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 .
Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory obviousness-type 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); and 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) maybe used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
2. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1 - 18 of U. S. Patent No. 12,107,665 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,107,665. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present application is obvious in view of the claims 1 - 18 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,107,665. Specifically, the claims of U.S. Patent (12,107,665) are the same elements, same function, and same result as claims of present application. Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
More specifically, the claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-20 of the present application is the same elements, same function, and same result as claims 1 - 18 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665), specially, the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of the present application is the same invention as the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 plus claim 2 and 10 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows, and the difference of the limitations are wordings differently.
For example;
Instant Application
U.S Patent 12,107,665
1. A satellite comprising: an onboard computing device including a processor configured to: receive training data while the satellite is in orbit; perform training of a neural network based at least in part on the training data to thereby generate a modified neural network with modified parameters; generate neural network update data; and transmit the neural network update data from the satellite to an additional computing device at a time specified by an uplink-downlink schedule stored in memory at the satellite.
1. A satellite comprising: an onboard computing device including a processor configured to: receive training data while the satellite is in orbit; perform training of a neural network based at least in part on the training data to thereby generate a modified neural network with modified parameters; generate neural network update data including the modified neural network parameters and/or a gradient with respect to the modified neural network parameters; and transmit the neural network update data from the satellite to an additional computing device.
2. The satellite of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the neural network update data to the additional computing device at a time specified by an uplink-downlink schedule stored in memory at the satellite.
Instant Application
U.S Patent 12,107,665
8. A computing device comprising: a processor configured to: generate a respective aggregation schedule for each of a plurality of satellites, wherein the aggregation schedule generated for a satellite specifies a local neural network version difference interval for the satellite; for each satellite of the plurality of satellites, generate an uplink-downlink schedule for the satellite based at least in part on the respective aggregation schedule for that satellite, wherein the uplink-downlink schedules each include a plurality of training iterations performed at the corresponding satellite; receive aggregation data from the plurality of satellites by communicating with the satellites according to the uplink-downlink schedules, wherein the aggregation data includes neural network update data that specifies, for each satellite of the plurality of satellites, a corresponding modification made to a respective neural network during training of the neural network at the satellite; and perform training at an aggregated neural network based at least in part on the aggregation data received from the plurality of satellites, wherein, for each satellite of the plurality of satellites, the training is performed at the local neural network version difference interval specified for that satellite in the aggregation schedule.
Claim 15 is same as claim 8.
8. A computing device comprising: a processor configured to: generate a respective aggregation schedule for each of a plurality of satellites, wherein the aggregation schedule generated for a satellite specifies a local neural network version difference interval for the satellite; receive aggregation data from the plurality of satellites, wherein the aggregation data includes neural network update data that specifies, for each satellite of the plurality of satellites: modified neural network parameters of a respective neural network trained at the satellite; and/or a gradient with respect to the modified neural network parameters; and perform training at an aggregated neural network based at least in part on the aggregation data received from the plurality of satellites, wherein, for each satellite of the plurality of satellites, the training is performed at the local neural network version difference interval specified for that satellite in the aggregation schedule.
10. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive aggregation scheduler training data from the plurality of satellites prior to generating the aggregation schedules, wherein the aggregation scheduler training data includes a subset of prior training data of the plurality of neural networks; and train the aggregation scheduler neural network based at least in part on the aggregation scheduler training data.
The additional limitation is not affecting the scope of the present invention. In addition, even though the claim of present application omitted or rearrangement of the claim structure (simply rearranged and restructured the claim elements using same or similar words), the limitation of independent claim 1 plus claim 2 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665) is encompassed the claimed invention of the independent claim 1 of the present application, and the limitation of independent claim 8 plus claim 10 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665) is encompassed the claimed invention of the independent claim 8 or 15 of the present application.
Therefore, the function and results of the claim invention of present application are same as the claim invention of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
Furthermore, the dependent claim 2 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 3 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The dependent claim 3 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 4 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The dependent claim 5 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 6 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The dependent claim 6 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 7 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The dependent claim 9 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 9 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The independent claim 10 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 10 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The dependent claim 11 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 11 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The independent claim 12 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 13 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The dependent claim 13 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 14 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The dependent claim 14 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 16 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The dependent claim 16 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 9 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The independent claim 17 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 10 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The independent claim 18 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 13 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The dependent claim 19 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 14 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
The dependent claim 20 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 16 of the U.S. Patent (12,107,665).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kelly et al. (US 11,657,690).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly teaches that satellite (Fig. 1) comprising an onboard computing device including a processor (column 8, lines 37-50, Fig. 1, column 2, lines 66 – column 3, lines 37, and column 4, lines 37 – column 5, lines 37, where teaches various control, processing and analysis operations are performed by either the control unit, monitoring server, the nanosatellite or another computer system including analysis of the images and data from the field of view that includes the commercial property) configured to receive training data while the satellite is in orbit (Fig. 1, column 2, lines 66 – column 3, lines 16 and column 4, lines 36 – 55, where teaches the nanosatellite can capture images (training data) of the property at designated intervals, variable intervals or when requested by the ground based monitoring server via ground station), perform training of a neural network based at least in part on the training data to thereby generate a modified neural network with modified parameters (Fig. 1 and column 4, lines 61 – column 5, lines 14, where teaches the nanosatellite may perform some processing of the images before sending the images to the monitoring server, and the nanosatellite can include one or more neural networks, linear or logistic regression models, decision trees, support vector machines, Bayesian techniques, nearest-neighbor or clustering techniques, or other machine learning approaches), generate neural network update data (column 5, lines 7 – 14 and Fig. 1, where teaches the nanosatellite can used a machine learning approach to analyze the images, and the nanosatellite can include one or more neural networks, linear or logistic regression models, decision trees, support vector machines, Bayesian techniques, nearest-neighbor or clustering techniques, or other machine learning approaches), and transmit the neural network update data from the satellite to an additional computing device at a time specified by an uplink-downlink schedule stored in memory at the satellite (column 5, lines 15 – 44, Fig. 1, and column 6, lines 13 – 23, where teaches the nanosatellite sends the images to the ground station at predetermined, intervals, variable intervals or on demand from the monitoring server).
Regarding claim 3, Kelly teaches that the training data includes a plurality of satellite images collected at the satellite via an imaging sensor (Fig, 1 and column 2, lines 66 – column 3, lines 16).
Regarding claim 5, Kelly teaches that the additional computing device is an additional onboard computing device of an additional satellite (Fig. 1, column 2, lines 66 – column 3, lines 37, and column 8, lines 37 – 50).
Regarding claim 6, Kelly teaches that the processor is configured to: receive an aggregated neural network from the additional computing device subsequently to transmitting the neural network update data to the additional computing device, and store the aggregated neural network in memory (column 5, lines 15 – column 6, lines 23 and Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kelly teaches that the processor is configured to transmit the neural network update data to the additional computing device during a downlink phase in which the satellite has a line of sight to a ground station (column 5, lines 15 – column 6, lines 60 and Fig. 1, 2).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akylidiz et al. (US 2022/0116107) discloses Large-Scale Constellation Design Framework for Cubesats.
Lucia et al. (US 2021/0314058) discloses Orbital Edge Computing.
Information regarding...Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system... at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
J.L
July 10, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights