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
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 15-17, and 19 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 04/27/2026 filing with the USPTO. Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 15-17, and 19 are amended. Claims 2-5, 9, 11-14, 18 and 20 are canceled. No claims are newly added and withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amended claims cannot reasonably be so characterized [as a mental processes] . . . operations cannot be performed in the human mind and required a specific physical distributed computer architecture operating in conjunction with physical space vehicles and physical TT&C communication channels. STEP 2A, PRONG 2: THE CLAIMS INTEGRATE ANY ABSTRACT CONCEPT INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION. Remarks p. 12.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Applicant’s position that the architecture of the claimed system is special rather than general. The instant Specification teaches, “Embodiments include an architecture that supports multiple sensors and platforms co-operated at a single regional node.” (Spec. [10]) and “embodiments include a new decentralized mission management concept has been developed that provides a multi-mission decentralized architecture for users.” (Spec. [11]). And “cloud-based architecture, a separate stack or instance of these capabilities is instantiated for dedicated use by the user organization.” (Spec. [13]). Nothing in the specification teaches the use of special purposes computers, but rather computer configurations used in the art. Applicants claimed program does not make the computer a special purpose computer, see MPEP 2106 “programmed computer or "special purpose computer" test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the "special purpose" of executing the algorithm or software) was also superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions”
Further the MPEP provides, courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”
The instant claims are directed towards, “[a] method includes receiving, at a mission operations center (MOC), respective regional requests from respective regional schedulers, the respective regional requests indicating mission windows (MWs) and corresponding sensors to be operated in associated MWs, receiving, at the MOC, respective sensor plans from corresponding space vehicle operation centers (SVOCs), each sensor plan indicating MWs for which a given sensor is unavailable, generating, based on the regional requests and the sensor plans, a MW apportionment for each regional scheduler, the MW apportionment indicating MWs and corresponding sensors that a user associated with the regional scheduler has authorization to command the sensor, and providing the MW apportionment for the regional scheduler to the regional scheduler.” (Instant abstract) In other words, a distributed system for scheduling time/MW through MOC with one or more space vehicles. The claimed invention identifies conflicts within the MW request and then apply rules to provide MW apportionment. Then tangentially allows the user to control the sensor during the assigned MW, which is nonetheless found to be abstract – organizing human activity.
The Office maintains that the steps of the claimed invention can be carried Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3).
Like the cases described above a human given known information could find conflicts within the MW sensor plans requested from the different regions using his mind’s ability to reason and make observations. Then using the minds ability to make judgement – perform the same function as the claimed priority rules to deconflict and make MW apportionment. For all the reasons given the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
The claims solve a concrete technical problem in space vehicle command and control . . . claims thus extend beyond scheduling output and encompass the full technical cycle from MW apportionment through physical sensor commanding and sensor data receipt . . . STEP 2B: THE CLAIMS RECITE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. Remarks p. 12.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. MPEP 2106.05(a) provides, “claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
The instant claims are akin to the Affinity Labs of Tex. In that the specification failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement. Where Applicant argues that the improvement of the claimed invention extend beyond scheduling output and encompass the full technical cycle from MW apportionment. However the specification provides, “overcome these challenges and allow organizations to efficiently and effectively use shared and constrained space resources in support of tactical missions, embodiments include a new decentralized mission management concept has been developed that provides a multi-mission decentralized architecture for users.” (Spec. [11]). Where the problem to be solved is “there may be volatility in the schedule as ad hoc requests are received that out-prioritize previously planned activities according to the planning and optimization approach. The result can include frustrated users who cannot rely on the space system to provide the capabilities they need. For example, a user of an ISR resource may want to plan an activity that requires a series of ISR collections over a specific time period. Other elements of the activity depend upon those collections to be completed according to a strict schedule. The organization submits task request but may only receive partial coverage of the overall need. Likewise at any time before the mission activities are executed, those tasks that were planned may be cancelled as other users submit higher priority tasks. The lack of a dedicated resource means that the mission planners cannot formulate a plan to complete the overall mission objectives due to the lack of certainty of the space resource.” (Spec. [2]).
The specification only provides a detail teachings of how the MW conflicts are resolved and MW are allocated; it does not go in to detail how the space device sensors are controlled. Therefore the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below for all the reasons provided above.
The Examiner has identified no evidence that this combination is well-understood, routine, or conventional as required by Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The specification expressly distinguishes the claimed architecture from prior centralized systems, confirming it was not routine or conventional at the time of filing. Withdrawal of the 101 rejection and allowance of the claims is respectfully requested. Remarks p. 13.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The specification discloses, “Embodiments may also be implemented as instructions stored on a computer-readable storage device, which may be read and executed by at least one processor to perform the operations described herein. A computer-readable storage device may include any non-transitory mechanism for storing information in a form readable by a machine (e.g., a computer). For example, a computer-readable storage device may include read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), magnetic disk storage media, optical storage media, flash-memory devices, and other storage devices and media. Some embodiments may include one or more processors and may be configured with instructions stored on a computer-readable storage device.” (Spec. [9]). It further provides, “The example computer system 400 includes a processor 402 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a main memory 404 and a static memory 406, which communicate with each other via a bus 408. The computer system 400 may further include a video display unit 410 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT)). The computer system 400 also includes an alphanumeric input device 412 (e.g., a keyboard), a user interface (UI) navigation device 414 (e.g., a mouse), a mass storage unit 416, a signal generation device 418 (e.g., a speaker), a network interface device 420, and a radio 430 such as Bluetooth, WWAN, WLAN, and NFC, permitting the application of security controls on such protocols.” (Spec. [48]).
The specification describes the system in a general and generic manner per at least Specification [9] and [48]. If Applicant would like the Office to interpret the claimed limitations in any other way, it is requested that he point to the specification that describes a special purpose machine. In the USPTO’s April 19, 2018 Memorandum, the Office noted “This memorandum further clarifies that the analysis as to whether an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use is the same as the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as to whether an element is so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification”, see p. 3. The specification does not provide any details to the alleged special purpose computer. It is further noted that centralized and distributed architecture of computer systems are well-understood, routine, or conventional.
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Applicant arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of the previous Office action are moot as the rejection is not made in this Office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings are sufficient to overcome the drawing objection of the previous Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 35 USC 102 rejection of the previous Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-9 are to a method (process). Claims 10-18 are to a medium (manufacture). Claims 19 and 20 are to a mission operation center (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A method for decentralized mission management of sensors of a space vehicle across a plurality of independent regional user organizations, the method comprising:
receiving, at a mission operations center (MOC) that is communicatively couple between a plurality of regional schedulers and a plurality of space vehicle operations centers (SVOCs), respective regional requests from respective one of the plurality of regional schedulers, the respective regional requests indicating one or more requested mission windows (MWs) and corresponding sensors of one or more space vehicles to be operated in the requested MWs, regional requests of the respective regional requests originating from different respective geographical regions;
receiving, at the MOC, respective sensor plans from ones of the plurality of SVOCs, each sensor plan indicating MWs for which a given sensor of the sensors of one or more space vehicles is unavailable;
generating, by the MOC and based (i) on the regional requests, (ii) the sensor plans, and (iii) an apportionment plan indicating a maximum authorized sensor usage allocable to each geographical region in a current epoch, a MW apportionment for each one of the regional scheduler, the MW apportionment indicating specific MWs and corresponding sensors of the one or more space vehicles for which a user organization associated with the regional scheduler is granted authorization to directly command the corresponding sensors during the specific MWs, generating the MW apportionment includes:
evaluating the sensor plans to identify any requested MWs that conflict with sensor unavailability indicated in the sensor plans and designating any such conflicting requested MWs as not possible;
applying the apportionment plan to identify any requested MWs that are not designated as not possible but that would cause sensor usage for the associated geographical region to exceed the maximum authorized sensor usage for the current epoch, and flagging any such requested MWs as potentially not allowed; and
providing the MW apportionment to each regional scheduler of the respective regional schedulers;
during respective MWs allocated to the respective regional schedulers by the MW apportionment, issuing, by respective user organizations associated with the respective regional schedulers, direct commands to the corresponding sensors of the space vehicles through a telemetry tracking, and command channel, without submission of the direct commands to a centralized command and control system;
receiving sensor data generated by the corresponding sensors in response to the direct commands.
The claims are primarily directed to the scheduling of resource or resource management. As claimed the scheduling of the apportionment is a mental process. A human using the power of his mind given the know information (request and sensor plans) could evaluation the known information and make a judgment regarding the mission windows apportionment for the regional scheduler. Here the claims receive information, analyze the information and provide the results of the analysis – thus the claims are found to be directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.
Further as amended the claims also fall in to the additional abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Where the allocation of mission windows to user organizations is the equivalent of managing personal behavior following rules or instructions. The scheduling of MW instructs the user as to when and which sensors he may use. The claim goes on to provide for the user’s ability to control or direct the sensors.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The receiving and providing elements are determined to be data gathering and outputting respectively – insignificant extra solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. Where the hardware components are claimed to a high level and generic manner therefore well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Franke et al (US 8,078,319 B2) teaches Mission Planner 410 may determine an optimal resource allocation and tasking in response to asynchronous user requests. The Sensor Data Manager 420 may coordinate, schedule, and optimize the distribution of received sensor data to the various users in response to asynchronous user requests.
Srivastava et al (US 2016/0216711 A1) teaches The systems and/or methods may enable scheduling of UAVs most capable of collecting different types of information for a mission, which may increase efficiencies of the UAVs and reduce costs associated with utilizing the UAVs.
Winn et al (US 2017/0083979 A1) teaches the airspace lease tap 154 may make more partitions (i.e., smaller volumes/smaller time intervals) in areas where conflicts are more likely (e.g., busy airspace) and may make fewer partitions (i.e., larger volumes/larger time intervals) in areas where conflicts are less likely.
Saad et al (US 10,810,519 B2) teaches Mission planner-1 542 may use messages 556 to modify the mission plan in order to resolve the conflict identified by mission control-1 536. Mission planner-1 542 may then send new commands or programs to mission control-1 536 to execute a modified mission plan, or may generate a number of sub-tasks to send to mission planner-2 544 for execution by number of level-2 agents 532, for example.
Fortkort (US 2026/0010773 A1) teaches scheduling system may implement arbitration logic to resolve conflicts when multiple capsules compete for execution in the same routing window, or when hardware constraints (e.g., memory, compute budget, energy availability) prevent simultaneous activation. Arbitration may involve queueing, preemption, weighted fairness mechanisms, or age-based prioritization. In one example, a capsule with a high routing vote but a low priority may be deferred in favor of a time-critical capsule with weaker votes but higher system-level priority.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights