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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on May 19, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 , 8 and 15 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “103” in Figure 1 has been used to designate both “satellite communication station” and “sensors” in paragraph [0027] of the Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 4, Step 414 should be changed to “PLACING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES INTO ORBITAL POSITIONS”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0005], line 9, “addition resources” should read “additional resources”,
In paragraph [0028], line 4 “Never the less” should read “Nevertheless”,
In paragraph [0037], line 3, “while the performing edge computation” should read “while performing edge computation”,
In paragraph [0055], lines 2-3, “addition resources” should read “additional resources”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9, should be changed to:
existing computation resources, identifying additional resources required;
Claim 6, line 4, should be changed to:
matching the new satellites to be utilized with the one or more target orbits;
Claim 8, line 13, should be changed to:
exceed the existing computation resources, identifying additional resources required;
Claim 13, line 4, should be changed to:
matching the new satellites to be utilized with the one or more target orbits;
Claim 15, line 14, should be changed to:
exceed the existing computation resources, identifying additional resources required;
Claim 20, line 4, should be changed to:
matching the new satellites to be utilized with the one or more target orbits;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucia (US-20210314058-A1) in view of Goodzeit (US-20040056146-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lucia teaches a computer-implemented method for managing location of satellites associated with edge computing (see Lucia, Abstract, figure 1B, paragraphs 6, 14 and 17, regarding “a system and method of operating (managing) a constellation of satellites, known as Orbital Edge Computing (OEC) architecture”, wherein “the OEC system supports edge computing at each of a plurality of camera or sensor-equipped nanosatellites so that sensed data may be processed locally” and “the OEC system can be used to organize satellite constellations into computational (nanosatellite) pipelines (CNP’s)” that “distributes sensing, processing, and communication across a constellation in order to remain within latency and energy envelopes”, effectively by organizing “a constellation into a parallel pipeline to hide processing latency by leveraging formation flying techniques.”), the computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying a group of satellites using the edge computing (see Lucia, figure 1B, paragraphs 16-17, regarding the “cote-lib application 122 runs on each device (nanosatellite or ground station) in the OEC system 100 and provides continuous access to a physics-based model of the constellation (identifying a group of satellites using the edge computing) and ground infrastructure to enable autonomy (guidance navigation and control, GNC)”);
determining a computation requirement associated with the edge computing (see Lucia, paragraph 15, regarding “cote module 120 models … the energy and latency of sensing, computing, and communication for an entire constellation” for mission design, exemplary of determining a computing energy (requirement) associated with the edge computing of the entire constellation),
determining existing computational resources associated the group of satellites (see Lucia, figure 2, paragraphs 14 and 29, regarding “CNP 200 distributes sensing, processing (utilization of computational resources), and communication across a constellation (group of satellites) in order to remain within latency and energy envelopes”, wherein remaining within an energy envelope would require knowing (determining) the existing energy resources utilization to compare if within, at, or exceeding an energy envelope requirement.),
determining whether the computation requirement exceeds the existing computation resources (see Lucia, figure 2, paragraphs 14 and 29, regarding “CNP 200 distributes sensing, processing (utilization of computational resources), and communication across a constellation (group of satellites) in order to remain within latency and energy envelopes”, wherein remaining within an energy envelope would require knowing when the existing energy resources utilization (for example, of computational resources) is within an energy envelope requirement, exemplary of determining whether or not a computation requirement (energy envelope of a mission design) exceeds existing computation resources utilization);
in responsive to having determined that the computational requirement does exceed the existing computation resources, identifying addition resources required (see Lucia, paragraph 33, regarding “When the aggregate energy harvested by a CNP 200 is less than the aggregate energy required to process (computation resources utilization) all data, adding devices (nanosatellites) increases coverage”, wherein adding devices is exemplary of identifying addition(al) resources required in response to not having enough devices (nanosatellites) in a constellation for full/complete ground coverage);
determining one or more orbital positions for the additional resources (see Lucia, paragraphs 30 and 33, regarding “Adding devices (nanosatellites) to the pipeline increases parallelism and decreases latency, eventually yielding a system capable of full coverage.”, wherein, for example, a framed-spaced pipeline places each nanosatellite exactly one GTF (ground track frame) apart in distance”, exemplary of determining one or more orbital positions (in a pipeline) for the additional (device/nanosatellite) resources);
Lucia does not sufficiently teach and placing the additional resources into the one or more orbital positions in order to participate in the edge computing.
However, Goodzeit remedies this shortfall with a teaching of “a sparing system for space vehicle (satellite) constellations. A plurality of space vehicles (for example, satellites) arranged in at least one mission orbit plane. The number of space vehicles is at least one greater than a minimum number necessary to provide at least a minimum level of service necessary to carry out a constellation mission”, wherein should it be necessary to replace and/or augment existing or additional (spare) satellites, they can be repositioned (placed) in the mission orbit plane to carry out a constellation mission (see Goodzeit, Abstract, paragraph 6), for example, orbital edge computing missions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the computer-implemented method for managing location of satellites associated with edge computing of Lucia to further comprise the sparing system for satellite (space vehicles) constellations of Goodzeit because this improves management of constellation missions to maintain service/operational continuity for rapid deployment and/or replacement with in-orbit or parked orbit spare satellites to ensure adequate satellite resources to perform the constellation mission requirements, therefore, modified Lucia enables and placing the additional resources (satellites) into the one or more orbital positions in order to participate in the edge computing (constellation mission).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lucia teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, including wherein determining the computation requirement further comprising:
identifying software applications currently active with the identified group of satellites (see Lucia, paragraph 26, regarding “The OEC system 100 operates as an intermittent system, harvesting energy while sleeping to charge its capacitors. When energy is sufficient, it performs its sensing, computing, or communication task during an active phase”, wherein the active phase identifies currently active software applications with the identified group of satellites (nanosatellites); and
determining the computational requirement, wherein the computational requirement comprises of, an input data, duration and/or CPU (central processing unit) processing time required with the identified software applications (see Lucia, paragraph 47, regarding “the modeled load includes a Jetson TX2 module (CPU), a camera system, and an ADACS, each represented as variable resistors consuming (computational) energy over time (duration) as determined by the power mode at each time step” wherein “Under the simple solar cell model described previously, an energy-harvesting, storage, and (computational) consumption system can be modeled over time (durations)”).
Lucia does not teach and designating the computational requirement as a variable, Y.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to combine/add individual independent variables (such as the aforementioned variable resistors representing different energy consumptions) to derive a sum total dependent variable value and assign (designate) any user choice dependent variable representation of a computation requirement value for further referencing, such as the variable “Y”, which traditionally is a dependent variable (vs. independent variable X) as a mathematical standard of, for example, graphing functions.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lucia teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, including wherein determining the existing computational resources further comprising:
determining computing hardware for each satellite belonging to the group of satellites (see Lucia, paragraph 25, regarding “the computational hardware comprises a Jetson TX2 industrial module. The Jetson TX2 module includes a high-capability, low-power, efficient mobile GPU and is designed for extreme temperature environments”, exemplary of a determined computing hardware onboard each satellite belonging to the group of satellites);
designating each of the computer hardware for each satellite as X1 all the way to Xn, where n denotes total number of satellites from the group of satellites and summing up X1 to Xn (see Lucia, figure 6, paragraph 51, regarding plots of coverage (computer hardware needed) as a function of pipeline depth (device/satellite count) based on constellation (group of satellites) flying formation modes, wherein the total number of satellites needed for complete coverage is the satellite/device count where fractional coverage is at 1.00 (100%), as shown to be between 150 and 250 satellites in the constellation (group of satellites), for example, between X1-X150 up to X1-X250 with summing values between 150-250);
Lucia does not teach and designating combined summation as variable X.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to combine/add individual independent variables (such as the aforementioned satellite count) to derive a sum total dependent variable value and assign (designate) any user choice dependent variable representation of a computation requirement value for further referencing, such as the variable “X”, which traditionally is an independent variable (vs. dependent variable Y) as a mathematical standard of, for example, graphing functions.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lucia teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, including wherein determining whether the computation requirement exceeds the existing computation resources further comprises:
