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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation - Means Plus Function
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an orbit prediction unit”, “an optical communication unit”, and “a creation unit” introduced in claim 1; “a communication unit”, “an optical communication unit”, and “a directing unit” in claim 4”; and “a communication planning device” and “an optical communication unit” in claim 5”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefinite
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
Claims 1-5 include elements that are interpreted under 112(f) (see the 112(f) interpretation above). The application does not appear to disclose the structure, material, or acts for performing the recited functions/results. As a result, it is not clear what structure is within the scope of the claims. Each claim is discussed below.
Claim 1 recites an orbit prediction unit and a creation unit, both of which are interpreted under 112(f). These appear to be signal processing elements and the application discloses memory and a processor (e.g., see FIGS. 4 and 5). However, the application does not appear to teach the particular structure of the memory and processor to perform the recited functionality/results (e.g., the application does not appear to teach an algorithm to be stored in memory and executed by the processor to perform the recited functionality/results). As a result, it is not clear what particular structure is within the scope of the claim.
Claim 1 recites an “optical communication unit” which is interpreted under 112(f). This appears to be the transceiver in FIG. 5 plus some other structure that allows it to be moved or pointed (see the functional language in the last paragraph of claim 1 reciting the optical communication unit “tracks” the relay satellite). However, the application does not appear to teach structure for the optical communication unit that corresponds to this functionality.
Claims 2 and 3 add additional functionality/results to the “creation unit” and the “optical communication unit” but the application does not appear to teach the structure and/or algorithm to perform the additional recited functionality/results.
Claim 4 recites a “communication unit” and a “directing unit” both of which are interpreted under 112(f). The communication unit appears to be signal processing, but the application does not appear to teach an algorithm to perform the recited functionality/results. The “directing unit” appears to be a combination of physical structure and signal processing, but the application does not appear to teach structure and an algorithm to perform the recited functionality/results.
Claim 5 recites an “optical communication unit” and a “communication planning device”, both of which are interpreted under 112(f). These appear to be signal processing elements, but the application does not appear to teach an algorithm to perform the recited functionality/results. In addition, the optical communication unit has functionality that appears to correspond to structure for tracking/movement. The application does not appear to teach structure in the optical communication unit to perform this recited functionality/results.
As a result, it is not clear how to interpret these structures in the 112(f) interpretation.
The Examiner notes that the optical communication unit in claim 4 is interpreted under 112(f) but is not rejected because of the 112(f) interpretation. This optical communication unit appears to be the transceiver in FIG. 5. The Examiner also notes that the functionality of the optical communication unit in this claim is very different than the optical communication unit in claims 1, 2, and 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites an orbit prediction unit and a creation unit. These appear to be signal processing elements and the application discloses memory and a processor (e.g., see FIGS. 4 and 5). However, the application does not appear to describe how to use the memory and processor to perform the recited functionality/results (e.g., the application does not appear to teach an algorithm to be stored in memory and executed by the processor to perform the recited functionality/results).
Claim 1 claims an “optical communication unit”. This appears to be the transceiver in FIG. 5 plus some other structure that allows it to be moved or pointed (see the functional language in the last paragraph of claim 1). However, the application does not appear to teach structure for the optical communication unit that corresponds to this functionality.
Claims 2 and 3 add additional functionality/results to the “creation unit” and the “optical communication unit” but the application does not appear to teach the structure and/or algorithm to perform the additional recited functionality/results.
Claim 4 recites a “communication unit” and a “directing unit”. The communication unit appears to be signal processing, but the application does not appear to teach an algorithm to perform the recited functionality/results. The “directing unit” appears to be a combination of physical structure and signal processing, but the application does not appear to teach structure and an algorithm to perform the recited functionality/results.
Claim 5 recites an “optical communication unit” and a “communication planning device”. These appear to be signal processing elements, but the application does not appear to teach an algorithm to perform the recited functionality/results. In addition, the optical communication unit has functionality that appears to correspond to structure for tracking/movement. The application does not appear to teach structure in the optical communication unit to perform this recited functionality/results.
When considering the teachings of the application and the scope of the claims, see MPEP 2173.05(g), 4th paragraph:
… Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. …
This supports a finding that the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Conclusion.
After careful consideration the Examiner has concluded that the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As discussed above, there is significant uncertainty as to how to interpret the claims. Nonetheless, in the interests of compact prosecution, the following rejections are presented in an effort to assist Applicant in preparing the most complete response. All uncertainty as to the scope of the claims is interpreted to be consistent with the teachings of the cited art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obvious
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0302377 (Boroson) in view of US 2020/0024001 (Nishiyama).
Regarding claim 1, Boroson teaches a communication planning device comprising:
an orbit prediction unit configured to predict an orbit of a relay satellite configured to relay a communication between an earth station and a satellite including an optical communication unit (FIG. 2: processor-tracker 262 controls pointing controls 266 which controls the optical transmitter 500 and optical receiver 550); and
a creation unit configured to create control information for controlling the optical communication unit such that the optical communication unit directionally tracks the relay satellite based on the orbit predicted, in an unplanned communication period with a possibility of an occurrence of an unplanned communication between the satellite and the earth station, the unplanned communication being a communication not planned in advance (FIG. 2: processor-tracker 262).
Boroson at FIG. 1A illustrates a communication system including a ground station 150, relay satellite 110, and satellites 120, 140 communicating with the relay satellite 110.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In other words, the relay satellite 110 relays communications between the earth station 150 and the other satellites 120, 140, and the earth station 150 and satellites 110, 120, 140 all include communications hardware.
Orbit Prediction.
The satellites perform tracking and signal processing. See:
[0030] The GEO relay terminal may include a fixed-position wide-field-of-regard telescope points toward the Earth. At its focal plane is a detector array, with each pixel naturally mapping to a separate angular region of the telescope's full field. It will act like a typical multiple-beam antenna. The focal plane array (FPA) includes efficient optical detectors and a readout that can produce an output for each pixel at the frame rate, e.g., 1-10 KHz, 10-100 kHz, 0.1-10 MHz, and so on, with all pixels sampled at the same time and in step. Different FPAs may allow more independent sampling strategies, such as polling different detector elements at different rates and/or at different polling times. The outputs from the detectors in the FPA are sent to an array processor, in which the user's pulsed signals are identified, spatially tracked, demodulated, decoded, and passed on to the system controller and network processor.
[0031] Return links may be created only for known users that have requested entry to the system, and not necessarily for each possible receiver pixel. In the near term, a multiple-transmitter system may be either an array of independently-steered small telescopes, a larger telescope that is fast-steered with data bursted amongst the many users, or a hybrid system. Because the transmit beams may be narrower than the regions monitored by the receiver pixels, each transmitter may include its own pointing/tracking system which can also aid in the system's tracking the users on the receiver. Since the transmit and receive apertures are separate, point-ahead actuation is straightforward. Real-time closed-loop corrections to point-ahead can easily be included in the user/node hand-shaking protocols if desired.
Boroson at FIG. 2 teaches the use of tracking processors 212, 262 which operate with pointing controllers 216, 266 in both the relay satellite 200 and in the other satellites 250 (e.g., LEO) to control the orientation of the optical transmitters 350, 500 and optical receivers 300, 550.
PNG
media_image2.png
498
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0045] FIG. 2 illustrates parts of an OMA terminal 200 for a GEO relay satellite and a user terminal 250 for a LEO satellite, MEO satellite, or ground terminal in the systems shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B. The OMA terminal includes an OMA receiver 300 that is coupled to one or more receiver modems 340, a multiple-access (MA) processor 210, and one or more tracking processors 212, which are coupled in turn to pointing controls 216. The OMA receiver 300 is also coupled to one or more OMA transmitters 350, connect to one or modems transmit modems 370. The transmit modems 370 and receive modems 340 may be connected to other terminals 218 on the same GEO relay satellite via a data switching, routing, and aggregating processor 214, which may also include a memory for buffering signals received by the GEO relay satellite. (One of skill in the art will readily appreciate that the processing can be implemented using any suitable architecture, including both the multiple-processor architecture shown in FIG. 2 and architectures with more or fewer components, including single-processor architectures.)
[0046] The user terminal 250 also includes a transmitter 500 and receiver 550, which are coupled to transmit modems 540 and receive modems 570, respectively. The modems 540, 570 receive data from and provide data to a terrestrial communications network 270, such as the Internet, and to a (MA) processor/system controller 260 and a tracking processor 262, which in turn is coupled to pointing controls 266. The terrestrial communications network 270 may communicate with a network control processor 220 in the OMA terminal 200 via the free-space optical communications link between the OMA terminal 200 and the user terminal 250.
In other words, the processor-tracker 266 tracks the relay satellite. In the interests of compact prosecution, the Examiner also cites Nishiyama which teaches that it was known to generate predicted orbit data. See:
[0025] The operation parameter setting unit 11 uses a conventional technique to calculate and set values of multiple operation parameters used for the operation planning over the future. The operation parameters may include various parameters to be used in the operation plan. For example, the operation parameters may include: model orbit parameters for predicting the satellite's future orbit; parameters indicating the coordinate position and state of the ground station; and parameters about the orbital position of a data relay satellite. In a case when the artificial satellite performs an observation mission, the operation parameters may also include information such as the observation target position. Here, the model orbit parameters are taken as an example for explaining the parameter setting in detail.
In other words, it was known to predict the orbit of a satellite. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the tracking and communication taught in Boroson can include predicting the orbits of satellites. In particular, both are in the same technical field (e.g., satellite operation and communication) and the results would have been predictable (e.g., the predicted satellite orbits can be used for controlling the direction in which the transmitters and receivers are pointed for communications with that satellite).
Control Information.
Boroson teaches creating control information for controlling the optical communications to track the relay satellite (e.g., FIG. 2: Modems, pointing controls, processor-trackers). From this it would have been obvious that the tracking and pointing would continue even if communication were not ongoing or immediately planned (e.g., so that the satellites remain properly positioned and reacquisition of the other satellites is not required when communication is next planned). As a result, the unplanned communication period would have been obvious.
Prediction, Communication, and Creation Units.
Regarding the prediction unit, communication unit, and creation unit, Boroson at FIG. 2 illustrates particular implementations including transmitters and receivers (i.e., transceivers), modems, processors, and controllers as discussed above. It also teaches the use of software executed in processors:
[0089] The various methods or processes (e.g., of designing and making the technology disclosed above) outlined herein may be coded as software that is executable on one or more processors that employ any one of a variety of operating systems or platforms. Additionally, such software may be written using any of a number of suitable programming languages and/or programming or scripting tools, and also may be compiled as executable machine language code or intermediate code that is executed on a framework or virtual machine.
[0090] In this respect, various inventive concepts may be embodied as a computer readable storage medium (or multiple computer readable storage media) (e.g., a computer memory, one or more floppy discs, compact discs, optical discs, magnetic tapes, flash memories, circuit configurations in Field Programmable Gate Arrays or other semiconductor devices, or other non-transitory medium or tangible computer storage medium) encoded with one or more programs that, when executed on one or more computers or other processors, perform methods that implement the various embodiments of the invention discussed above. The computer readable medium or media can be transportable, such that the program or programs stored thereon can be loaded onto one or more different computers or other processors to implement various aspects of the present invention as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Boroson teaches the communication planning device according to claim 1, wherein the creation unit specifies a first relay satellite for relaying the unplanned communication for each time period from among a plurality of the relay satellites in the unplanned communication period based on the orbit predicted, and creates the control information such that the optical communication unit is directed to the first relay satellite for each time period.
FIG. 1B illustrates multiple relay satellites 110.
PNG
media_image3.png
612
918
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In particular, the relay satellites are at different locations around the Earth. As a result, when communication (planned or unplanned) is desired, it would have been obvious to pick/specify a relay satellite that is advantageously positioned (e.g., located above a desired ground station or within communication line-of-sight of a satellite with which communication is desired).
