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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 14, 2026 has been entered.
Examiner Note
Sometimes the specification refers to “evenly-sized” tiles and other times it refers to “evenly-spaced” tiles. The examiner believes that both are referring to the same tiles (otherwise, there could be new matter issue because the amendments recite “spaced,” but the identified support recites “sized.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the double patenting rejection.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
103
Applicant argues:
In other words, Imig does not appear to disclose that different models may have corresponding "reference embeddings" that take the form of image embeddings-e.g., representing image tiles that the models were trained on and/or image tiles in which the models previously recognized objects of interest.
Examiner responds:
Racz is applied for this new feature.
Applicant argues:
Furthermore, while these feature vectors are input to a classifier, it would seem that feature vectors for every tile are input to the classifier.
Examiner responds:
Racz, claim 4, is explicit that only a subset are used. Additionally, one could imagine other tiles that exist solely to be unused, and this appears to meet the claim.
The examiner appreciates Applicant’s explanation of the differences over the FedSpace reference. This persuaded the examiner not to apply FedSpace as a reference.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 (all claims) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Applications No. 18/203,535 and 18/203,567 in view of the prior art as applied below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Both the pending claims and the conflicting applications are all directed to prioritization/orchestration of models for data on satellites in orbit. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in any of the conflicting patents are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the below prior art with any of the conflicting patents in for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 (all claims) 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.
Claims 1, 14, and 17 recite “image embeddings corresponding to … .” This raises two issues. First, “corresponding to” is subjective in that different people can have different opinions about whether a given embedding corresponds to particular imagery. Second, the imagery is defined based on something that occurred outside of (i.e., before) the claim language, and thus is best understood as a product-by-process claim. MPEP 2113. However, it is not clear what structural properties result from the claimed imagery. Additionally, it appears that the imagery would not be identified, thus compounding the difficulty of determining the relationship with the embedding. In other words, given a model stored on disc, if it has an embedding, how does one determine where that embedding came from?
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 20230196201 (“Imig”) and U.S. Pat. Pub. 20170336215 (“Racz”)
An apparatus, comprising:
a first device in a constrained-environment device, the first device including at least one memory having processor-executable code stored therein, and at least one processor that is adapted to execute the processor-executable code, wherein the processor-executable code includes processor-executable instructions that, in response to execution, enable the first device to perform actions, including, on the constrained- environment device: (Imig, Fig. 1)
storing image metadata and raw image data obtained from sensors on the constrained-environment device, wherein the raw image data includes a plurality of images; (Imig, [0050] “In one example, the input could be imagery (e.g., satellite imagery).”)
storing a plurality of onboard models; (Imig, [0029] “one or more models are disposed in an edge device”)
storing, for each onboard model of the plurality of onboard models, a corresponding set of reference embeddings; (Imig, [0114] “the system generates a first representation of the plurality of models (e.g., a list of models with features)”)
providing a plurality of image tiles such that the plurality of image tiles includes, for each image of the plurality of images, evenly-spaced portions of the image; (Imig, [0033] “a single frame from video data.” The BRI of the claim does not require that the claimed tiles or portions of the image are smaller than the entire frame. Additionally, Racz teaches the claimed evenly-spaced portions.)
via an embedding-generation model, generating a plurality of image embeddings based on the plurality of image tiles; (Imig, Fig. 15, “Receive information corresponding to a plurality of sensors associated with a plurality of edge devices” 1515)
using the plurality of image embeddings and the set of reference embeddings for each onboard model of the plurality of onboard models, for each image tile in the plurality of image tiles, for each onboard model in the plurality of onboard models, determining whether the onboard model should be executed on the image tile; and (Imig, Fig. 15, “Select one or more models …” 1520)
for each image tile for which a determination is made that an onboard model of the plurality of onboard models should be executed on the image tile, executing that onboard model on that image. (Imig, Fig. 15, “Deploy the one or more model pipeline” 1535)
Imig is not relied on for the below claim language.
Racz teaches wherein the set of reference embeddings for each onboard model include one or more image embeddings corresponding to one or both of (1) imagery that the onboard model was trained on, and (2) imagery in which the onboard model previously identified objects of interest; (Racz, [0017] “In some implementations, the scalar description of a tile is a feature vector that is provided as input to a classifier model.”)
providing a plurality of image tiles such that the plurality of image tiles includes, for each image of the plurality of images, evenly-spaced portions of the image; (Racz, Fig. 1, map 121. See also, [0024] “For example, a tile could be set to correspond to a 3-meter by 3-meter area on the ground.”)
wherein each image embedding is a feature vector representing graphical content of a corresponding image tile of the plurality of image tiles; and (Racz, [0017] “In some implementations, the scalar description of a tile is a feature vector that is provided as input to a classifier model.”)
such that for an image of the plurality of images, the onboard model is executed on less than all of the evenly-spaced portions of the image. (Racz, claim 4 with parent claim 3, “3. The method of claim 2 wherein performing the binary classification of the tile comprises submitting the feature vector for the tile and other feature vectors for the other tiles as input to a binary classifier. 4. The method of claim 3 wherein the other tiles comprise a subset of the tiles in the area of interest that surround the tile in the grid.” Racz’s “comprise a subset” teaches the claimed “less than all.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine Imig and Racz to better associate the image with positioning data Racz, abstract) or for implementation details. For example, implementing Imig’s features with Racz’s feature vectors allows “The feature vector may then serve as input to a classifier(s) engine that is capable of ascertaining whether or not the tile is part of a road, a business, a residence, or some other type of map entity.” Racz, [0032].
Based on the above, these are examples of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the constrained-environment device is at least one of: an Internet of Things device that is in a constrained environment, a satellite in orbit, a spacecraft, or a stationary platform. (Imig, [0029] “For example, the edge device is a computing device disposed on or integrated with a satellite, … .” Imig [0029] discloses a series of examples.)
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the feature vectors representing the plurality of images tiles are feature vectors of floating point numbers. (Racz, Fig. 4, GPS record 400)
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the feature vectors representing the plurality of image tiles each have at least 256 dimensions. (Racz, [0031] “For instance, tens, hundreds, thousands, or even more individual records could be associated with a given tile.”)
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensors on the constrained-environment device include at least one of a camera, a synthetic aperture radar, a thermal imaging sensor, a hyperspectral sensor, or a video sensor. (Imig, [0050] “the inputs could include videos … .” Imig [0050] includes more examples.)
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the embedding-generation model includes at least one of an unsupervised representation learning model, a self-supervised representation learning technique, or a supervised representation learning technique. (Racz, [0033] “Machine learning techniques may be employed to train the classifier engine, using mapping information for which the entities in a map are known.”)
8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of onboard models includes at least one of a plane detection model, a ship detection model, a building detection model, a cloud detection model, a methane detection model, an oil tank detection model, a car detection model, or a fire detection model. (Imig, [0072] “collect a video frame and detect one truck in the middle.” Imig’s truck detection teaches the claimed car detection. See also, e.g., [0109] “For example, an edge device is assigned with a task of detecting wildfire and is configured to process data collected from various sensors on the edge device and transmit an insight of whether wildfire is detected” or [0051]’s “ship detection.”)
9. The apparatus of claim 1, the actions further including, after executing that onboard model on that image, performing a downlink sooner than a scheduled downlink based on results of the execution of that onboard model on that image. (Imig, [0071]-[0072] Imig teaches that a flying AIP might detect a truck in a video frame and send that out (teaching the claimed performing a downlink). Imig also teaches that the AIP may send video, and that the video may not be sent when flying (i.e., downloading the video after landing teaches the claimed scheduled downlink).)
10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein using the plurality of image embeddings and the set of reference embeddings for each onboard model of the plurality of onboard models, for each image tile in the plurality of image tiles, for each onboard model in the plurality of onboard models, determining whether the onboard model should be executed on the image tile includes comparing, in a vector space, the image embedding that corresponds to that image tile with the reference embeddings in the set of reference embeddings for that onboard model. (Imig, Fig. 15, “Select one or more models …” 1520. Imig [0084] teaches the claimed vector space, see the input vector and output vector at the end of the paragraph.)
12. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the constrained-environment device is an orbiting satellite. (Imig, [0029] “For example, the edge device is a computing device disposed on or integrated with a satellite, and the sensor is an orbiting sensor.”)
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as the corresponding apparatus claims. Note that the mapping of claim 12 addresses the claimed orbiting satellite.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under the same rationale as the corresponding apparatus claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20230156826A1 – titled “Edge computing in satellite connectivity environments”
US20210342669A1 – titled “Method, system, and medium for processing satellite orbital information using a generative adversarial network”
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 DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663