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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on October 9, 2024. Claims 1-18 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Allowable Subject Matter
No rejection under 35 USC §§ 102, 103, 112 or 101 has been applied to claims 1-18 with the exception to the double patenting rejection below. While prior art (Carr and Kim), as explained below, teach some of the claimed features such as tracking a location of spacecraft using GPS including changes in attitude of the system relative to inertial space (see Carr - Paragraphs [0023-0024]) and performing a geometric correction to the image taken by a geostationary remote sensing satellite (see Kim - Paragraph [0005]), the prior art fails to disclose or suggest each and every limitation together as claimed, specifically the features of determining difference information representing a difference between the second geographical distribution of information and the first geographical distribution of information, wherein determining the difference information comprises identifying one or more additional objects in the second geographical distribution of information that are not in the first geographical distribution of information, or identifying movement of one or more of the identified objects between the first geographical distribution of information and the second geographical distribution of information, or identifying that one or more of the identified objects are not in the second geographical distribution of information, or a combination thereof, as recited in the context of base claim 1.
Prior art Carr, US-PGPub. No. 20150211864 discloses a system and method for improved image navigation and registration (INR) on a low cost remote sensing satellite based on reference image data received from an exquisite system (abstract). Carr discloses, as shown on Fig. 2, the peripheral system instrumentation also includes a tracking ephemeris to specify the location of the spacecraft/remote sensing instrument in space. The tracking ephemeris derives ephemeris data either indirectly such as, for example, by conventional ground tracking of the satellite's orbit, or directly by the means of an onboard global positioning system (GPS) receiver. In either case, tracking ephemeris specifies the location of the spacecraft/remote sensing instrument in space using ephemeris data and, optional almanac data, from ground or the onboard GPS receiver in a known manner. In addition, an onboard gyroscope, such as a three-axis gyroscope package, tracks changes in the attitude of the system relative to inertial space (Paragraphs [0023-0024]). In addition, Carr discloses navigation equipment and processing overhead all commonly contained within the navigation system of the host spacecraft or a ground processing system, and available for use by the remote sensing instrument, or contained within the remote sensing instrument itself (Paragraphs [0022]).
Another prior art Kim et al “Kim”, US-PGPub. No. 20180308226 discloses performing a geometric correction to the image taken by a geostationary remote sensing satellite, including a landmark determination part configured to acquire landmark information associated with a first image, and a navigation filter configured to calculate a state vector for correcting at least one of the attitude error, the orbit error, and the payload misalignment error with respect to the first image based on the landmark information (Paragraph [0005]). In further details, Kim discloses the landmark determination module may compare the landmark position selected from level-1A data to the actual landmark position and obtain landmarks residuals, for example, AZ-corresponding to a difference therebetween. A navigation filter may set various parameter values to minimize the landmark residual, and calculate or estimate a state vector for correcting the attitude error, the orbit error, and the payload misalignment error of the level-1A data based on the set parameter values. When information on a landmark is absent, a premeasured state vector value may also be applicable (Paragraph [0034]).
While the cited prior art discloses some of the claimed features as explained above, however, the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest each and every limitation together as claimed. Furthermore, the Examiner cannot determine a reasonable motivation, either from the cited prior art or the existing case law, to combine the known references to render the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
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 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 nonstatutory 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,993. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are anticipated by the claims recited in the U.S. Patent.
Said claims in both applications are directed to determining differences between sensed information and a baseline condition, such as a base map of information having an initial geographical distribution of information, representing a difference between a second geographical distribution of information and a first geographical distribution of information, wherein determining the difference information comprises identifying one or more additional objects in the second geographical distribution of information that are not in the first geographical distribution of information. However, what appears to be the difference between claims in both applications is that the instant application base claim (claim 1) is directed to a system (machine claim) while base claims (claims 1 and 11) in the U.S. Patent are directed to methods (process claims). Taking claim 1 in the instant application, as an exemplary, to compare to claim 1 in the U.S. Patent (see comparison table below). Additionally, since claim 11 in the U.S. Patent recites similar features as claim 1 in the instant application, same comparison can be made.
The rest of the instant application claims recite similar features as those cited in the U.S. Patent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit elements when the remaining elements perform as before. A person of ordinary skill could have arrived at the present claims by omitting the details of said U.S. Patent claims. See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decided January 16, 1963 (“Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same function as before”).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,212,993
1. A satellite, comprising:
a transmitter;
a receiver;
a sensing platform;
one or more processors;
memory coupled with the one or more processors; and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors to cause the satellite to:
receive, using the receiver, a base map comprising a first geographical distribution of information, wherein the base map comprises one or more identified objects of the first geographical distribution of information;
detect, using the sensing platform, a second geographical distribution of information;
determine difference information representing a difference between the second geographical distribution of information and the first geographical distribution of information, wherein determining the difference information comprises identifying one or more additional objects in the second geographical distribution of information that are not in the first geographical distribution of information, or identifying movement of one or more of the identified objects between the first geographical distribution of information and the second geographical distribution of information, or identifying that one or more of the identified objects are not in the second geographical distribution of information, or a combination thereof; and
transmit, using the transmitter, the difference information.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a satellite having a remote sensing platform, a base map comprising a first geographical distribution of information, wherein the base map comprises one or more identified objects of the first geographical distribution of information;
detecting, by the satellite using the remote sensing platform, a second geographical distribution of information;
determining, by the satellite, difference information representing a difference between the second geographical distribution of information and the first geographical distribution of information, wherein determining the difference information comprises identifying one or more additional objects in the second geographical distribution of information that are not in the first geographical distribution of information, or identifying movement of one or more of the identified objects between the first geographical distribution of information and the second geographical distribution of information, or identifying that one or more of the identified objects are not in the second geographical distribution of information, or a combination thereof; and
transmitting, by the satellite to a ground station via a communication link, the difference information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. 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.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454