comparing whether the variable X is greater than or less than the variable Y (see Lucia, figure 6, paragraph 51, regarding plots of coverage (computer hardware needed) as a function of pipeline depth (device/satellite count) based on constellation (group of satellites) flying formation modes, wherein variable Y (computation requirement) is the device/satellite count value at the point on the curve when first reach 1.00 (or 100%) Fraction such that when variable X (existing computation) device/satellite count is less than this Y satellite count value is representative of when the computation requirement exceeds the existing computation resources).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lucia teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, including wherein identifying additional resources required further comprising:
determining whether other satellites in a different orbit can be utilized (see Lucia, figure 6, paragraph 51, regarding plots of coverage (computer hardware needed) as a function of pipeline depth (device/satellite count) based on constellation (group of satellites) flying formation modes, wherein any existing satellite count less than 1.00 (100%) Fraction determines that other (additional) satellites in a different orbit can be utilized to reach/attain full coverage (100%));
having determined that the other satellites in the different orbit cannot be utilized, identifying a gap of missing resources that can satisfy the computational requirement see Lucia, figure 6, paragraph 51, regarding plots of coverage (computer hardware needed) as a function of pipeline depth (device/satellite count) based on constellation (group of satellites) flying formation modes, wherein a gap of missing resources (device/satellite) can be identified as the difference between the existing satellite count and first device/count at 1.00 (100%) Fraction); and
selecting new satellites based on its hardware capability that meets the gap of missing resources (see Lucia, paragraph 25, regarding “the computational hardware comprises a Jetson TX2 industrial module. The Jetson TX2 module includes a high-capability, low-power, efficient mobile GPU and is designed for extreme temperature environments”, wherein each participating satellite is of the same computational hardware, therefore, selection of new satellite hardware capability scales equally with each missing resources (satellite/device count) in the gap of missing resources).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lucia teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, including wherein the one or more orbital positions further comprises:
calculating one or more target orbits that can satisfy the gap of missing resources (see Lucia, paragraph 34, regarding “to ensure a proper spacing between satellites 101 in a constellation, a computational nanosatellite pipeline may require propulsion and positioning”, such as, for example, calculating one or more target orbits to satisfy a gap of missing (and/or mispositioned) resources); and
matching the new satellites to be utilized with the or more target orbits (see Goodzeit, Abstract, paragraph 6, regarding “a sparing system for space vehicle (satellite) constellations. A plurality of space vehicles (for example, satellites) arranged in at least one mission orbit plane. The number of space vehicles is at least one greater than a minimum number necessary to provide at least a minimum level of service necessary to carry out a constellation mission”, wherein should it be necessary to replace and/or augment existing or additional (spare/new) satellites, they can be repositioned (matched to be utilized) in the mission orbit plane to carry out a constellation mission requiring full coverage).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lucia teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, including wherein placing the additional resources further comprising:
directing launch vehicle to deliver the new satellites towards the one or more target orbits (see Goodzeit, paragraph 15, regarding “… after one or more failures, another space vehicle (new satellite) may need (directed) to be launched to supplement the constellation …”).
Regarding claims 8-14, independent claim 8 is a computer program product for managing location of satellites associated with edge computing the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media having computer-readable program instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media said program instructions executes a computer-implemented method identical to the computer-implemented method for managing location of satellites associated with edge computing of independent claim 1, and similarly, dependent claims 9-14 of independent claim 8 are also performing the identical methods corresponding to dependent claims 2-7 of independent claim 1, respectively, therefore, claims 8-14 are also rejected under 35 USC § 103 for the same respective rationale as claims 1-7.
Regarding claims 15-20, independent claim 15 is a computer system for managing location of satellites associated with edge computing, the computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more computer readable storage media having computer-readable program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, said program instructions executes, by the one or more computer processors, a computer-implemented method identical to the computer-implemented method for managing location of satellites associated with edge computing of independent claim 1, and similarly, dependent claims 16-20 of independent claim 15 are also performing the identical methods corresponding to dependent claims 2-6 of independent claim 1, respectively, therefore, claims 15-20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 103 for the same respective rationale as claims 1-6.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NING whose telephone number is (408) 918-7664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Peter D. Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/P.Y.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
December 10, 2025
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661