Furthermore, because it would have been obvious to predict the orbit of satellites (see claim 1), it would have been obvious to use this information when selecting a relay satellite for a particular communication event (e.g., selecting a relay satellite located above a desired ground station or within communication line-of-sight of a satellite with which communication is desired).
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to select a particular relay satellite for particular communications. With this being the case, it would have been obvious that the selection is communicated to the appropriate devices (e.g., the ground station, the relay satellite that will be used, and the other satellite(s) that will be used), such as with “control information” to identify and alert the devices that will be used.
Regarding claim 3, Boroson teaches the communication planning device according to claim 1, wherein when there is a request of the unplanned communication from the earth station to the satellite, the creation unit creates the communication request information including a predicted position of the satellite.
It was known that satellites move and, as discussed in claim 1, it would have been obvious from the cited art to calculate the predicted position of the satellites. With this in mind, whenever there is communication (planned or unplanned), it would have been obvious to use the predicted position of the relevant satellites for orientation (e.g., pointing) of the transmitters and receivers. In other words, it would have been obvious to include information on the predicted direction of the satellite with which communication is desired so that transmitters and receivers can be properly oriented.
Regarding claim 4, Boroson teaches a satellite (FIG. 1A: satellite 120, 140) configured to perform a communication with an earth station (FIG. 1A: ground station 150) through a relay satellite (FIG. 1A: relay satellite 110), the satellite comprising:
a communication unit (FIG. 2: The terrestrial communications network 270 connected to processor-tracker and modems) configured to receive position identification information for specifying a position of the relay satellite for relaying an unplanned communication, in an unplanned communication period with a possibility of an occurrence of the unplanned communication between the satellite and the earth station, the unplanned communication being a communication not planned in advance;
an optical communication unit configured to perform an optical communication with the relay satellite (FIG. 2: transmitter 500 and receiver 550); and
a directing unit configured to cause the optical communication unit to directionally track the relay satellite in the unplanned communication period based on the position identification information (FIG. 2: Processor-tracking 262 and Pointing Controls 266).
Regarding the communication unit, it would have been obvious to predict the orbit of the relay satellite (see the discussion of claim 1), and it would have been obvious to use the predicted position of a satellite (e.g., the relay satellite) when preforming communication (e.g., planned or unplanned; see the discussion of claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, Boroson teaches a satellite system comprising:
an earth station (FIG. 1A: ground station 150);
a satellite including an optical communication unit (FIG. 1A: satellites 120, 140; FIG. 2: optical transmitter 500 and receiver 550);
a relay satellite configured to relay a communication between the earth station and the satellite (FIG. 1A: relay satellite 110); and
a communication planning device configured to predict an orbit of the relay satellite, and create control information of controlling the satellite such that the optical communication unit directionally tracks the relay satellite based on the orbit predicted, in an unplanned communication period with a possibility of an occurrence of an unplanned communication, the unplanned communication being a communication not planned in advance, wherein the satellite causes the optical communication unit to directionally track the relay satellite based on the control information
PNG
media_image1.png
486
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the communication planning device, it would have been obvious to predict the orbit of the relay satellite (see the discussion of claim 1), and it would have been obvious to use the predicted position of a satellite (e.g., the relay satellite) as control information when preforming communication (e.g., planned or unplanned; see the discussion of claim 3). Regarding directionally tracking the relay satellite based on the control information, it would have been obvious to point the satellites in the correct direction (e.g., using the predicted orbits) for communications (planned or unplanned) with another communications device (e.g., another satellite or the ground station).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0155840 (Giffin) which teaches that it was known to generate predicted orbit data. See:
[0065] Centralized satellite fleet control and tasking functions are provided by Mission Control 306. Mission Control is responsible for satellite monitoring, maintenance and for translation and uplinking the satellite activities to be executed in support of data movement. In particular Mission Control functionality includes generating satellite command files, scheduling and tasking TT&C relay passes, tasking the satellite fleet (via the TT&C relays 308), processing satellite telemetry, verifying definitive orbits, generating predicted orbit data, and monitoring and maintaining satellite fleet state of health.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
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, KENNETH N. VANDERPUYE can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/DARREN E WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights