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 11/13/2024 and 07/16/2025 were received and reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 18/865,348 filed on 11/13/2024, in which claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
Claim 1: A navigation orbit calculation device, comprising: processing circuitry to calculate an observable range observable by a sensor mounted on a spacecraft, and
calculate a navigation orbit including an observation start point included in the observable range and an observation end point included in the observable range, wherein
a distance between the observation start point and an approaching target to be observed by the sensor is greater than a distance between the observation end point and the approaching target.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a system comprising a device (an apparatus) comprising a sensor, a spacecraft, and a processing circuitry. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of calculate an observable range observable, and
calculate a navigation orbit including an observation start point included in the observable range and an observation end point included in the observable range, wherein a distance between the observation start point and an approaching target to be observed is greater than a distance between the observation end point and the approaching target. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a sensor, a spacecraft and a processing circuitry”. That is, other than reciting “a sensor, a spacecraft, and a processing circuitry” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a sensor, a spacecraft, and a processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a navigation orbit calculation device, comprising: processing circuitry to calculate an observable range observable by a sensor mounted on a spacecraft, and a distance between the observation start point and an approaching target to be observed by the sensor is greater than a distance between the observation end point and the approaching target. The sensor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of observable range of observing for use in the distance step by the said sensor), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processing circuitry merely automates the inputting and the predicting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a controller.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the processing circuitry, sensor, and spacecraft were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification states that “the sensor” is “the sensor 100 may include an optical camera, but the sensor 100 is not limited thereto” [0012]. The specification does not provide any indication that spacecraft is anything other than a conventional model. The specification Further does not provide any indication that the processing circuitry elements are anything other than a conventional computer element(s) (See ¶¶126-130). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
Accordingly, a conclusion that the spaceship, processing circuitry, and sensor elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 6 & 7: Independent method and apparatus of claims 6 & 7 recites similar limitations performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 & 7 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claims 2-5 & 8-18: Dependents do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea and can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 & 8-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 2-5 & 8-18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Kato et al. (US 20210163154 A1) discloses an observation control device applicable to a detector installed onboard a spacecraft for performing observation comprises an orthogonal direction control unit that moves an observation range in a direction orthogonal to a travel direction of the spacecraft, the observation range being a range observed by the detector, and a travel direction control unit that moves the observation range in the travel direction of the spacecraft
Brewer et al. (US 12163764 B2) discloses a system and method for enhanced aircraft-based targeting senses RF emissions or other signals associated with a target while navigating a trajectory through a GPS-challenged airspace. While the target is being observed, the aircraft targeting system tracks GPS-challenged state vectors (e.g., via an onboard inertial reference system) and pressure altitudes consistent with each observation. When the aircraft emerges from the GPS-challenged airspace, the targeting system determines multiple GPS-driven subsequent absolute positions of the aircraft. The targeting system determines a refined estimate of the target location via batch factor graph optimization of measurements taken while inside and outside of the GPS-challenged airspace
Gigleux et al. (US 20220390605 A1) discloses the invention relates to a method of tracking a target on an orbital trajectory by a spacecraft, the method comprising an acquisition phase which comprises the steps of activating a lidar, acquiring signals from the lidar system, determining target trajectory data from the lidar signals, wherein the spacecraft is engaged on a trajectory to approach or inspect the target, which trajectory is determined based on the target trajectory data, and if the target is no longer detected, activating a short-range detection phase, comprising activation of a wide-field radar
Fasano et al. (US 12024314 B2) discloses an on-orbit servicing spacecraft includes an engagement system to engage a space vehicle or object to be serviced or tugged, so as to form a space system, and an electronic reaction control system to cause the spacecraft to rotate about roll, yaw, and pitch axes to control attitude and displacement along given trajectories to cause the spacecraft to carry out given maneuvers. The electronic reaction control system includes (i) a sensory system to directly sense physical quantities or allow physical quantities to be indirectly computed based on sensed physical quantities, including one or more of position, attitude, angular rates, available fuel, geometrical features, and on-board systems state, (ii) attitude control thrusters mounted so as to allow their positions and orientations to be adjustable, and (iii) an attitude control computer in communication with the sensory system and the attitude control thrusters and programmed to receive data from the sensory system and to control, based on the received data, positions, orientations, and operating states of the attitude control thrusters so as to control attitude and position of the spacecraft. The attitude control computer is programmed to cause the spacecraft to carry out a given mission including an engagement step, in which the engagement system and the attitude control thrusters are controlled by the attitude control computer to engage a space vehicle or object to be serviced or tugged, and one or more operating steps, in each of which the attitude control thrusters are controlled by the attitude control computer to meet one or more requirements established for the operating step
Robinson et al. (US 20170041548 A1) discloses systems and methods of capturing imagery are provided. In particular, an imaging platform can be configured to capture imagery using a dual-axis steering mirror and one or more image capture devices. The line of sight angle of the imaging platform can be controlled by controlling the motion of the steering mirror in accordance with a motion profile. In example embodiments, the motion profile can correspond to a sawtooth wave. The imaging platform can further include one or more position sensors used to determine a position and/or orientation of the imaging platform along a path on which the imaging platform travels. The motion of the steering mirror can then be controlled to rotate about a first axis and a second axis to compensate for line of sight errors based at least in part on the determined position and/or orientation
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony G Mora whose telephone number is (571)272-2306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8am-5pm PST, Alternating Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Kito R Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ANTHONY GABRIEL MORA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664