dated Mar. 21, 1996, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated Mar. 27, 1996, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 07/847,920, Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 27, 1995, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated May 24, 1995, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 07/847,920, Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 27, 1994, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated May 31, 1994, No. of pages unknown; and supplemental response dated Sep. 20, 1994, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 07/847,920, Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 30, 1993, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated Oct. 26, 1993, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 08/027,333, Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 24, 1994, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated Dec. 22, 1994, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 08/709,417, Final Office Action dated Jun. 11, 1998, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated Aug. 3, 1998, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 08/709,417, Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 18, 1998, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated Apr. 20, 1998, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 08/960,183, Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 5, 1999, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 08/960,183, Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 5, 1999, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated Dec. 6, 1999, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 09/379,825, Non-Final Office Action dated May 11, 2001, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated May 29, 2001, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 09/686,923, Final Office Action dated Dec. 2, 2003, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated Jan. 9, 2004, No. of pages unknown; and supplemental response dated Feb. 20, 2004, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 09/686,923, Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 8, 2003, No. of pages unknown; and corresponding response dated Sep. 29, 2003, No. of pages unknown. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 10/730,329, Final Office Action dated Nov. 25, 2005, 16 pages; and corresponding response dated Jan. 25, 2006, 32 pages; supplemental response dated Feb. 17, 2006, 31 pages; supplemental response dated Feb. 17, 2006, 28 pages; supplemental response dated Mar. 27, 2006, 21 pages; and supplemental response dated Apr. 14, 2006, 21 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 10/730,329, Final Office Action dated Nov. 25, 2005, 16 pages; corresponding response dated Jan. 25, 2006, 32 pages; supplemental response dated Feb. 17, 2006, 31 pages; additional supplemental response dated Mar. 27, 2006, 21 pages; and additional supplemental response with RCE dated Apr. 14, 2006, 21 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 10/730,329, Non-Final Office Action dated May 18, 2005, 9 pages; and corresponding response dated Aug. 18, 2005, 34 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 11/492,545, Final Office Action dated Dec. 19, 2008, 18 pages; and corresponding response dated Jan. 27, 2009, 34 pages; and supplemental response dated Apr. 17, 2009, 35 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 11/492,545, Final Office Action dated Nov. 19, 2009, 19 pages; and corresponding response dated Feb. 9, 2010, 15 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 11/492,545, Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 7, 2008, 19 pages; and corresponding response dated Oct. 10, 2008, 29 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 11/492,545, Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 10, 2009, 20 pages; and corresponding response dated Sep. 3, 2009, 32 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 11/590,146, Final Office Action dated Mar. 31, 2009, 9 pages; and corresponding response dated May 29, 2009, 16 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 11/590,146, Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 24, 2008, 12 pages; and corresponding response dated Jan. 29, 2009, 13 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 12/021,133, Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 18, 2009, 14 pages; and corresponding response dated Sep. 9, 2009, 19 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 12/137,995, Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 27, 2011, 14 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 12/182,834, Final Office Action dated Nov. 20, 2009, 8 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 12/182,834, Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 8, 2011, 8 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 12/182,834, Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 8, 2009, 13 pages; and response dated Sep. 14, 2009, 11 pages. |
Casewell, I.E.; “The Provision of GSM Cellular Radio Environments With Passenger Aircraft Operating Over Europe”; IEEE Fifth International Conference; Dec. 11-14, 1989; pp. 172-176. |
International Search Report issued Jul. 17, 2009 in co-pending application PCT/US2009/042788. |
Li et al.; “Airborne Operation of Portable Electronic Devices”; IEEE Antenna's and Propagation Magazine; vol. 44, No. 4; Aug. 2002; pp. 30-39. |
Papavramidis et al.; “Adaptation of Land Mobile Systems for Onboard Operation”; IEEE Conference; 1993; pp. 258-263. |
Uhlirz; “Concept of a GSM-based Communication System for High-Speed Trains”; 1994 IEEE 44th Vehicular Technology Conference; Stockholm; Jun. 8-10, 1994; pp. 1130-1134. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 11/590,146, Final Office Action dated Mar. 15, 2009, 18 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 11/590,146, Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 15, 2009, 16 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 12/060,645, Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 2, 2012, 10 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 12/137,995, Final Office Action dated Nov. 30, 2011, 17 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 13/009,579, Final Office Action dated Jul. 3, 2012, 7 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 13/009,579, Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 23, 2012, 6 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 13/009,687, Final Office Action dated Jul. 17, 2012, 8 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 13/009,687, Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 22, 2012, 5 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 13/224,564, Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 2, 2012, 8 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 13/227,634, Final Office Action dated Mar. 6, 2012, 7 pages. |
In the US Patent and Trademark Office in re: U.S. Appl. No. 13/227,634, Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 29, 2011, 13 pages. |
International Search Report issued Aug. 24, 2012, in co-pending application PCT/US2012/044266, 5 pages. |
International Search Report issued Mar. 21, 2012, in co-pending application PCT/US2011/068110, 4 pages. |
Nia et al.; “High Altitude Platform System (HAPS) and Co-existence with Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) in Frequency Range 5850-7075 MHz,” Wireless Communication, Vehicular Technology, Information Theory and Aerospace & Electronic Systems Technology (Wireless Vitae), 2011 2nd International Conference, 2011; pp. 1-6. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110263199 A1 | Oct 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10730329 | Dec 2003 | US |
Child | 11492545 | US | |
Parent | 13172539 | US | |
Child | 11492545 | US | |
Parent | 10730329 | Dec 2003 | US |
Child | 12423555 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12137995 | Jun 2008 | US |
Child | 13172539 | US | |
Parent | 11492545 | Jul 2006 | US |
Child | 12137995 | US | |
Parent | 12423555 | Apr 2009 | US |
Child | 13172539 | US |