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 1-15, 17 pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorusso (“COSMO…” https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2324332; cited in IDS, PTO-892) in view of Porfilio (“The acquisition modes…” doi: 10.1109/IGARSS.2016.7729537; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of Calabrese (“New concepts…” 10.1109/IGARSS.2015.7325740; cited in IDS, PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1,
Lorusso teaches:
A method of operating a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) ([abstract] – “CSG constellation… Synthetic Aperture Radar”) to acquire image data of a swath comprising a plurality of sub swaths, wherein the SAR is carried on a platform moving along a flight direction and a radiated beam is directed towards the swath, the method comprising:
electronically steering the beam in azimuth direction along one subswath for an acquisition (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference); ([p. 2, section 2] – “when operated in squinted geometry and multi-swath mode [2], they are instead classified as follows: Non-Standard Operational:… squinted Spotlight acquisitions will belong to this class if the antenna repointing is realized by electronic steering schema simultaneously operating during mechanical pitch manoeuvres (with constant pitch rate)” [3.1 – Lambda Recovery and Azimuth Unfolding] – “The squint is the angle between the plane orthogonal to the velocity vector and the pointing vector at scene centre; this angle is different from zero for the so called “squinted acquisition”. The steering angle is the instantaneous squint angle at each acquisition instant of time and changes during the whole Spotlight acquisition. The instantaneous steering is obtained changing the pointing vector by using both mechanical attitude and electronic beam-forming.”) and
mechanically steering the beam in a direction (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) parallel to the flight direction duringan acquisition ([p. 2, section 2] – “when operated in squinted geometry and multi-swath mode [2], they are instead classified as follows: Non-Standard Operational:… squinted Spotlight acquisitions will belong to this class if the antenna repointing is realized by electronic steering schema simultaneously operating during mechanical pitch manoeuvres (with constant pitch rate)” [3.1 – Lambda Recovery and Azimuth Unfolding] – “The squint is the angle between the plane orthogonal to the velocity vector and the pointing vector at scene centre; this angle is different from zero for the so called “squinted acquisition”. The steering angle is the instantaneous squint angle at each acquisition instant of time and changes during the whole Spotlight acquisition. The instantaneous steering is obtained changing the pointing vector by using both mechanical attitude and electronic beam-forming.”)
Porfilio teaches:
mechanically steering the beam in a direction opposite to the flight direction during an acquisition (Fig. 3; [p. 2084, right col, para 1] – “the satellite will be able to acquire while manoeuvring around the pitch axis (see Figure 3): this allows to acquire a greater number of images on a small area (a “theatre”). As it is apparent from Figure 3, the “theatre” mode implies that the images are not zero-doppler acquisitions: they are acquired while the satellite changes its attitude from forward-looking to rearward-looking.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Porfilio’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions; (2) Porfillio teaches a specific technique of mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight on theatre acquisitions; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Calabrese teaches:
acquiring one subswath for each burst (Fig. 2, top left; [p. 226] – “squinted acquisitions on Theatre Scenario… possible configurations achievable in a theatre scenario” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “subswath” in light of the specification includes the area acquired within any given burst, i.e., within any given plurality of pulses. See, e.g., instant application [0030] – “Each burst comprises a plurality of pulses” [0051] – “Acquiring image data of one subswath may comprise acquiring image data in one or more bursts. Two successive bursts may illuminate a same section, overlapping sections, different adjacent sections, or different sections spaced from one another of the one subswath.”)
acquiring one subswath during each burst (Fig. 2, top left; [p. 226] – “squinted acquisitions on Theatre Scenario… possible configurations achievable in a theatre scenario” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “subswath” in light of the specification includes the area acquired within any given burst, i.e., within any given plurality of pulses. See, e.g., instant application [0030] – “Each burst comprises a plurality of pulses” [0051] – “Acquiring image data of one subswath may comprise acquiring image data in one or more bursts. Two successive bursts may illuminate a same section, overlapping sections, different adjacent sections, or different sections spaced from one another of the one subswath.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Calabrese in view of Porfilio’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso in view of Porfilio teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight on theatre acquisitions; (2) Calabrese teaches a specific implementation of acquisition using squinted acquisitions on theatre; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system (see Calabrese p. 226, first para – “Squinted acquisitions on Theatre Scenario can be used to serve more requests in a defined area, that otherwise could not be served because of conflict for time gap violation”); and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Lorusso further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein mechanically steering the beam is performed by rotating the SAR with respect to the platform, moving or slewing the platform including the SAR, or both. ([p. 2, section 2] – “when operated in squinted geometry and multi-swath mode [2], they are instead classified as follows: Non-Standard Operational:… squinted Spotlight acquisitions will belong to this class if the antenna repointing is realized by electronic steering schema simultaneously operating during mechanical pitch manoeuvres (with constant pitch rate)”)
Regarding claim 3,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Porfilio further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein mechanically steering the beam reduces an effective ground speed of the beam on Earth. (Fig. 3; [p. 2084, right col, para 1] – “the satellite will be able to acquire while manoeuvring around the pitch axis (see Figure 3): this allows to acquire a greater number of images on a small area (a “theatre”). As it is apparent from Figure 3, the “theatre” mode implies that the images are not zero-doppler acquisitions: they are acquired while the satellite changes its attitude from forward-looking to rearward-looking.” Examiner notes that mechanically steering the beam in this way necessarily reduces an effective ground speed of the beam on Earth.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Porfilio’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions; (2) Porfillio teaches a specific technique of mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight on theatre acquisitions; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Calabrese further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: electronically steering the beam in elevation between two bursts. (Fig. 2; Examiner notes that elevation direction corresponds to cross-track direction, see, e.g., instant application Fig. 3 and [0078] – “the beam is successively steered in elevation”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Calabrese’s known technique to Lorusso in view of Porfilio’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso in view of Porfilio teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions wherein mechanical steering occurs only about the pitch direction while travelling in the along-track direction and acquisitions occur in an order corresponding to, e.g., Porfilio Fig. 3; (2) Calabrese teaches a specific implementation of acquisition using squinted acquisitions on theatre wherein acquisitions occur at different azimuths and elevations; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Calabrese further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: successively steering the beam in elevation during one acquisition cycle comprising a plurality of bursts, wherein each burst illuminates a different subswath. (Fig. 2; Examiner notes that elevation direction corresponds to cross-track direction, see, e.g., instant application Fig. 3 and [0078] – “the beam is successively steered in elevation”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Calabrese’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso in view of Porfilio teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions wherein mechanical steering occurs only about the pitch direction while travelling in the along-track direction and acquisitions occur in an order corresponding to, e.g., Porfilio Fig. 3; (2) Calabrese teaches a specific implementation of acquisition using squinted acquisitions on theatre wherein acquisitions occur at different azimuths and elevations; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Calabrese further teaches:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: performing two or more acquisition cycles, wherein each first burst of each acquisition cycle illuminates a same subswath. (Fig. 2, bottom right image; Examiner notes instant application Fig. 4 in which, e.g., blocks 1, 5, 9, 13 correspond to first bursts of each acquisition cycle illuminating a same subswath 200A.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Calabrese’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso in view of Porfilio teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions wherein mechanical steering occurs only about the pitch direction while travelling in the along-track direction and acquisitions occur in an order corresponding to, e.g., Porfilio Fig. 3; (2) Calabrese teaches a specific implementation of acquisition using squinted acquisitions on theatre wherein acquisitions occur at different azimuths and elevations; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Porfilio further teaches:
The method of claim 7, further comprising mechanically steering the beam continuously during the one or more acquisition cycles in the direction opposite to the flight direction. (Fig. 3; [p. 2084, right col, para 1] – “the satellite will be able to acquire while manoeuvring around the pitch axis (see Figure 3): this allows to acquire a greater number of images on a small area (a “theatre”). As it is apparent from Figure 3, the “theatre” mode implies that the images are not zero-doppler acquisitions: they are acquired while the satellite changes its attitude from forward-looking to rearward-looking.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Porfilio’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions; (2) Porfillio teaches a specific technique of mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight on theatre acquisitions; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 11 and 17,
Claim(s) 11 is/are product claims corresponding to method claim(s) 1, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 11 and 17 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim 15,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Calabrese further teaches:
The satellite of claim 11, wherein the SAR comprises a small single aperture radar, a phased array, or both allowing electronic beam steering in two dimensions. ([p. 224, last para] – “Active phased array antenna providing fast scanning in elevation and azimuth to cover a wide access area and to support SCANSAR and SPOTLIGHT acquisitions;”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Calabrese’s known technique to Lorusso in view of Porfilio’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso in view of Porfilio teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight on theatre acquisitions; (2) Calabrese teaches a specific implementation of acquisition using squinted acquisitions on theatre; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system with efficient electronic beamforming; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorusso (“COSMO…” https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2324332; cited in IDS, PTO-892) in view of Porfilio (“The acquisition modes…” doi: 10.1109/IGARSS.2016.7729537; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of Calabrese (“New concepts…” 10.1109/IGARSS.2015.7325740; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of Nickel (“Fundamentals…” http://www.rto.nato.int/abstracts.asp.; cited in PTO-892).
Regarding claim 4,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Nickel teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein a steering angle rate for mechanically steering the beam is lower than a steering angle rate for electronically steering the beam, optionally at least by factor 3. ([p. 1.3, section 2.2 The phased array principle] – “Why are phased array antennas of interest? The main advantage is the nearly infinitely fast switching of the look direction of the array. This allows to illuminate the search space according to some optimality criterion instead of according to a continuous mechanical movement.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Nickel’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions; (2) Nickel teaches specific pros/cons of electronic vs mechanical steering in beamforming; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved efficiency; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Nickel teaches:
The method of any of claim 1, wherein a steering angle range for mechanically steering the beam is higher than a steering angle range for electronically steering the beam, optionally at least by factor 30. ([p. 1.6, section 2.4 – Realisations of phased array] – “A planar array on a conducting plane has only a limited field of view, typically the sector of ±60°. To overcome this limitation several approaches have been taken. The simplest solution is to rotate the array mechanically.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Nickel’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions; (2) Nickel teaches specific pros/cons of electronic vs mechanical steering in beamforming; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved efficiency; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorusso (“COSMO…” https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2324332; cited in IDS, PTO-892) in view of Porfilio (“The acquisition modes…” doi: 10.1109/IGARSS.2016.7729537; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of Calabrese (“New concepts…” 10.1109/IGARSS.2015.7325740; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of Meyer (“Spaceborne…” doi:10.25966/ez4f-mg98; cited in PTO-892)
Regarding claim 10,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Meyer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein parameters to be used for image acquisition are determined by:
a. selecting an image size; ([2.1.3 – synthetic aperture radar sensors] – “The aperture synthesis concept is the basis of all modern radar systems even though various modifications of the basic imaging concept are currently used to maximize either image resolution… or image coverage”)
b. selecting a resolution; ([2.1.3 – synthetic aperture radar sensors] – “The aperture synthesis concept is the basis of all modern radar systems even though various modifications of the basic imaging concept are currently used to maximize either image resolution… or image coverage… Modern spaceborne SAR sensors typically achieve ground resolutions between roughly 0.5 and 20 m, depending on their specific design.”)
c. (Fig. 2.4 – effects of look angle on forshortening, layover, shadow; [2.1.4 – geometric properties of SAR data])
d. calculating a burst duration; ([2.1.3 – synthetic aperture radar sensors] – “ensure that an object P on the Earth surface is imaged by many consecutive radar pulses as the antenna beam sweeps across the ground.”)
e. selecting a beam speed; ([2.1.3 – synthetic aperture radar sensors] – “a radar antenna (indicated by a gray rectangle) of reasonably short length is moving at a velocity V along its flight path from the right to the left. While moving, it is constantly transmitting short radar pulses”) and
f. deriving an image acquisition time. ([2.1.3 – synthetic aperture radar sensors] – “several antenna positions that illuminate object P as the sensor moves from point x1 (first time object P is seen) to point x2 (last time P is observed). Once the radar data are acquired, a postprocessing approach is applied to combine all acquisitions between x1 and x2 and into a single dataset that looks like it was acquired with a much longer antenna.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Meyer’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions; (2) Meyer teaches specific operational parameters inherent to SAR detection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved efficiency; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
A modification of the combination of Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese and further in view of Meyer to select / pick / calculate / derive these parameters would have been obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a finding is proper because (1) at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, in this case a need to set/ know operational SAR parameters, see, e.g., operational parameters known / listed / used in Lorusso; (2) there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem, see Meyer for parameter explanations, pros/cons, and derivations; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorusso (“COSMO…” https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2324332; cited in IDS, PTO-892) in view of Porfilio (“The acquisition modes…” doi: 10.1109/IGARSS.2016.7729537; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of Calabrese (“New concepts…” 10.1109/IGARSS.2015.7325740; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of US 20220185506 A1 to Kawamura.
Regarding claim 12,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Porfilio further teaches:
The satellite of claim 11, wherein the satellite comprises an Attitude Determination Control System (ADCS) ([p. 204, 4.1.2] – “Spotlight on Theatre, based on platform agility: thanks to the agility of CSG platform (improved with respect to CSK by means of the Control Moment Gyro attitude actuator), the satellite will be able to acquire while manoeuvring around the pitch axis (see Figure 3):”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Porfilio’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions; (2) Porfillio teaches a specific technique of mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight on theatre acquisitions; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Kawamura teaches:
satellite comprises one or more reaction wheels ([0049] – “The posture controller 240 then controls the reaction wheel, the control moment gyroscope (CMG), and the thrusters to control the posture of the target observation satellite 200S, ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Kawamura’s known technique to Lorusso in view of Porfilio’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso in view of Porfilio teaches a base method of satellite movement about the pitch axis by means of a control moment gyroscope; (2) Kawamura teaches a specific technique using a reaction wheel in connection with a control moment gyroscope in order to control a satellite’s movement/position; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorusso (“COSMO…” https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2324332; cited in IDS, PTO-892) in view of Porfilio (“The acquisition modes…” doi: 10.1109/IGARSS.2016.7729537; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of Calabrese (“New concepts…” 10.1109/IGARSS.2015.7325740; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of US 20150219744 A1 to Eikenberry.
Regarding claim 13,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Eikenberry teaches:
The satellite of claim 11, wherein the satellite is configured to mechanically steer the beam by slewing in the azimuth direction at up to 10/second. ([claim 11] – “the recited configuration enables slewing of the satellite at a slew rate of up to ten degrees per second.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Eikenberry’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso teaches a base method of simultaneous electronic and mechanical steering for squinted “non-standard” spotlight acquisitions with mechanical pitch maneuvers of a constant rate; (2) Eikenberry teaches a specific slew rate of a satellite; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved efficiency; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorusso (“COSMO…” https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2324332; cited in IDS, PTO-892) in view of Porfilio (“The acquisition modes…” doi: 10.1109/IGARSS.2016.7729537; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of Calabrese (“New concepts…” 10.1109/IGARSS.2015.7325740; cited in IDS, PTO-892) and further in view of US 20170361948 A1 to Lumaca.
Regarding claim 14,
Lorusso in view of Porfilio and further in view of Calabrese teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Lumaca teaches:
The satellite of claim 11, wherein the satellite has a total mass of less than 1000 kg. ([0016] – “the term microsatellite will be used to indicate an artificial satellite with a mass of less than, or at most equal to, 150 kg… installing on the body of the microsatellite (5, 6, 7) a synthetic aperture radar system (503)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Lumaca’s known technique to Lorusso’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Lorusso teaches a base method of SAR acquisition via satellite; (2) Lumaca teaches a specific satellite upon which a SAR system is installed; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a more efficient system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648