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 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 04/08/2025 filing with the USPTO.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2025 was 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)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 128, 130, 132 of Fig. 1., 200 of Fig. 2, and 421, 428 of Fig. 4 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. mental processes) 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. 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).
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 space vehicle sensor management, the method comprising:
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.
The claims are 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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Speidel et al (US 2022/0052753 A1)
Claims 1 and 10
Speidel teaches a method for space vehicle sensor management, the method comprising (Speidel [98] “Methods for operating a mobile network with orbital base stations”):
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 (Speidel [19] “RBs are assigned to UEs by the base station's scheduler, which may be driven by one of a variety of algorithms that optimize traffic flow depending on location, deployment configuration, coverage requirements, etc. Base stations within the network interface with each other through the X2 interface.” Also see Master Information Block at A.4 on p. 6 between [49] and [50] and Table 2 where the MIB is the equivalent of a master schedule);
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 (Speidel [102] “ information could be stored in a database and be spacecraft-specific depending on capability of each orbiting satellite, the actuators it hosts on board, and its intended orbital operations. Thus different spacecraft may exist in the same network with different actuators, capabilities, designs, etc.” and [158] “operating system may also host software that simultaneously controls the command and data handling system on the spacecraft that collects telemetry and data from sensors”, also see [278]);
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 (Speidel [185] “operating system may also host software that simultaneously controls the command and data handling system on the spacecraft that collects telemetry and data from sensors, or computed in software, and handles commands either executed autonomously based on internal feedback control loops (or external feedback control loops that may be run on the ground), or manually from a ground control center” and [187] “On-board sensors, such as star trackers, IMUs, cameras, horizon sensors, gyroscopes, etc. can be used to compute an orientation of the spacecraft in a certain coordinate frame, such as Earth-centered inertial. Additionally, these on-board sensors may be capable of computing the angular rates of the spacecraft as it rotates in inertial space”); and
providing the MW apportionment for the regional scheduler to the regional scheduler (Speidel abstract “ allocate links among terrestrial base stations and orbital base stations according to base station availability”).
With respect to claim 10 which recites substantially similar limitations as those rejected above, therefore this claim is rejected for the same reasoning given above. Claim 10 recites the additionally taught limitations of a non-transitory machine-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to perform operations for space vehicle sensor management by a mission operations center (MOC), the operations comprising (Speidel [462] “ code may be stored on a computer-readable storage medium, for example, in the form of a computer program comprising a plurality of instructions executable by one or more processors. The computer-readable storage medium may be non-transitory” and [185] “operating system may also host software that simultaneously controls the command and data handling system on the spacecraft that collects telemetry and data from sensors, or computed in software, and handles commands either executed autonomously based on internal feedback control loops (or external feedback control loops that may be run on the ground), or manually from a ground control center.”).
Claims 2 and 11
Speidel teaches the limitations of the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving an apportionment plan that indicates a maximum amount of sensor usage for each region covered by a regional scheduler in a given epoch (Speidel [30] and [172]); and
wherein the MW apportionment is further generated based on the apportionment plan (Speidel Table 3 and [403]).
With respect to claim 11 which recites substantially similar limitations as those rejected above, therefore this claim is rejected for the same reasoning given above.
Claims 3 and 12
Speidel teaches the limitations of the method of claim 2, wherein generating the MW apportionment for each regional scheduler includes evaluating the sensor plans and indicating any MWs requested in the regional requests that conflict with the sensor plans are not possible (Speidel [91] and [269]).
With respect to claim 12 which recites substantially similar limitations as those rejected above, therefore this claim is rejected for the same reasoning given above.
Claims 4 and 13
Speidel teaches the limitations of the method of claim 3, wherein generating the MW apportionment for each regional scheduler further includes flagging any MWs requested in the regional requests that are not indicated as not possible and conflict with the apportionment plan as potentially not allowed (Speidel [91], [269], and [287] where indictor is the equivalent of the claimed flag).
With respect to claim 13 which recites substantially similar limitations as those rejected above, therefore this claim is rejected for the same reasoning given above.
Claims 5 and 14
Speidel teaches the limitations of the method of claim 4, wherein generating the MW apportionment for each regional scheduler further includes applying priority to deconflict any MWs for which multiple regional schedulers are requesting access to a same sensor (Speidel [152] and [287] ).
With respect to claim 14 which recites substantially similar limitations as those rejected above, therefore this claim is rejected for the same reasoning given above.
Claims 6 and 15
Speidel teaches the limitations of the method of claim 5, wherein deconflicting the MWs includes allocating the same sensor to a regional scheduler of the regional schedulers that does not have an apportionment plan conflict when another regional scheduler of the regional schedulers has an apportionment plan conflict (Speidel [152]).
With respect to claim 15 which recites substantially similar limitations as those rejected above, therefore this claim is rejected for the same reasoning given above.
Claims 7 and 16
Speidel teaches the limitations of the method of claim 6, wherein deconflicting the MWs includes allocating the same sensor to a regional scheduler of the regional schedulers that has a higher priority mission (Speidel [355]).
With respect to claim 16 which recites substantially similar limitations as those rejected above, therefore this claim is rejected for the same reasoning given above.
Claims 8 and 17
Speidel teaches the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein generating the MW apportionment further includes generating sensor requests consistent with a draft MW apportionment and the method further includes (Speidel [197]):
providing the sensor requests to the SVOCs (Speidel [101] and [469]).
With respect to claim 17 which recites substantially similar limitations as those rejected above, therefore this claim is rejected for the same reasoning given above.
Claims 9 and 18
Speidel teaches the limitations of the method of claim 8, further comprising:
receiving sensor responses to the sensor requests, the sensor responses indicating whether a MW request of a sensor request of the sensor requests is approved or denied (Speidel [41], [370]); and
revising the draft MW apportionment for each of the regional schedulers based on the sensor responses to generate the MW apportionment (Speidel [41] and [185]).
With respect to claim 18 which recites substantially similar limitations as those rejected above, therefore this claim is rejected for the same reasoning given above.
Claim 19
Speidel teaches a mission operations center (MOC) comprising (Speidel [36]):
an input device configured to (Speidel [14] and [211]):
receive respective regional requests from respective regional schedulers, the respective regional requests indicating mission windows (MWs) and corresponding sensors to be operated in associated MWs (Speidel [19], also see Master Information Block at A.4 on p. 6 between [49] and [50] and Table 2 where the MIB is the equivalent of a master schedule);
receive respective sensor plans from corresponding space vehicle operation centers (SVOCs), each sensor plan indicating MWs for which a given sensor is unavailable (Speidel [102] and [158], also see [278]);
processing circuitry coupled to the input device, the processing circuitry configured to (Speidel [14] and [211]):
generate, 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 (Speidel [185-187]; and
an output device configured to provide the MW apportionment for the regional scheduler to the regional scheduler (Speidel abstract).
Claim 20
20. The MOC of claim 19, wherein:
the input device is further configured to receive an apportionment plan that indicates a maximum amount of sensor usage for each region covered by a regional scheduler in a given epoch (Speidel [30] and [172]); and
the processing circuitry is configured to generate the MW apportionment is further generated based on the apportionment plan (Speidel Table 3 and [403]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clancy et al (US 2019/0121665 A1) teaches satellites 110A-110C each include aerial schedulers that coordinate operations performed by associated sensors based on data communications received from the terrestrial station.
Cartwright et al (US 2025/0182471 A1) teaches schedule calculation module 302 is activated, as described above, schedule calculation module 302 fetches any task that meets the following criteria: [0121] The task is in “active” state. [0122] The time window associated with the task (i.e. the time period during which the task must be completed) is not wholly located within each satellite's red zone.
Richarte et al (US 2023/0231699 A1) teaches scheduling & tasking module 120 is configured to assign satellite resources (hardware and software resources) between one or more users, for the extent of their corresponding operating windows. The satellite resources comprise hardware and software resources including at least one of payload systems, storage, sensors, upload or download bandwidth capacity, application containers, virtual or physical on-board computers, modules, supplies used by the space-based manufacturing facility, operating windows, satellite tasks, requests (tasking or data requests), cryptographic operations, data or information that is stored, collected or processed (without breaching the privacy of users), and so forth.
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