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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaen US 2020/0277087 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Speidel et al US 2018/0254824 A1
Consider Claim 1. Kaen teaches a cloud computing system (100 and para 0021) comprising: a geostationary satellite (120 and 0023) having a computer and a cloud data center mounted thereon (0022 and 0023); a low earth orbiting satellite constellation including a plurality of satellites (110A-110E in 0022; and a ground data center deployed on ground (130 in 0021), wherein in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation (110 para 0059), an annular communication network (0031) is formed by equipping each one of a plurality of satellites that fly on a same orbital plane with a fore-aft communication device that communicates with front and rear satellites in a forwarding direction (see arrows between satellites 110 and in para 0031…..a plurality of network satellites 110A, 110B, 110C, 110D, 110E communicate wirelessly between each other and occupy a single equatorial orbital plane (ORB1) above the planet 1….). Kaen fails to teach a mesh communication network in which adjacent ones of such annular communication networks are communicably connected with each other is formed by equipping each one of the plurality of satellites that fly on the same orbital plane with a right-left communication device that communicates with both a left-side satellite flying in a left adjacent orbit and a right-side satellite flying in a right adjacent orbit, and the low earth orbiting satellite constellation is a communication satellite constellation. However, Speidel et al teaches such see (0006). Note also the multiple satellite communication network in both Kaen and Speidel et al are by definition mesh networks. It therefore would have been obvious, before the effective filing date to add additional right/left communication antennas thus providing not only additional communication capabilities but addition protection for intra orbital collisions as a result.
Regarding claim 17. Kaen teaches (in last half of 0027 to 0028 where the authorized user accesses terminal 130) wherein the cloud data center processes a portion (not all end users) of data processing for the ground data center on a geostationary orbit (satellites 110).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaen US 2020/0277087 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Speidel et al US 2018/0254824 A1 further in view of Blondel US2021/0011148A1.
Consider Claim 2. Both Kaen and Speidel fail to explicitly state wherein the computer is equipped with artificial intelligence. However, it the same field of endeavor Blondel teaches such (see last part of para 0049). It would have been obvious to add artificial intelligence code to the computer cloud-based system of Kaen in order to detect objects faster thus avoiding collisions and saving the replacement cost.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaen US 2020/0277087 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Speidel et al US 2018/0254824 A1 futher in view of Mitchell US 9,356,686.
Consider claim 15. Both Kaen and Speidel fail to teach wherein the low earth orbiting satellite constellation is a communication satellite constellation that communicates with a ground facility installed in a high-latitude zone at a latitude of 50 degrees or more. However, Mitchell teaches such (see col 14, lines 1-7 Note 70 degrees is more). It therefore would have been obvious (and likely inherent), before the effective date, to have ground stations located in the polar region to increase the visibility of the satellites thus improving the performance.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaen US 2020/0277087 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Speidel et al US 2018/0254824 A1 further in view of Mokashi et al US 11,201,939 B1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kaen and Speidel fail to teach using an edge computing system mounted on the satellite to control the mesh network (they teach cloud base remote control). However, such is well known in the art as taught by Mokashi et al (see col 3, lines 5-8). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to substitute one type of computing control (edge) for that taught by the combination (cloud) for faster collision avoidance with space debris.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaen US 2020/0277087 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Speidel et al US 2018/0254824 A1 and Mokashi et al US 11,201,939 B1 further in view of Blondel US2021/0011148A1.
Consider claim 4. The combination fails to explicitly state wherein the computer is equipped with artificial intelligence. However, it the same field of endeavor Blondel teaches such (see last part of para 0049). It would have been obvious to add artificial intelligence code to the computer edge-based system of the combination in order to detect objects faster thus avoiding collisions and saving the replacement cost.
Claims 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaen US 2020/0277087 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Speidel et al US 2018/0254824 A1 and Mokashi et al US 11,201,939 B1 futher in view of Mitchell US 9,356,686.
Regarding claims 12 and 16. The combination fails to teach wherein the low earth orbiting satellite constellation is a communication satellite constellation that communicates with a ground facility installed in a high-latitude zone at a latitude of 50 degrees or more. However, Mitchell teaches such (see col 14, lines 1-7 Note 70 degrees is more). It therefore would have been obvious (and likely inherent), before the effective date, to have ground stations located in the polar region to increase the visibility of the satellites thus improving the performance.
Regarding claim 13. Kaen teaches (0024) wherein inter-satellite optical communication is used at least either between the geostationary satellite and each satellite of the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation or between satellites of the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaen US 2020/0277087 A1 (cited by applicant) in view of Speidel et al US 2018/0254824 A1 and Mokashi et al US 11,201,939 B1 further in view Uelan RU-2608763-C2 (see google translation here RU2608763C2 - Advanced timing and time transfer for satellite constellations using crosslink ranging and accurate time source - Google Patents )
Consider Claim 11. The combination fails to explicitly teach, wherein the geostationary satellite carries a high-precision clock for synchronous control and uses the high-precision clock to execute synchronous control of the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation. However, Uelan teaches that its well-known that either the geostationary or low earth orbiting satellites can carry the high precision clock for synchronization purposes. (from Uelan…the at least one first satellite and the at least one second satellite are a low earth orbit satellite, a medium low earth orbit satellite, and / or a geostationary satellite…..the time synchronization system for grouping satellites comprises at least one first satellite configured to transmit at least one first signal for determining the distance between the satellites to at least one second satellite… It should be noted that in other embodiments of the present invention, the synchronizing satellite can be configured to receive accurate time information from means other than the GPS signal, for example, from an atomic clock….) It therefore would have been obvious to add the high precision clock to the geostationary satellite in Kaen in order to have more centralized control of the system.
Claims 5-10 and 14 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. Regarding claims 5-10 and 14, the prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the specific italicized limitations set forth below in each of the below dependent claims.
Regarding claim 5. The edge computing system according to claim 4, wherein the edge server stores orbit information for the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation, and the computer mounted on the satellite with the edge server analyzes a risk of collision between satellites of the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation, from the orbit information for the plurality of satellites stored in the edge server using the artificial intelligence.
Regarding Claim 6. The edge computing system according to claim 4, wherein the low earth orbiting satellite constellation is capable of communicating with a surveillance satellite having a monitoring device to acquire flying object information mounted thereon, the edge server stores orbit information for the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation and the flying object information acquired by the monitoring device of the surveillance satellite, and the computer mounted on the satellite with the edge server sends the flying object information stored in the edge server to the satellite included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation by referencing the orbit information.
Regarding Claim 7. The edge computing system according to claim 4, wherein the low earth orbiting satellite constellation is capable of communicating with a plurality of surveillance satellites each having a monitoring device to acquire flying object information mounted thereon, the edge server acquires and stores the flying object information from the plurality of surveillance satellites and also stores preliminary information as flying object attribute information, and the computer mounted on the satellite with the edge server calculates a predicted flying path of a flying object by executing flying path analysis with the artificial intelligence using the flying object information and the preliminary information stored in the edge server, and sends the flying object information stored in the edge server to a surveillance satellite that can track the predicted flying path.
Regarding Claim 8. The edge computing system according to claim 4, wherein the low earth orbiting satellite constellation is capable of communicating with a plurality of surveillance satellites each having a monitoring device to acquire flying object information mounted thereon, the edge server acquires and stores the flying object information from the plurality of surveillance satellites and also stores preliminary information as flying object attribute information, and the computer mounted on the satellite with the edge server executes prediction of flying object landing with the artificial intelligence using the flying object information and the preliminary information stored in the edge server, selects a satellite that can send the flying object information to a coping asset that is capable of coping from the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation by referencing a result of the prediction of flying object landing, and makes the selected satellite transmit the flying object information to the coping asset capable of coping.
Regarding Claim 9. The edge computing system according to claim 3, wherein one or more satellites of the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation are observation satellites which are equipped with a synthetic aperture radar and which store radar-acquired information acquired by the synthetic aperture radar in the edge server, and the computer mounted on the satellite with the edge server uses the radar-acquired information acquired by the synthetic aperture radar to perform image generation by synthetic aperture processing which processes the radar-acquired information on an orbit, and sends image data generated in the image generation to the ground data center.
Regarding claim 10. The edge computing system according to claim 3, wherein at least either of the geostationary satellite and one or more satellites of the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation is an observation satellite that is equipped with an optical observation device and that stores optically acquired information acquired by the optical observation device in the edge server, and the computer mounted on the satellite with the edge server uses the optically acquired information acquired by the optical observation device to perform image generation by super- resolution processing on an orbit, and sends image data generated in the image generation to the ground data center.
Regarding claim 14. The edge computing system according to claim 3, wherein the edge server stores preliminary information as a moving object model, the preliminary information being moving object attribute information for a moving object as a monitoring target, one or more satellites of the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation are equipped with a synthetic aperture radar and store moving object monitoring information acquired by the synthetic aperture radar in the edge server, the computer mounted on the satellite with the edge server identifies a moving object as a monitoring target by referencing the moving object monitoring information and the moving object model stored in the edge server, and sends position information indicating a position of the identified moving object to a surveillance satellite, which is a satellite that is capable of monitoring the position indicated by the position information and is included in the plurality of satellites included in the low earth orbiting satellite constellation, upon receiving the position information, the surveillance satellite stores acquired information in the edge server, the acquired information being a result of monitoring of the moving object as the monitoring target, and the computer sends times and position information for the moving object which have been acquired by a plurality of surveillance satellites and stored in the edge server to the ground data center.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koyama JPH01293300A teaches using a synthetic aperture radar to detect an image of the earth over a width (the field of view of the sensor on the ground surface perpendicular to the direction of travel), and the data is transmitted to the ground and reproduced by the system shown in figure 2.
Mukae WO 20210500491 A1 teaches in the description of fig 9, that the collision avoidance support device maybe be mounted either on the ground station or on the satellite itself.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 230pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646