DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 11 has been canceled, claims 1-10 and 12-20 remain pending in the application.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1-2, 6-8, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart U.S. Patent Application 20190347382 in view of Umegaki U.S. Patent Application 20220317314, and further in view of Augenbraun U.S. Patent Application 20120035887.
Regarding claim 14, Stoddart discloses a computing system, comprising:
a logic subsystem (processor 112); and
a storage subsystem (memory 116) holding instructions executable by the logic subsystem to (paragraph [0098]: one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to compute a first plurality of metric values based on a plurality of metrics associated with one or more design goals and a first plurality of parameter values for a parameterized automobile model):
generate a plurality of generation values based on an input seed value (paragraph [0072]: at step 502, where the optimization engine 140 generates the parameter value matrix 142 based on the constraint list 122; paragraph [0024]: The constraint list 122 includes, without limitation, a fixed parameter list (not shown in FIG. 1) and a variable parameter list);
use a model generation system to generate a plurality of different three-dimensional (3D) models, wherein the plurality of different 3D models differ according to a plurality of configuration parameters (paragraph [0072]: At step 504, the automobile modeling subsystem 150 generates the generation design space 154 based on the parameter value matrix 152 and the parameterized automobile model 152; paragraph [0068]: FIG. 4... As illustrated by the CAD geometry models 410(1) and 410(2), the wheelbase of the first design is significantly longer than the wheelbase of the second design), and wherein,
for each 3D model of the plurality of different 3D models, the plurality of configuration parameters of the 3D model are determined based at least in part on the plurality of generation values and a plurality of configuration plausibility constraints of the model generation system (paragraph [0024]: The constraint list 122 includes, without limitation, a fixed parameter list (not shown in FIG. 1) and a variable parameter list); and
output the plurality of different three-dimensional (3D) models (paragraph [0074]: At step 514, the exploration engine 180 interacts with a designer via the GUI 192 to determine the production design(s) 198 from the designs included in the optimized design space 172. At step 516, for each of the production designs 198(s), the exploration engine 180 transmits a least one CAD geometry model 410 representing the production design 198 to any number of software applications that perform subsequent design and/or manufacturing activities based on the production design(s) 198).
Stoddart discloses all the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above. However, Stoddart fails to disclose generating a plurality of different three-dimensional (3D) satellite models, for a simulated material, the material parameters comprises reflectivity properties of the simulated material, brightness properties of the simulated material, and thermal properties of the simulated material.
Umegaki discloses generating a plurality of different three-dimensional (3D) satellite models (paragraph [0040]: The satellite 3D model database 800 stores simulated images generated based on the 3D model of the target satellite by changing the orientation of the 3D model from a single viewpoint; Umegaki’s teaching of satellite 3D model can be used in Stoddart’s system, such as to generate a plurality of different three-dimensional (3D) satellite models according to a plurality of satellite configuration parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart’s to generate target satellite as taught by Umegaki, to estimate the attitude of a satellite before the satellite was taken from the taken images.
Stoddart as modified by Umegaki discloses all the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above. However, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki fails to disclose for a simulated material, the material parameters comprises reflectivity properties of the simulated material, brightness properties of the simulated material, and thermal properties of the simulated material.
Augenbraun discloses a simulated material, the material parameters comprises reflectivity properties of the simulated material, brightness properties of the simulated material, and thermal properties of the simulated material (paragraph [0116]: the energy output calculations will be modified upward during the period that the surface is reflecting light (reflectivity properties) onto the panel; paragraph [0136]: the brightness (brightness properties) of the modeled light may be multiplied by the energy conversion response of the solar panel according to brightness to determine energy output at that time; paragraph [0010]: Solar thermal systems convert light energy into heat and use the heat for heating, cooling, or generating electricity (thermal properties); Augenbraun’s teaching of analyzing surface material properties can be used in Stoddart and Umegaki’s system, such as to analyzing satellite surface material properties).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart and Umegaki’s to analyze surface material properties as taught by Augenbraun, to collect data and analyze the light that falls on a surface of interest.
Regarding claim 15, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses the computing system of claim 14, wherein at least one configuration plausibility constraint of the plurality of configuration plausibility constraints defines, for a satellite configuration parameter of the plurality of satellite configuration parameters, a range of permissible values for the satellite configuration parameter (Stoddart’s paragraph [0024]: The constraint list 122 includes, without limitation, a fixed parameter list (not shown in FIG. 1) and a variable parameter list; paragraph [0056]: The variable parameter list 220 may be specified in any technically feasible fashion and in any technically feasible format... the allowed parameter values may be specified as “any,” a range of parameter values, a list of parameter values, etc.; Umegaki’s paragraph [0040]: The satellite 3D model database 800 stores simulated images generated based on the 3D model of the target satellite by changing the orientation of the 3D model from a single viewpoint).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart’s to generate target satellite as taught by Umegaki, to estimate the attitude of a satellite before the satellite was taken from the taken images; and combine Stoddart and Umegaki’s to analyze surface material properties as taught by Augenbraun, to collect data and analyze the light that falls on a surface of interest.
Regarding claim 19, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses the computing system of claim 14, wherein the instructions are further executable to automatically generate a plurality of different satellite image views of the plurality of different 3D satellite models via an image rendering system of the computing system, wherein each of the plurality of different satellite image views differ according to one or more rendering variability parameters, and wherein for each satellite image view of the plurality of different satellite image views, the rendering variability parameters are selected from a pose of a 3D satellite model within the satellite image view, a distance of the 3D satellite model from a virtual camera position, and a backdrop scene in the satellite image view (Umegaki’s paragraph [0040]: The satellite 3D model database 800 stores simulated images generated based on the 3D model of the target satellite by changing the orientation of the 3D model from a single viewpoint; Stoddart’s paragraph [0045]: generates a graphical user interface (GUI) 192 and displays the GUI 192 on the user device 190. The user device 190 may be any type of device that is capable of transmitting input data and/or displaying visual content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart’s to generate target satellite as taught by Umegaki, to estimate the attitude of a satellite before the satellite was taken from the taken images; and combine Stoddart and Umegaki’s to analyze surface material properties as taught by Augenbraun, to collect data and analyze the light that falls on a surface of interest.
Claim 1 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 14 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 14 applies to the method steps of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 15 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 15 applies to the method steps of claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising automatically generating a plurality of different satellite image views of the plurality of different 3D satellite models via an image rendering system (Umegaki’s paragraph [0040]: The satellite 3D model database 800 stores simulated images generated based on the 3D model of the target satellite by changing the orientation of the 3D model from a single viewpoint; Stoddart’s paragraph [0045]: generates a graphical user interface (GUI) 192 and displays the GUI 192 on the user device 190. The user device 190 may be any type of device that is capable of transmitting input data and/or displaying visual content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart’s to generate target satellite as taught by Umegaki, to estimate the attitude of a satellite before the satellite was taken from the taken images; and combine Stoddart and Umegaki’s to analyze surface material properties as taught by Augenbraun, to collect data and analyze the light that falls on a surface of interest.
Regarding claim 7, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses the method of claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of different satellite image views differ according to one or more rendering variability parameters, wherein for each satellite image view of the plurality of different satellite image views, the rendering variability parameters are selected from a pose of a 3D satellite model within the satellite image view, a distance of the 3D satellite model from a virtual camera position, and a backdrop scene in the satellite image view (Umegaki’s paragraph [0040]: The satellite 3D model database 800 stores simulated images generated based on the 3D model of the target satellite by changing the orientation of the 3D model from a single viewpoint; Stoddart’s paragraph [0045]: generates a graphical user interface (GUI) 192 and displays the GUI 192 on the user device 190. The user device 190 may be any type of device that is capable of transmitting input data and/or displaying visual content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart’s to generate target satellite as taught by Umegaki, to estimate the attitude of a satellite before the satellite was taken from the taken images; and combine Stoddart and Umegaki’s to analyze surface material properties as taught by Augenbraun, to collect data and analyze the light that falls on a surface of interest.
Regarding claim 8, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses the method of claim 6, wherein a first satellite image view of the plurality of different satellite image views is rendered to simulate satellite illumination using visible-spectrum illumination light (Umegaki’s paragraph [0040]: The satellite 3D model database 800 stores simulated images generated based on the 3D model of the target satellite by changing the orientation of the 3D model from a single viewpoint), and
wherein a second satellite image view of the plurality of different satellite image views is rendered to simulate satellite illumination using infrared-spectrum illumination light (Umegaki’s paragraph [0010]: determining the maximum pixel, which is a pixel with the largest luminance, and the minimum pixel, which is a pixel with the smallest luminance, respectively, in an infrared image, which is an image taken by an infrared sensor of a target satellite that is a satellite whose attitude is to be estimated; paragraph [0014]: FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of an infrared image taken by an infrared image taking unit 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart’s to generate target satellite as taught by Umegaki, to estimate the attitude of a satellite before the satellite was taken from the taken images; and combine Stoddart and Umegaki’s to analyze surface material properties as taught by Augenbraun, to collect data and analyze the light that falls on a surface of interest.
Claim 20 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 14 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 14 applies to the method steps of claim 20.
Claim 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart U.S. Patent Application 20190347382 in view of Umegaki U.S. Patent Application 20220317314, in view of Augenbraun U.S. Patent Application 20120035887, and further in view of Guo U.S. Patent Application 20220161424.
Regarding claim 16, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses all the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above. However, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun fails to disclose a probability distribution of values for the configuration parameter.
Guo discloses a probability distribution of values for the configuration parameter (paragraph [0078]: may have a probability distribution of task parameters TPa of robot configurations prior to executing associated skill a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart, Umegaki and Augenbraun’s to use a probability distribution of parameters as taught by Guo, to find best design parameters in satellite.
Claim 3 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 16 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 16 applies to the method steps of claim 3.
Claim 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart U.S. Patent Application 20190347382 in view of Umegaki U.S. Patent Application 20220317314, in view of Augenbraun U.S. Patent Application 20120035887, and further in view of Kawakami U.S. Patent Application 20180170122.
Regarding claim 17, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses all the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above. However, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun fails to disclose a configuration parameter of the plurality of configuration parameters, a maximum ratio difference between the configuration parameter and a second configuration parameter.
Kawakami discloses a configuration parameter of the plurality of configuration parameters, a maximum ratio difference between the configuration parameter and a second configuration parameter (paragraph [0013]: at least a part of the conductive portion is arranged between the whole void ratio maximum difference position and a land portion void ratio maximum difference position and [0014] wherein the land portion void ratio maximum difference position is a position where the difference of the void ratio between the one side and the other side in the tire width direction becomes maximum in the void ratio of the outer surface in the land portion including the whole void ratio maximum difference position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart, Umegak and Augenbraun i’s to use ratio maximum difference as taught by Kawakami, to find best design parameters in satellite.
Claim 4 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 17 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 17 applies to the method steps of claim 4.
Claim 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart U.S. Patent Application 20190347382 in view of Umegaki U.S. Patent Application 20220317314, in view of Augenbraun U.S. Patent Application 20120035887, and further in view of Hong U.S. Patent Application 20210184362.
Regarding claim 18, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses all the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above. However, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun fails to disclose a first output profile of the model generation system, and wherein the model generation system is switchable between the first output profile and a second output profile.
Hong discloses a first output profile of the model generation system, and wherein the model generation system is switchable between the first output profile and a second output profile (paragraph [0182]: Enables very high gains and wide angle beam scanning capabilities simultaneously Capable for continuous beam scan or switched beams=adaptive beam forming or switched beamforming).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart, Umegaki and Augenbraun’s to switch design as taught by Hong, to improve design in satellite.
Claim 5 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 18 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 18 applies to the method steps of claim 5.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart U.S. Patent Application 20190347382 in view of Umegaki U.S. Patent Application 20220317314, in view of Augenbraun U.S. Patent Application 20120035887, and further in view of List U.S. Patent Application 20240062166.
Regarding claim 9, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun fails to disclose a configuration map labelling, for each of a plurality of pixels of the image view, identifiers corresponding to different components depicted by the plurality of pixels.
List discloses a configuration map labelling, for each of a plurality of pixels of the image view, identifiers corresponding to different components depicted by the plurality of pixels (paragraph [0102]: computing device 104 may be further configured to identify a plurality of aircraft component labels as a function of the component identifier 112: paragraph [0008]: FIG. 2 is a diagram representing an exemplary embodiment of an aircraft composed of a plurality of aircraft components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart, Umegaki and Augenbraun’s to use configuration map as taught by List, to store component information on an immutable sequential listing.
Claim 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart U.S. Patent Application 20190347382 in view of Umegaki U.S. Patent Application 20220317314, in view of Augenbraun U.S. Patent Application 20120035887, and further in view of Fraze U.S. Patent Application 20200010220.
Regarding claim 10, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun fails to disclose the satellite component parameters are selected from a shape of a satellite body of the 3D satellite model, a quantity of solar panels for the 3D satellite model, a quantity of antennas for the 3D satellite model, a quantity of thrusters for the 3D satellite model, dimensions for one or more satellite components in the 3D satellite model, a component type for the one or more satellite components in the 3D satellite model, an attachment type for the one or more satellite components in the 3D satellite model, and attachment locations for one or more of the satellite components in the 3D satellite model.
Fraze discloses the satellite component parameters are selected from a shape of a satellite body of the 3D satellite model, a quantity of solar panels for the 3D satellite model, a quantity of antennas for the 3D satellite model, a quantity of thrusters for the 3D satellite model, dimensions for one or more satellite components in the 3D satellite model, a component type for the one or more satellite components in the 3D satellite model, an attachment type for the one or more satellite components in the 3D satellite model, and attachment locations for one or more of the satellite components in the 3D satellite model (paragraph [0025]: the shape and angle α can be selected to best suit on-board components of the satellite bus, such as solar panels, communication antennas, imaging sensors, propulsion components, inertial adjustment components, or other components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart, Umegaki and Augenbraun’s to select parameters as taught by Fraze, to find best design parameters in satellite.
Regarding claim 13, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki, Augenbraun and Fraze discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of satellite configuration parameters include, for each of one or more generic component representations attached to a satellite body in the 3D satellite model, an appearance of a generic component representation and a position of a generic component representation (Fraze’s paragraph [0025]: the shape and angle α can be selected to best suit on-board components of the satellite bus, such as solar panels, communication antennas, imaging sensors, propulsion components, inertial adjustment components, or other components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart, Umegaki and Augenbraun’s to select parameters as taught by Fraze, to find best design parameters in satellite.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart U.S. Patent Application 20190347382 in view of Umegaki U.S. Patent Application 20220317314, in view of Augenbraun U.S. Patent Application 20120035887, and further in view of Yu U.S. Patent Application 20220365255.
Regarding claim 12, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun discloses all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, Stoddart as modified by Umegaki and Augenbraun fails to disclose lighting parameters are selected from a position of a light source relative to the 3D model, an intensity of illumination light provided by the light source, and a uniformity of the illumination light on the 3D model.
Yu discloses lighting parameters are selected from a position of a light source relative to the 3D model, an intensity of illumination light provided by the light source, and a uniformity of the illumination light on the 3D model (paragraph [0066]: adjustment and selection of the repeated cell or pattern width, W or C, enables control of uniformity of illumination within the penumbral zone, these two factors being capable of independent manipulation and selection so as to achieve the most desired lighting effect).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Stoddart, Umegaki and Augenbraun’s to select lighting parameters as taught by Yu, to find best design parameters in satellite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claim 1, 14 and 20 have been fully considered and are moot upon a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart U.S. Patent Application 20190347382 in view of Umegaki U.S. Patent Application 20220317314, and further in view of Augenbraun U.S. Patent Application 20120035887, as outlined above.
Applicant argues on page 9-11 about newly proposed "satellite material parameters, and wherein for a simulated material in the 3D satellite model, the satellite material parameters comprises reflectivity properties of the simulated material, brightness properties of the simulated material, and thermal properties of the simulated material."
In reply, the rejection is based on Stoddart, Umegaki and Augenbraun combined. Augenbraun discloses a simulated material, the material parameters comprises reflectivity properties of the simulated material, brightness properties of the simulated material, and thermal properties of the simulated material (paragraph [0116]: the energy output calculations will be modified upward during the period that the surface is reflecting light (reflectivity properties) onto the panel; paragraph [0136]: the brightness (brightness properties) of the modeled light may be multiplied by the energy conversion response of the solar panel according to brightness to determine energy output at that time; paragraph [0010]: Solar thermal systems convert light energy into heat and use the heat for heating, cooling, or generating electricity (thermal properties)). Augenbraun’s teaching of analyzing surface material properties can be used in Stoddart and Umegaki’s system, such as to analyzing satellite surface material properties.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yi Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-9589. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on 571-272-7642. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YI YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights