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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 24-26 are currently pending.
3. Claims 25-26 are new.
4. Claims 3 and 9-23 are canceled.
5. Claims 1 and 24 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (JP 2011052999 A; already of record), in view of Baskaran (US 20180106898 A1), in view of Szabo (US 7875837 B1), and in further view of Hofschuster (US 20100038490 A1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Maeda teaches a flight path model selection method for a flying object that intermittently repeats injection in a course of flight to change a flight path, wherein three or more surveillance satellites monitor an earth's limb on which the flying object is flying from different latitudes than each other at a time of interest while orbiting around the earth… to acquire three or more sets of monitoring data, and transmit the three or more sets of monitoring data (Maeda: [0019] and [0020] Note that Fig. 8 indicates the surveillance satellites are flying from different latitudes.),
A ground system comprises a satellite controlling apparatus and receives the three or more sets of monitoring data (Maeda: [0020] and [0022]),
And the satellite controlling apparatus calculates three or more line-of-sight directions from the three or more surveillance satellites to the flying object at the time of interest based on the three or more sets of monitoring data (Maeda: [0036] and [0055]),
Calculates flying object coordinate values indicating a position of the flying object at the time of interest based on the three or more line-of-sight directions (Maeda: [0058] and [0069]).
Maeda fails to explicitly teach the satellite controlling apparatus having a plurality of flight path models prestored representing: launch point coordinate values of the flying object and a flying direction of the flying object, as a predicted flight path of the flying object, and a flight distance and a flight altitude at each time after launch of the flying object, calculates, for each of the flight path models, predicted coordinate values of the at the time of interest, and selects a flight path model corresponding to predicted coordinate values closest to the flying object coordinate values from the plurality of flight path models.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Baskaran teaches the satellite controlling apparatus having a plurality of flight path models prestored representing: launch point coordinate values of the flying object and a flying direction of the flying object, as a predicted flight path of the flying object, and a flight distance and a flight altitude at each time after launch of the flying object (Baskaran: [0024], [0025], and [0030]),
And calculates, for each of the flight path models, predicted coordinate values of the at the time of interest, and selects a flight path model corresponding to predicted coordinate values closest to the flying object coordinate values from the plurality of flight path models (Baskaran: [0009], [0024], and [0026] Note that optimizing the relation between the expected sensor data [predicted coordinate values] and observed data [flying object coordinate values] to be minimized is equivalent to selecting the model corresponding to the predicted coordinate values closest to the flying object coordinate values. Also, note that [0009] explains that the optimized parameter includes position.).
Maeda and Baskaran are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of flying object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Baskaran to select a flight path model based on the flying object coordinate values representing a predicted flight path because it provides the benefit of identifying an optimized candidate track of an object as explicitly explained in [0024] and [0108] for an improved tracking model.
Maeda and Baskaran fail to explicitly teach a plurality of handling assets disposed at different locations from each other in order to handle the flying object… selects one or more handling assets from the plurality of handling assets based on the flying object coordinate values at each time, and transmits flying object information data indicating information on the flying object to each one of the selected one or more handling assets, and the ground system further includes a dedicated communication device for communicating with the plurality of handling assets.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Szabo teaches a plurality of handling assets disposed at different locations from each other in order to handle the flying object (Szabo: [Column 3, Lines 9-11] and [Column 3, Lines 43-51]),
Selects one or more handling assets from the plurality of handling assets based on the flying object coordinate values at each time (Szabo: [Column 3, Lines 35-42]),
And transmits flying object information data indicating information on the flying object to each one of the selected one or more handling assets (Szabo: [Column 3, Lines 18-23 and 35-38]),
And the ground system further includes a dedicated communication device for communicating with the plurality of handling assets (Szabo: [Column 3, Lines 18-26]).
Maeda, Baskaran, and Szabo are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of flying object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maeda and Baskaran to incorporate the teachings of Szabo to include a plurality of handling assets at different locations and to select a handling asset based on transmitted flying object information because it provides the benefit of intercepting missile attacks to reduce the severe consequences of a weapon strike. Szabo explicitly teaches in [Column 1, Lines 28-47] and [Column 5, Lines 14-17] that a hostile missile trajectory is modeled to determine interception points to launch an interceptor missile using limited information to provide an accurate performance evaluation.
Maeda, Baskaran, and Szabo fail to explicitly teach to detect a temperature of the flying object in a post-boost phase.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hofschuster teaches three or more surveillance satellites monitor an earth's limb on which the flying object is flying from different latitudes than each other at a time of interest while orbiting around the earth and detect a temperature of the flying object in a post-boost phase to acquire three or more sets of monitoring data, and transmit the three or more sets of monitoring data (Hofschuster: [0009], [0042], and [0064]).
Maeda, Baskaran, Szabo, and Hofschuster are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of flying object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maeda, Baskaran, and Szabo to incorporate the teachings of Hofschuster to detect a temperature of the flying object in post-boost phase because it provides the benefit of reducing false alarms because the high signal-to-noise ratios are realized by comparing the thermal radiation of the exhaust plume or missile body to the background of space. Hofschuster teaches that detecting the temperature of the missile is beneficial for detection because a missile stands out clearly against the background of space as explicitly explained in [0042].
11. Regarding Claim 2, Maeda, Baskaran, Szabo, and Hofschuster remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Maeda teaches the ground system calculates coordinate values of an intersection point of three straight lines corresponding to the three or more line-of-sight directions as the flying object coordinate values (Maeda: [0036], [0058], and [0069] Note that calculating an intersection point is equivalent to using the satellite positions and angles to the flying object.).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Maeda, Baskaran, Szabo, and Hofschuster remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Maeda teaches the three or more surveillance satellites include a first surveillance satellite, a second surveillance satellite, and a third surveillance satellite (Maeda: [0019]),
And the first surveillance satellite performs monitoring from a first latitude at the time of interest, the second surveillance satellite performs monitoring from a second latitude at the time of interest, the third surveillance satellite performs monitoring from a third latitude at the time of interest (Maeda: [0028] Note that Fig. 8 indicates the surveillance satellites are flying from different latitude while orbiting the earth at a time of interest. This is equivalent to performing monitoring at a first, second, and third latitude.).
Maeda discloses the claimed invention except for the first latitude is a latitude in a range of from minus 10 degrees to plus 10 degrees, the second latitude is a latitude in a range of from plus 20 degrees to plus 40 degrees, and the third latitude is a latitude in a range of from plus 40 degrees to plus 60 degrees. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the first latitude range from minus 10 degrees to plus 10 degrees, include the second latitude range from plus 20 degrees to plus 40 degrees, and include the third latitude range from plus 40 degrees to plus 60 degrees, since the applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the surveillance satellites at different latitude ranges. Maeda teaches how the satellites monitor beyond a north pole point.
13. Regarding Claim 5, Maeda, Baskaran, Szabo, and Hofschuster remain as applied above in Claim 4, and further, Maeda teaches the third surveillance satellite orbits around the earth by flying in an inclined orbit, and the third latitude is a latitude at a northern extremity portion of the inclined orbit (Maeda: [0026] and [0028]).
14. Regarding Claim 6, Maeda, Baskaran, Szabo, and Hofschuster remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Maeda teaches the three or more surveillance satellites includes a first surveillance satellite, a second surveillance satellite, and a third surveillance satellite (Maeda: [0019]),
And the first surveillance satellite performs monitoring from a first latitude at the time of interest, the second surveillance satellite performs monitoring from a second latitude at the time of interest, the third surveillance satellite performs monitoring from a third latitude at the time of interest (Maeda: [0028] Note that Fig. 8 indicates the surveillance satellites are flying from different latitude while orbiting the earth at a time of interest. This is equivalent to performing monitoring at a first, second, and third latitude.).
Maeda discloses the claimed invention except for the first latitude is a latitude in a range of from plus 20 degrees to plus 40 degrees, the second latitude is a latitude in a range of from plus 40 degrees to plus 60 degrees, and the third latitude is a latitude of plus 50 degrees or higher. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the first latitude range from plus 20 degrees to plus 40 degrees, include the second latitude range from plus 40 degrees to plus 60 degrees, and include the third latitude range from plus 50 degrees or higher, since the applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the surveillance satellites at different latitude ranges. Maeda teaches how the satellites monitor beyond a north pole point.
15. Regarding Claim 7, Maeda, Baskaran, Szabo, and Hofschuster remain as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Maeda teaches the second surveillance satellite orbits around the earth by flying in an inclined orbit, and the second latitude is a latitude at a northern extremity portion of the inclined orbit (Maeda: [0026] and [0028]).
16. Regarding Claim 8, Maeda, Baskaran, Szabo, and Hofschuster remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Maeda teaches a flying object tracking system comprising: a satellite constellation including three or more surveillance satellites used for the flight path model selection method according to claim 1 (Maeda: [0019]);
And a ground system used for the flight path model selection method (Maeda: [0020]).
17. Regarding Claim 24, Maeda, Baskaran, Szabo, and Hofschuster remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Baskaran teaches to select one flight path model corresponding to predicted coordinate values closest to flying object coordinate values at a time of interest from the plurality of flight path models each indicating a predicted flight path of the flying object (Baskaran: [0009], [0024], and [0026]).
Baskaran fails to explicitly teach the satellite controlling apparatus combines flying object information indicating hot objects detected by a plurality of surveillance satellites based on temperature detection of the body of the flying object and analyzes chronological change in position information to predict a flight path.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hofschuster teaches the satellite controlling apparatus combines flying object information indicating hot objects detected by a plurality of surveillance satellites based on temperature detection of the body of the flying object and analyzes chronological change in position information to predict a flight path (Hofschuster: [0021] and [0042]).
Baskaran and Hofschuster are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of flying object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baskaran to incorporate the teachings of Hofschuster to combine flying object information indicating hot objects based on temperature detection and analyze chronological a change in position to predict a flight path because it provides the benefit of reducing false alarms when detecting flying objects. The high signal-to-noise ratios are realized by comparing the thermal radiation of the exhaust plume or missile body to the background of space. Hofschuster teaches that detecting the temperature of the missile is beneficial for detection because a missile stands out clearly against the background of space as explicitly explained in [0042].
18. Regarding Claim 25, Maeda, Baskaran, Szabo, and Hofschuster remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Szabo teaches the handling assets include airplanes, ships or vehicles (Szabo: [Column 3, Lines 9-11]).
19. Regarding Claim 26, Maeda, Baskaran, Szabo, and Hofschuster remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Szabo teaches the ground system includes a communication device for communicating with each handling asset vehicles (Szabo: [Column 3, Lines 18-26]).
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
21. First, the Applicant has alleged that "the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the features of independent Claim 1" because "these 'sensors' of Szabo do no 'handle the flying object,' but instead merely communicate with a control center, and the control center processes these sensed signals 'to estimate the future track or path 20et of missile 20" and "nothing is sent to these sensors by the control center, such that Szabo fails to disclose a satellite controlling apparatus that 'transmits flying object information data indicating information on the flying object to each one of the selected one or more handling assets." The Examiner disagrees.
Szabo teaches in [Column 3, Lines 18-23 and 35-38] that the control center communicates with the sensors 22 and 24 and the missiles that launched from these sensors are initialized with instructions for intercepting the target missile. The control center processes the sensor data and initializes the missiles with instructions based on the processing. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the flying object information is equivalent to the instructions for intercepting the target missile at the selected intercept point. Additionally, the handling assets are broadly interpreted as the missiles (38 and 40) and the site they are launched from (ship 22 and land 24).
The instructions determined based on the processing done at the control center 32 are initialized (sent) to the missiles is equivalent to transmitting the information to the handling assets. As currently claimed, there is nothing to further clarify what the flying object information or handling assets include. As a result, Szabo teaches transmitting the flying object information data to the handling assets. This provides the benefit of modeling a hostile missile trajectory to determine interception points to launch an interceptor missile using limited information to provide an accurate performance evaluation.
22. Maeda (JP 2011052999 A; already of record), in view of Baskaran (US 20180106898 A1), in view of Szabo (US 7875837 B1), and in further view of Hofschuster (US 20100038490 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
23. Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 24-26 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights