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 .
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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
In claim 1 on line 14, claim 7 on line 5, and claim 8 lines 11-12 “and control of selecting” in all occurrences is unclear. Perhaps the applicant meant to state it as “to control the selection of”. Appropriate correction is required
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 merely rearranges some words on lines 9-11 of claim 1 but does not further limit claim 1. Claim 7 also does not further limit claim 1. The only difference is claim 7 states the control means is “installed” in the ground station. Given that claim 1 has the control means, it inherently is installed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Avellan US 20180359022 A1 (cited by applicant).
Consider claim 1. Avellan teaches a mobile node group control system that controls a mobile node group performing a formation flight (see abstract), the system comprising: mobile nodes (302) constituting the mobile node group (fig 1a), the mobile nodes being classified into a follower mobile node (slave in 0026) and a leader mobile node (master in 0026) that collects information on the follower mobile node and controls the follower mobile node (see 0043), the mobile nodes wirelessly communicating with one another based on beamforming (line 3 of 0051); and a ground station that wirelessly communicates with each of the mobile nodes (lines 11-13 of 0043), wherein based on an on-board processor installed in the mobile node (see 0040 in each slave or 0043 for the master), the leader mobile node controls the follower mobile node (see lines 8-10 of 0043), and the mobile node controls a position or an attitude of the mobile node itself for performing the formation flight (see 0041), and the ground station performs link control of the wireless communication with the mobile node (see uplink/downlink in 0049 where the ground gateway 600 which can be located in the ground station as stated in 0046) and the ground station controls the selection of any ground station that wirelessly communicates with the mobile node (note in 0049 it describes reducing not eliminating the number of gateways (ground station) which indicates that at least some remain that can be selected). Method claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 1, since the recited elements would perform the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 2. Avellan teaches wherein the mobile node performs time synchronization control (see 0054 where the transmit time read on the time synchronization) and mobile node group forming control for forming the mobile node group with another mobile node based on the installed on-board processor (reads on the processor of the master in 0043 which controls the formation of the remote satellites into an array).
Regarding claim 3. Avellan teaches wherein the ground station (gateway in ground station) performs control of determining a service (connection to the internet in 0046) to be provided to the mobile node, and control of changing a platform of a connection from the respective mobile nodes to the ground station, a connection from the mobile node group including the respective mobile nodes to another mobile node group, or a connection from the mobile node group including the respective mobile nodes to another mobile node (reads 0049 teaches reconfiguration of other satellites to end users or terminals).
Regarding claim 4. Avellan teaches wherein the mobile node performs time synchronization control and mobile node group (see 0054 where the transmit time read on the time synchronization) forming control for forming the mobile node group with another mobile node based on the installed on-board processor, and the ground station performs control of determining a service to be provided to the mobile node (reads on the processor of the master in 0043 which controls the formation of the remote satellites into an array), and control of changing a platform of a connection from the respective mobile nodes to the ground station, a connection from the mobile node group including the respective mobile nodes to another mobile node group, or a connection from the mobile node group including the respective mobile nodes to another mobile node (reads 0049 on reconfiguration of other satellites to end users or terminals, it also describes reducing not eliminating the number of gateways (ground station) which indicates that at least some remain that can be selected).
Regarding claim 5. Avellan’s mobile node is an artificial (human made and placed) satellite.
Regarding claim 6 (see not further limiting rejection) it is rejected for the same reasons as lines 9-11 of claim 1 stated above.
Regarding claim 7. (see not further limiting rejection) it is rejected for the same reasons as lines 12-15 above.
Claim rejections under 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu US 20180074520 A1 in view of Jalali US 20160134358 A1
Consider claims 1. Liu et al teaches a mobile node group control system (fig 3) that controls a mobile node group performing a formation flight (see abstract), the system comprising: mobile nodes (21) constituting the mobile node group (16), the mobile nodes being classified into a follower mobile node (follower UAV) and a leader mobile node (leader UAV) that collects information (see lines 2-4 of 0043) on the follower mobile node and controls the follower mobile node (via second communication channel see lines 8-15 of 0018), the mobile nodes wirelessly communicating with one another; and a ground station (GCS12) that wirelessly communicates with each of the mobile nodes (see lines 1-2 of 0029), wherein based on an on-board processor installed in the mobile node (see lines 5-7 of 0018), the leader mobile node controls the follower mobile node(see lines 2-4 of 0043) ,and the mobile node controls a position or an attitude (velocity, altitude) of the mobile node itself (see lines 3-5 of 0047) for performing the formation flight, and the ground station performs link control of the wireless communication with the mobile node (see channel 14 in relation to GCS12 in 0049) or link control of the wireless communication between the mobile nodes (channel 15 is taught in 0049 for this), and control of selecting any ground station that wirelessly communicates with the mobile node (the GCS would inherently handoff control to the next GSC if the flight path moved them to another area under the control of another GCS). Liu et al fails to teach using beamforming as the means to communicate wirelessly. However, Jalali teaches such (see 0028). It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to use beamforming in the system of Liu thus improving the signal quality and making the flight formation safer.
Consider claim 2, Liu et al teaches wherein the mobile node performs time synchronization control (for flight formation) and mobile node group forming control for forming the mobile node group with another mobile node based on the installed on-board processor (see lines 5-7 of 0022).
Regarding claim 6 (see not further limiting rejection) it is rejected for the same reasons as lines 9-11 of claim 1 stated above.
Regarding claim 7. (see not further limiting rejection) it is rejected for the same reasons as lines 12-15 above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hartmut WO 2009003451-A1 teaches the control of satellite constellations in which there is a pronounced hierarchy between a master and one or more slave satellites. The slave satellites must be at least inertially or relatively regulated relative to the master satellite in position. To simplify the system, the control loop of the slave satellite is closed according to the invention via the master satellite.
Jager et al US 20070250267 A1 teaches establishing a satellite cloud cluster orbit. The method comprises launching the satellite cloud cluster into a formation-flight maintaining an orbital path about a celestial body. The result is a leader-follower orbit, where each of the satellites 64 and 66 occupy the same orbital path and remain at a close proximity to each other.
Conclusion
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 3pm and Fri from 6am 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