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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2024. The submission is following the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(l) 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoshino et al., (US 2015/0292951 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10, Hoshino et al., disclose an information processing device comprising:
at least one memory (232, Fig.2) configured to store instructions (see Fig.2); and at least one processor (231, Fig.2) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire time series data which represents a luminous intensity of a space object (paragraph [0053], “this observation of the same target object is repeated regularly or irregularly”, and [0055], “the processing section 231 plots data showing a time change of estimated brightness of the target object”, showing the time series data; and paragraph [0061], “to extract the brightness data of the target object”); and calculate, based on the time series data ([0062], “At the step S37… extracts the periodicity from the time change of the estimated brightness of the target object”), an abnormality degree ( see Fig.3 and [0047], at the step S312, “occurrence or non-occurrence of an extraordinary event of the target object is detected”, showing the “extraordinary event” is the abnormality and “occurrence or non-occurrence” of this event is the degree of change) regarding a state of the space object (Fig.3, at the step S37, and [0067], “At a step S37, Whether or not an attitude control of the target object is being carried out can be checked based on the extraction result, and it is possible to estimate that the target object is in the operation state when the attitude control is being carried out”. The attitude control of the target object is indicated as object’s state, which is operating state or non-operating state).
Regarding claim 3, Hoshino et al., as discussed in claim 1, disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions: to detect an abnormality ( see Fig.3, at the step S312, “detect extraordinary event”) of the space object, based on the abnormality degree (Fig.3 and [0047], “At a step S39 of the third process, the shape, the attitude, and the surface material of the target object are estimated…the target object is registered on the space object database 2322, at a step S311 of the third process, comparison with the data acquired at previous times is carried out. At a step S312 of the third process, occurrence or non-occurrence of an extraordinary event of the target object is detected”).
Regarding claim 5, Hoshino et al., as discussed in claim 1, disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire, as the time series data (paragraph [0053], “At the step S22, observation of the same target object is repeated regularly or irregularly”, and [0055], At a step S32 plots data showing a time change of estimated brightness of the target object), segment data obtained by segmenting the luminous intensity, which is observed in time series, in accordance with observation intervals ([0053], “observation of the same target object is repeated regularly or irregularly” and [0055], “plots data showing a time change of estimated brightness of the target object. A graph may be produced in which the estimated brightness of the target object and an elapse of the time are plotted on the 2-dimensional coordinate system as an example of such data”, showing each “repeated regularly or irregularly” creates/generates a light curve plot in the step S32, which segment data is) and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate the abnormality degree based on the segment data ([0079], “at the step 311, when the target object have already registered on the space object database, i.e. when the known object has been observed once again, the processing section 231 compares the estimated brightness of the object body and the brightness data registered on the space object database”, and “detects an extraordinary state”, showing the abnormality degree is found by comparing the new observation/ a current segment and the previous observation data/segment to detect the change (the extraordinary state).
Regarding claim 8, Hoshino et al., as discussed in claim 1, disclose the at least one processor is configured to further execute the instructions to alert an occurrence of an abnormality of the space object ([0047], “the target object is registers on the important monitoring object database 2324”, indicating that the important monitoring is alerting operation), upon detecting the abnormality detected ([0047], “occurrence or non-occurrence of an extraordinary event of the target object is detected”) based on the abnormality degree ([0047], “comparison with the data acquired at previous times is carried out”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino et al., in view of Koizumi et al., (US 2022/0283057 A1).
Regarding claim 2, although Hoshino et al., as discussed in claim 1, disclose the at least one processor (231, Fig.2) being configured to execute the instructions to calculate the abnormality degree (Fig.3, and [0047], “an extraordinary event of the target object is detected”), based on the time series data (see Fig.4) and a light curve estimation database 2323 (Fig.2) to estimate/output the shape, the attitude, and the surface material of the target object ([0047]), based on training data representing the luminous intensity of the space object in a normal state ([0047], step 311, comparison with the data acquired at previous times), Hoshino et al., do not disclose the light curve estimation database being as a leaning model as claimed. Koizumi et al., disclose a processor calculating an abnormality degree ([0058], “calculates the anomaly score”) based on the time series data (fig.5) and a learning model ([0054], “The parameter storage unit 20 stores the learned parameter”), and wherein the learning model is a model trained to output reconstruction data of an input to the learning model (Fig.3, [0056]-[0060], calculating the anomaly score, comparing and determining the input to reconstructed output). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoshino et al., by utilizing the teaching of Koizumi et al., to provide higher sensitivity and accuracy for detecting anomalies in space object.
Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino et al., in view of Mizobuchi et al., (US 2021/0255613 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hoshino et al., as discussed in claim 1, disclose transition of the abnormality degree (the changing over time in steps S311 and S 313 of the extraordinary event, see Fig.2). Hoshino et al., do not disclose the display as claimed. Mizobuchi et al., disclose ([0006]) the at least one processor (a display processing unit) being configured to execute the instructions to display information (“a display unit configured to display the display screen”) on the abnormality degree ([0006], the abnormality degree transition), and display information indicating a transition of the abnormality degree (including the abnormality degree transition, see [0006]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoshino et al., by utilizing the teaching of Mizobuchi et al., to provide better prediction or notification of a possible system failure.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
6. Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to acquire, as the time series data, segment data obtained by segmenting the luminous intensity, which is observed in time series, into data representing a predetermined number of the luminous intensity, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate the abnormality degree based on the segment data.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)-272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
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, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on (571)-272-2328. 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights