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 .
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: Reference number 702 in Figure 27. 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.
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 11 recites “a ground station” on line 3 of claim 11. However 11 depends from claim 8, which recites “a ground station” on line 3 of claim 8. It appears that the ground station in claim 11 is the same as the ground station claim 8. Claim 11 should be amended to clearly identify whether the ground station in claim 11 is the same ground station or a different ground station.
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 8 is directed to method, which is a process and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 8 recites processing the collected data; applying data compression selectively to the processed collected data as indicated by the measurement parameters; and applying encryption selectively to the processed collected data as indicated by the measurement parameters. Processing the collected data, applying compression and encryption require performing mathematical operations on the measured data such as a FFT and analyzing the results (Fig. 2, Fig. 7). Therefore, the claim limitations fall into the mathematical processes grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I).
The additional elements are receiving measurement parameters transmitted by a ground station; measuring the phenomenon using the measurement parameters by collecting data and transferring, to another portion of the satellite, the processed collected data with the data compression selectively applied and with the encryption selectively applied.
Per step 2A, prong 2, The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The satellite and the ground station are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The steps for receiving measurement parameters and measuring the phenomenon are mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The step of transferring the processed collected data is simply outputting the result of the abstract idea, which is also insignificant extra-solution activity. When considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide anything further.
Per step 2B, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. Further, the courts have recognized that collecting data in various manners and outputting data in various manners are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Claims 9, 10 and 12 depend from claim 8 and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 9, 10 and 12 do not recite any additional elements. Since there are no recited additional elements, claims 9, 10 and 12 are not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites a further additional element that the another portion of the said satellite is configured to transmit the processed collected data with the data compression selectively applied and with the encryption selectively applied to a ground station. Transmitting the processed collected data is a further step of outputting the result of the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 11 is not integrated into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,587,335 to Choi (Choi) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2002/0041328 to LeCompte et al. (LeCompte)
Claim 8
With regard to receiving measurement parameters transmitted by a ground station; Choi teaches receiving an earth observation (EO) request that includes a region and time to image from a user radio station (URS) (col. 4, lines 52-63; Fig. 1, URS 810; col. 5, lines 4-8, 19-23; col. 8, lines 46-64).
With regard to measuring the phenomenon using the measurement parameters by collecting data; Choi teaches using EO sensors to make measurements (col. 9, lines 20-30; Fig. 2, EO sensors 171-173; col. 7, lines 9-22).
With regard to processing the collected data; Choi teaches processing the data from the EO sensors (col. 8, lines 36-45).
Choi does not teach applying data compression selectively to the processed collected data as indicated by the measurement parameters; applying encryption selectively to the processed collected data as indicated by the measurement parameters; and transferring, to another portion of the satellite, the processed collected data with the data compression selectively applied and with the encryption selectively applied.
LeCompte teaches compressing and encrypting data collected at a satellite (pars. 160, 183). LeCompte teaches that a command a data handling system performs Viterbi and/or Reed-Solomon encoding, which corresponds to another portion of the satellite, before passing the data to a transmitter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system, as taught by Choi, to include compression, encryption and encoding, as taught by LeCompte, because then bandwidth would have been decreased, and security would have been enhanced (pars. 164, 193).
Claim 11
Choi does not teach that the another portion of the said satellite is configured to transmit the processed collected data with the data compression selectively applied and with the encryption selectively applied to a ground station. LeCompte teaches transmitting the data to compressed and encrypted data to a ground station (par. 183; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system, as taught by Choi, to include compression, encryption and encoding, as taught by LeCompte, because then bandwidth would have been decreased, and security would have been enhanced (LeCompte, pars. 164, 193).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of LeCompte as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2023/0258836 to Blaunstein (Blaunstein).
Claim 9
Choi and LeCompte teach all the limitations of claim 8 upon which claim 9 depends. Choi and LeCompte does not teach that the physical phenomenon comprises plasma density. Blaunstein teaches a measurement that is proportional to the plasma ionization density (par 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system combination, as taught by Choi and LeCompte, to include measuring the plasma ionization density, as taught by Blaunstein, because then earthquakes would have been detected in advance (Blaunstein, pars. 3, 7).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of LeCompte as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0225373 to Ouzounov et al. (Ouzounov).
Claim 10
Choi and LeCompte teach all the limitations of claim 8 upon which claim 10 depends. Choi and LeCompte do not teach that the physical phenomenon comprises plasma temperature. Ouzounov teaches that plasma instabilities may lead to variations of plasma temperatures and measuring temperature (pars. 16, 17, 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system combination, as taught by Choi and LeCompte, to include measuring plasma temperature, as taught by Ouzounov, because then earthquakes would have been reliably forecasted (Ouzounov, par. 2).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of LeCompte as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0102959 to Lier et al. (Lier).
Claim 12
Choi and LeCompte teach all the limitations of claim 8 upon which claim 12 depends. Choi and LeCompte do not teach that the instrument includes automatic amplitude control and/or self-calibration. Lier teaches processing signals to generate an amplitude control signal (Abstract, par. 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system combination, as taught by Choi and LeCompte, to include amplitude control, as taught by Lier, because then uplink jammers would have been suppressed (Lier, par. 18).
Claim(s) 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of LeCompte and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0263164 to Gunning et al. (Gunning).
Claim 13
With regard to receiving, from a control center, a first set of measurement parameters at a first instrument housed on a first satellite; Choi teaches receiving an earth observation (EO) request that includes a region and time to image from a user radio station (URS) (col. 4, lines 52-63; Fig. 1, URS 810; col. 5, lines 4-8, 19-23; col. 8, lines 46-64).
With regard to measuring, by the first instrument, the phenomenon using the first set of measurement parameters by collecting data; Choi teaches using EO sensors to make measurements (col. 9, lines 20-30; Fig. 2, EO sensors 171-173; col. 7, lines 9-22).
With regard to processing, by the first instrument, the collected data into processed data; Choi teaches processing the data from the EO sensors (col. 8, lines 36-45).
Choi does not teach transferring the processed collected data to another device of the satellite, wherein the another device is configured to transmit the processed collected data to a first ground station, wherein the first ground station is configured to transmit the processed collected data to the control center, the control center being configured to perform operations comprising: analyzing the processed collected data, and determining a second set of measurement parameters different from the said first set of measurement parameters, the determining being based at least in part on the analyzing the processed collected data, and receiving, from a second ground station or the first ground station, the second set of measurement parameters at a second instrument housed on a second satellite; and measuring, by the second instrument, the phenomenon using the second set of measurement parameters by collecting data.
LeCompte teaches that a command a data handling system performs Viterbi and/or Reed-Solomon encoding, which corresponds to another portion of the satellite, before passing the data to a transmitter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system, as taught by Choi, to include encoding and transmitting the data, as taught by LeCompte, because then security would have been enhanced (pars. 164, 193).
Gunning teaches ground stations that can perform the functionality of the satellite including implementing the processing module (par. 86). Gunning teaches control of operation of the satellite based on reception of command data from a ground station (par. 90). Gunning teaches that a second ground station may communicate with the satellite through a backhaul link (pars. 134,1 37, 144). Gunning teaches using a second satellite to perform measurements based on the position of the satellites (pars. 137, 187). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as taught by Choi, to include performing analysis at a ground station and using a second ground station and a second satellite for communication and measurement, as taught by Gunning, because then fewer resources would have been used and power usage would have been reduced (Gunning, par. 134).
Claim 16
Choi does not teach that the step of processing, by the first instrument, the collected data comprises selective data compression. LeCompte teaches compressing data (pars. 183, 160). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system, as taught by Choi, to include compression, encryption and encoding, as taught by LeCompte, because then bandwidth would have been decreased (pars. 164, 193).
Claim 17
Choi does not teach that the step of processing, by the first instrument, the collected data comprises selective encryption. LeCompte teaches encrypting data (par. 183). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system, as taught by Choi, to include encrypting, as taught by LeCompte, because then security would have been enhanced (pars. 164, 193).
Claim 18
Choi does not teach that the control center is different from the first ground station and the control center is different from the second ground station. Gunning teaches a server which can store application data that can be downloaded from the network and configuring the server along with multiple ground stations (pars. 50, 55, 72, 86). With multiple ground stations and a server, any one of these devices could be designated the control center that is different from the other ground stations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system, as taught by Choi, to include a server and multiple ground stations, because then data processing would have been distributed and there would have been flexibility in processing and communicating data.
Claim 19
Choi does not teach that the control center is the same as either the first ground station or the second ground station. Gunning teaches a server which can store application data that can be downloaded from the network and configuring the server along with multiple ground stations (pars. 50, 55, 72, 86). With multiple ground stations and a server, any one of these devices could be designated the control center that is different or the same as one of ground stations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system, as taught by Choi, to include a server and multiple ground stations, because then data processing would have been distributed and there would have been flexibility in processing and communicating data.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of LeCompte and Gunning as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Blaunstein.
Claim 14
Choi, LeCompte and Gunning teach all the limitations of claim 13 upon which claim 14 depends. Choi, LeCompte and Gunning does not teach that the physical phenomenon comprises plasma density. Blaunstein teaches a measurement that is proportional to the plasma ionization density (par 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system combination, as taught by Choi, LeCompte and Gunning, to include measuring the plasma ionization density, as taught by Blaunstein, because then earthquakes would have been detected in advance (Blaunstein, pars. 3, 7).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of LeCompte and Gunning as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ouzounov.
Claim 15
Choi, LeCompte and Gunning teach all the limitations of claim 13 upon which claim 15 depends. Choi, LeCompte and Gunning do not teach that the physical phenomenon comprises plasma temperature. Ouzounov teaches that plasma instabilities may lead to variations of plasma temperatures and measuring temperature (pars. 16, 17, 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system combination, as taught by Choi, LeCompte and Gunning, to include measuring plasma temperature, as taught by Ouzounov, because then earthquakes would have been reliably forecasted (Ouzounov, par. 2).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of LeCompte and Gunning as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lier.
Claim 20
Choi, LeCompte and Gunning teach all the limitations of claim 13 upon which claim 20 depends. Choi, LeCompte and Gunning do not teach that the instrument includes automatic amplitude control and/or self-calibration. Lier teaches processing signals to generate an amplitude control signal (Abstract, par. 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the satellite system combination, as taught by Choi, LeCompte and Gunning, to include amplitude control, as taught by Lier, because then uplink jammers would have been suppressed (Lier, par. 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indicating the allowability of claims 1-7 is because the cited prior art does not teach a system that includes a first satellite comprising:
a communication interface;
a command and data handling computer;
a probe device;
applying encryption selectively to the processed collected data with the selectively applied data compression to generate selectively compressed and selectively encrypted measurement data; and transferring, using the communication interface, the selectively compressed and selectively encrypted measurement data to another device on the satellite, wherein the another device is configured to transmit to the controlling station the selectively compressed and selectively encrypted measurement data;
the controlling station comprising an antenna and a controlling station computer, the controlling station computer comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the controlling station computer to perform controlling station operations comprising: transmitting the first measurement parameters to the first satellite;
receiving the selectively compressed and selectively encrypted measurement data from the first satellite;
analyzing the selectively compressed and selectively encrypted measurement data to determine the existence of an anomaly at one or more locations in space;
determining one or more second measurement parameters different from the said first measurement parameters, the determining being based at least in part on the analyzing and the second measurement parameters being configured to cause a second satellite to perform additional measurements targeting the anomaly, and
transmitting the second measurement parameters to the second satellite, the second satellite being configured to perform additional measurements targeting the anomaly based on the second measurement parameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights