DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 12 July 2024 and the preliminary amendment filed on 07 November 2024.
Claim 1 is cancelled.
Claims 2-11 are presented for examination
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp/.
Claims 2-11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,684 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim recitations are merely reworded to recite the same limitation in different language and some of the limitations have been grouped in a slightly different manner but still overall set forth the same limitations. All the recited elements and limitations are found over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,684 B2.
Claims 2-11 in the instant application are much broader than claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,684 B2 as shown below.
For example,
Instant appl. 18/771,004 patent # 12,074,684 B2
Claims 2-11 ≈ claims 1-24
“to/a change” in claim 2 “a change” in claims 1-24
“a pathway configuration schedule” in claim 2 “a pathway configuration schedule” in claim 13
“a bent-pipe signal path” in claim 2 “a bent-pipe signal path” in claim 1,13 “switched pathway couplings” in claim 2 “switched pathway couplings” in claims
1,13
“illuminate” in claim 2 “illuminate” in claims 1,13
In light of instant Figure 9, [86],
The instant “a terrestrial node”= element 150 ≈ “ground terminal” in claims 1-20
Wherein method claims 1-12 correspond to the system claims 13-24 in US patent No. 12,074,684 B2.
-------------------------------
Claims 2-11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,502,745 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim recitations are merely reworded to recite the same limitation in different language and some of the limitations have been grouped in a slightly different manner but still overall set forth the same limitations. All the recited elements and limitations are found over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,502,745 B2.
Claims 2-11 in the instant application are much broader than claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,502,745 B2 as shown below.
For example,
Instant appl. 18/771,004 patent # 11,502,745 B2
Claims 2-11 ≈ claims 1-14
“a change” in claim 2 “movement/travel” in claims 1, 2
“a pathway configuration schedule” in claim 2 “a pathway configuration schedule” in claims 1-14
“a bent-pipe signal path” in claim 2 “bent-pipe pathways / orbital paths of the constellation of bent-pipe satellites” in claims 1-14
“switched pathway couplings” in claim 2 “a physical circuit” in claims 1, 4-9
“illuminate” in claim 2 “spot beam footprint” in claims 1-3
In light of instant Figure 9, [86],
The instant “a terrestrial node”= element 150 ≈ “terrestrial terminal” in claims 1-20
-------------------------------
Claims 2-11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,070,282 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim recitations are merely reworded to recite the same limitation in different language and some of the limitations have been grouped in a slightly different manner but still overall set forth the same limitations. All the recited elements and limitations are found over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,070,282 B2.
Claims 2-11 in the instant application are much broader than claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,070,282 B2 as shown below.
For example,
Instant appl. 18/771,004 patent # 11,070,282 B2
Claims 2-11 ≈ claims 1-20
“a change” in claim 2 “movement” in claims 1, 14, 20
“a bent-pipe signal path” in claim 2 “bent-pipe pathways” in claims 1, 9, 11, 13-14, 16-18, 20
“a pathway configuration schedule” in claim 2 “a pathway configuration schedule”
In claims 1-20
“switched pathway couplings” in claim 2 “a physical circuit” in claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17
“illuminate” in claim 2 “coverage area” in claim 20
In light of instant Figure 9, [86],
The instant “a terrestrial node”= element 150 ≈ “terrestrial terminal” in claims 1-20
----------------------------
Claims 2-11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,707,952 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim recitations are merely reworded to recite the same limitation in different language and some of the limitations have been grouped in a slightly different manner but still overall set forth the same limitations. All the recited elements and limitations are found over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,707,952 B2.
Claims 2-11 in the instant application are much broader than claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,707,952 B2 as shown below.
For example,
Instant appl. 18/771,004 patent # 10,707,952 B2
Claims 2-11 ≈ claims 1-30
“a change” in claim 2 “a movement” in claims 1, 22
“a bent-pipe signal path” in claim 2 “bent-pipe pathways” in claims 1, 2, 6-10, 12-15, 18
“a pathway configuration schedule” in claim 2 “a pathway configuration schedule”
In claims 1-30
“switched pathway couplings” in claim 2 “a physical circuit” in claims 1, 5, 8-10, 22, 26-27
“illuminate” in claim 2 “illuminate” in claims 22-24
In light of instant Figure 9, [86],
The instant “a terrestrial node”= element 150 ≈ “terrestrial terminal” in claims 1-30.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00AM -3:30PM.
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, Kevin Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/HAI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights