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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 6 July 2026.
Claims 1 and 4-7 have been amended.
Claims 8-15 are added as new.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8 April 2026 and 18 September 2026 were filed after the mailing date of the initial disclosure bur prior to the close of prosecution. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. The ability to control/operate the propulsion device via transmitted instruction commands integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The 101 rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under 103, see below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously cited references fail to teach the forecast error indicating the amount of error including in the forecast values, using the forecast error to determine when to disclose information, that a single business operator uses the information exclusively at no cost and including a fee for information disclosure related to collision avoidance. These arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims. See new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopardekar et al. (US 11,780,612) in view of Brandao et al. (US 10,347,142) further in view of Patera (US 2004/0024527).
As per Claim 1 Kopardekar teaches:
An information management device installed in at least one of a plurality of management business devices each of which conducts a management business for a plurality of space objects flying in space (Kopardekar in at least the abstract and Figs. 2 and 7 illustrate devices that are part of a system for space traffic management that includes a space traffic management system service supplier interface, a conjunction assessment supplier interface and a space situational awareness supplier interface that enables coordinate of automated services for spacecraft owner operators to anticipate and avoid space traffic conjunction), the information management device comprising:
memory to store orbit forecast information including an orbit forecast, which is a forecast value of an orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, and a forecast error that is forecast for the orbit (Kopardekar in at least Fig. 7 and Col. 10:36-52 illustrates memory and storage that are part of the system and capable of storing information and data, Col. 4:14-Col. 5:7 describes providing information regarding possible conjunctions between objects in space and calculations for potential maneuvers as well as the Conjunction Assessment Supplier (CAS) as using supplemental information to identify potential conjunctions which are instances where two or more space objects approach within a hazardous distance of each other, the CAS calculates three types of potential conjunctions, i.e. orbit forecast values, trajectories, i.e. orbit forecasts, are used to analyze potential conjunctions and to track objects through space to determine whether to take potential actions, Col. 5:15-30 further describe the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) supplier that generates and collects catalogs of information relating to the space environment including primarily position and trajectory information for resident space objects including active satellites and debris); and
operate a propulsion device of at least one of the plurality of space objects, by transmitting an orbit control command to the at least one of the plurality of space objects, to control the orbit of the at least one of the plurality of space objects based on the orbit forecast information (Kopardekar in at least Col. 4:46-Col. 5:14, Col. 8:17-Col. 9:15, Col. 9:29-Col. 10:14 and Fig. 5-6. describe and illustrate the ability to transmit automated instructions to control a maneuver of a spacecraft based on forecast information)
Kopardekar describes analyzing trajectories, i.e. orbit forecast information, to determine whether or not a potentially hazardous situation warrants action. Kopardekar analyzes whether resident space objects are within a hazardous distance of each other and moves to avoid a potential conjunction by acting to mitigate the potential conjunction. Col. 6:49-Col. 7:2 describes verifying data integrity to protect against simple errors and to prevent the reliance on erroneous data.
Kopardekar does not explicitly recite that the evaluation is based on a disclosure threshold that determines whether to disclose the forecast information and the forecast error. However, Brandao teaches an air traffic system using procedural trajectory predictions for air-crafts and determining whether a violation is predicted and based on that information generating an alert output(Abstract). Brandao further teaches:
processing circuitry to determine whether the forecast information is to be disclosed to a different management business device based on (1) a disclosure threshold for determining whether the forecast information is to be disclosed and (2) the forecast error (Brandao in at least Col. 1:30-41, Figs. 1, 3 and Col. 7:50-Col. 8:5, Col. 26:62-Col. 27:10, Col. 28:60-Col. 29:2 illustrate and describe determining whether predicted violations should trigger alerts, different trigger techniques can be utilized to define when to take action and what type of alert or warning should be issued, double trigger thresholds can also be utilized to send immediate alerts and analysis to prevent erroneous predicted violations is also taken into consideration), and
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to obtain orbit or trajectory forecasts and use that information to detect conjunctions or issues that require action to prevent collision or other hazardous scenarios to include techniques for utilizing forecast information and thresholds to determine when and what types of alerts are issued in response to identified conflicts because by utilizing specific alerting decision logic, the combination enables accurate predictions of trajectories and more accurate alerts that can assist owners/operators in avoiding potentially undesirable proximity with other objects or aircrafts (Brandao Col. 1:30-41).
Neither Kopardekar nor Brandao explicitly recite that the forecast error is a forecast for the orbit of each space object and indicates an amount of error in the space object forecast values. However, Patera teaches a trajectory collision conflict prediction method and more closely utilizes prediction errors. Patera further teaches:
a forecast error that is forecast for the orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, the forecast error indicating an amount of error included in the forecast values of the plurality of space objects (Patera in at least [0004-0005, 0015, 0019, 0021, 0023, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0044, 0051-0054, 0056, 0070] describe determining errors for forecasts for each of a plurality of space objects, the errors indicating an amount of error in each forecast)
determining whether to disclose information based on (2) the forecast error indicating the amount of error included in the forecast values of the plurality of space objects (Patera in at least [0004-0005, 0015, 0019, 0021, 0023, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0044, 0051-0054, 0056, 0070] describe determining errors for forecasts for each of a plurality of space objects, the errors indicating an amount of error in each forecast and utilizing that error determination to compare the values to a threshold to decide when to declare a conflict and when resolution maneuvers are necessary to avoid conflict collisions)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to determine errors and evaluate when to provide notifications of an issue or potential collection to include the techniques for taking prediction errors for space objects into account because each of the elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combined the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By taking the uncertainty of the forecasts or prediction error into account when deciding when to provide potential conflict notifications, the combination enables more accurate collision conflict probability evaluation leading to improved conflict resolution through craft maneuvering that reduces collision risk to acceptable levels (Patera [0005-0010]).
As per Claim 2 Kopardekar further teaches:
wherein the information management device is a satellite constellation business device used by a satellite constellation business operator that forms a satellite constellation composed of a plurality of satellites, and wherein the different management business device is one of a rocket launch business device used by a rocket launch business operator, an orbital transfer business device used by an orbital transfer business operator that performs orbital transfer of a satellite, and a debris retrieval business device used by a debris retrieval business operator that conducts a business to retrieve debris (Kopardekar in at least the Abstract, Figs. 2, 3 and 7, Col. 3:19-Col. 4:13 illustrate and describe devices for managing information about satellite, space station, rockets and/or intentional objects in space and is used by owners/operators to control launches, share information between parties, and provide active debris removal, rendezvous and proximity operations).
As per Claim 3 Kopardekar further teaches:
wherein the information management device is a device that manages a satellite constellation business device used by a satellite constellation business operator that forms a satellite constellation composed of a plurality of satellites and a rocket launch business device used by a rocket launch business operator (Kopardekar in at least the Abstract, Figs. 2, 3 and 7, Col. 3:52-Col. 4:13 illustrate and describe devices for managing information about satellite, space station, rockets and/or intentional objects in space and is used by owners/operators to control launches, share information between parties, and provide active debris removal, rendezvous and proximity operations).
As per Claim 4 Kopardekar further teaches:
wherein, when an information disclosure request to request disclosure of the orbit forecast information is received from the different management business device, the processing circuitry transmits disclosure forecast information extracted from the orbit forecast information to the different management business device for a fee (Kopardekar in at least Col. 4:46-Col. 5:2, Col. 5:48-55, Col. 6:38-Col. 7:2, Col. 8:41-50 describe requesting information about conjunctions or other hazards and the ability to provide information for a designated cost or according to different payment strategies).
As per Claim 5 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in Claim 1 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
An information management method for orbit forecast information included in a management business device that manages a satellite in a satellite constellation (Kopardekar in at least the Abstract and Figs. 2 and 7 teaches information management for using trajectories, i.e. forecasts, to manage satellites in a satellite constellation), the information management method comprising
storing, in a space information recorder, the orbit forecast information, wherein the orbit forecast information includes a forecast epoch of an orbit of each of a plurality of space objects flying in space, a forecast orbital element that identifies the orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, and a forecast error, the orbit forecast information is set based on flight forecast information indicating a flight forecast for each of the plurality of space objects, the flight forecast information is acquired from a second management business device used by a management business operator that manages the plurality of space objects (Kopardekar in at least Fig. 7 and Col. 10:36-52 illustrates memory and storage that are part of the system and capable of storing information and data, Col. 4:14-Col. 5:7 describes providing information regarding possible conjunctions between objects in space and calculations for potential maneuvers as well as the Conjunction Assessment Supplier (CAS) as using supplemental information to identify potential conjunctions which are instances where two or more space objects approach within a hazardous distance of each other, the CAS calculates three types of potential conjunctions, i.e. orbit forecast values, trajectories, i.e. orbit forecasts, are used to analyze potential conjunctions and to track objects through space to determine whether to take potential actions, Col. 5:15-30 further describe the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) supplier that generates and collects catalogs of information relating to the space environment including primarily position and trajectory information for resident space objects including active satellites and debris).
Kopardekar describes analyzing trajectories, i.e. orbit forecast information, to determine whether or not a potentially hazardous situation warrants action. Kopardekar analyzes whether resident space objects are within a hazardous distance of each other and moves to avoid a potential conjunction by acting to mitigate the potential conjunction. Kopardekar in at least Col. 4:46-Col. 5:2, Col. 5:48-55, Col. 6:38-Col. 7:2, Col. 8:41-50 describe requesting information about conjunctions or other hazards and the ability to provide information for a designated cost or according to different payment strategies.
Kopardekar does not explicitly recite that the evaluation is based on a disclosure threshold that determines whether to disclose the forecast information and the forecast error. However, Brandao teaches an air traffic system using procedural trajectory predictions for air-crafts and determining whether a violation is predicted and based on that information generating an alert output(Abstract). Brandao further teaches:
determining, via processing circuitry, whether the forecast information is to be disclosed to a third management business device based on a disclosure threshold and the forecast error when it is foreseen, based on forecast information, that the aircrafts whose forecast information has been acquired from a different management business device will come in proximity to each other at a specific time; and information disclosure allowance judging means processing circuitry to determine whether disclosure is to be performed (Brandao in at least Col. 1:30-41, Figs. 1, 3 and Col. 7:50-Col. 8:5, Col. 26:62-Col. 27:10, Col. 28:60-Col. 29:2 illustrate and describe determining whether predicted violations should trigger alerts, different trigger techniques can be utilized to define when to take action and what type of alert or warning should be issued, double trigger thresholds can also be utilized to send immediate alerts and analysis to prevent erroneous predicted violations is also taken into consideration).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to obtain orbit or trajectory forecasts and use that information to detect conjunctions or issues that require action to prevent collision or other hazardous scenarios to include techniques for utilizing forecast information and thresholds to determine when and what types of alerts are issued in response to identified conflicts because by utilizing specific alerting decision logic, the combination enables accurate predictions of trajectories and more accurate alerts that can assist owners/operators in avoiding potentially undesirable proximity with other objects or aircrafts (Brandao Col. 1:30-41).
Neither Kopardekar nor Brandao explicitly recite that the forecast error is a forecast for the orbit of each space object and indicates an amount of error in the space object forecast values. However, Patera teaches a trajectory collision conflict prediction method and more closely utilizes prediction errors. Patera further teaches:
a forecast error that is forecast for the orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, the forecast error indicating an amount of error included in the forecast values of the plurality of space objects (Patera in at least [0004-0005, 0015, 0019, 0021, 0023, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0044, 0051-0054, 0056, 0070] describe determining errors for forecasts for each of a plurality of space objects, the errors indicating an amount of error in each forecast)
determining whether to disclose information based on (2) the forecast error indicating the amount of error included in the forecast values of the plurality of space objects (Patera in at least [0004-0005, 0015, 0019, 0021, 0023, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0044, 0051-0054, 0056, 0070] describe determining errors for forecasts for each of a plurality of space objects, the errors indicating an amount of error in each forecast and utilizing that error determination to compare the values to a threshold to decide when to declare a conflict and when resolution maneuvers are necessary to avoid conflict collisions)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to determine errors and evaluate when to provide notifications of an issue or potential collection to include the techniques for taking prediction errors for space objects into account because each of the elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combined the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By taking the uncertainty of the forecasts or prediction error into account when deciding when to provide potential conflict notifications, the combination enables more accurate collision conflict probability evaluation leading to improved conflict resolution through craft maneuvering that reduces collision risk to acceptable levels (Patera [0005-0010]).
As per Claim 6 Kopardekar further teaches:
wherein the third management business device is one of a rocket launch business device used by a rocket launch business operator, an orbital transfer business device used by an orbital transfer business operator that performs orbital transfer of a satellite, and a debris retrieval business device used by a debris retrieval business operator that conducts a business to retrieve debris (Kopardekar in at least the Abstract, Figs. 2, 3 and 7, Col. 3:19-Col. 4:13 illustrate and describe devices for managing information about satellite, space station, rockets and/or intentional objects in space and is used by owners/operators to control launches, share information between parties, and provide active debris removal, rendezvous and proximity operations).
As per Claim 7 Kopardekar teaches:
An information management method of a management business device used by a management business operator that manages a plurality of space objects flying in space, the method comprising:
recording, in a space information recorder A of a management business device A that manages a rocket launch, space object information A including lift off time information of the rocket launch and orbit forecast information; recording in a space information recorder B of a management business device B that manages a satellite in a satellite constellation, space object information B including a forecast epoch of each of a plurality of satellites in the satellite constellation, forecast orbit information of each of the plurality of satellites in the satellite constellation, and a forecast error of each of the plurality of satellites in the satellite constellation; recording in a space information recorder C of a management business device C with which an analysis business operator that analyzes a collision between space objects manages space object information, the space object information acquired from the management business device used by the management business operator that manages the plurality of space objects (Kopardekar in at least Figs. 2-7 illustrate devices that are part of a system for space traffic management that includes a space traffic management system service supplier interface, a conjunction assessment supplier interface and a space situational awareness supplier interface that enables coordinate of automated services for spacecraft owner operators to anticipate and avoid space traffic conjunction, Col. 10:36-52 illustrates memory and storage that are part of the system and capable of storing information and data, Col. 4:14-Col. 5:7 describes providing information regarding possible conjunctions between objects in space and calculations for potential maneuvers as well as the Conjunction Assessment Supplier (CAS) as using supplemental information to identify potential conjunctions which are instances where two or more space objects approach within a hazardous distance of each other, the CAS calculates three types of potential conjunctions, i.e. orbit forecast values, trajectories, i.e. orbit forecasts, are used to analyze potential conjunctions and to track objects through space to determine whether to take potential actions, Col. 5:15-30 further describe the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) supplier that generates and collects catalogs of information relating to the space environment including primarily position and trajectory information for resident space objects including active satellites and debris),
disclosing, by the management business device B, the space object information B to the space information recorder A and the space information recorder C for a fee, the space information recorder A and the space information recorder C being each owned by a different business operator than the management business device B; performing by processing circuitry of a single business operator, a collision analysis using the space object information A and the space object information B exclusively at no cost to derive a condition for securing flight safety in the rocket launch to avoid the collision (Kopardekar in at least the abstract and Figs. 2, 6 and 7 illustrate devices that are part of a system for space traffic management that includes a space traffic management system service supplier interface, a conjunction assessment supplier interface and a space situational awareness supplier interface that enables coordinate of automated services for spacecraft owner operators to anticipate and avoid space traffic conjunction, in at least Fig. 7 and Col. 10:36-52 illustrates memory and storage that are part of the system and capable of storing information and data, Col. 4:14-Col. 5:7 describes providing information regarding possible conjunctions between objects in space and calculations for potential maneuvers as well as the Conjunction Assessment Supplier (CAS) as using supplemental information to identify potential conjunctions which are instances where two or more space objects approach within a hazardous distance of each other, the CAS calculates three types of potential conjunctions, i.e. orbit forecast values, trajectories, i.e. orbit forecasts, are used to analyze potential conjunctions and to track objects through space to determine whether to take potential actions, Col. 5:15-30 further describe the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) supplier that generates and collects catalogs of information relating to the space environment including primarily position and trajectory information for resident space objects including active satellites and debris, analyzing trajectories, i.e. orbit forecast information, to determine whether or not a potentially hazardous situation warrants action, analyzes whether resident space objects are within a hazardous distance of each other and moves to avoid a potential conjunction by acting to mitigate the potential conjunction, Col. 6:49-Col. 7:2 describes verifying data integrity to protect against simple errors and to prevent the reliance on erroneous data, in at least Col. 4:46-Col. 5:2, Col. 5:48-55, Col. 6:38-Col. 7:2, Col. 8:41-50 describe requesting information about conjunctions or other hazards and the ability to provide information for a designated cost or according to different payment strategies Col. 6:49- Col. 7:2 describes that the suppliers of data and information may negotiate payment strategies that monetize all downstream uses of their data)
operating, based on the derived condition, a propulsion device of the satellite in the satellite constellation, by transmitting an orbit control command to the satellite to control an orbit of the satellite and avoid the collision (Kopardekar in at least Col. 4:46-Col. 5:14, Col. 8:17-Col. 9:15, Col. 9:29-Col. 10:14 and Fig. 5-6. describe and illustrate the ability to transmit automated instructions to control a maneuver of a spacecraft based on forecast information).
Kopardekar describes analyzing trajectories, i.e. orbit forecast information, to determine whether or not a potentially hazardous situation warrants action. Kopardekar analyzes whether resident space objects are within a hazardous distance of each other and moves to avoid a potential conjunction by acting to mitigate the potential conjunction. Col. 6:49-Col. 7:2 describes verifying data integrity to protect against simple errors and to prevent the reliance on erroneous data as well as negotiating payments for receiving information.
Kopardekar does not explicitly recite that the evaluation is based on a disclosure threshold that determines whether to disclose the forecast information and the forecast error. However, Brandao teaches an air traffic system using procedural trajectory predictions for air-crafts and determining whether a violation is predicted and based on that information generating an alert output(Abstract). Brandao further teaches:
determining whether collision information should be disclosed based on different criteria (Brandao in at least Col. 1:30-41, Figs. 1, 3 and Col. 7:50-Col. 8:5, Col. 26:62-Col. 27:10, Col. 28:60-Col. 29:2 illustrate and describe determining whether predicted violations should trigger alerts, different trigger techniques can be utilized to define when to take action and what type of alert or warning should be issued, double trigger thresholds can also be utilized to send immediate alerts and analysis to prevent erroneous predicted violations is also taken into consideration), and
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to obtain orbit or trajectory forecasts and use that information to detect conjunctions or issues that require action to prevent collision or other hazardous scenarios to include techniques for utilizing forecast information and thresholds to determine when and what types of alerts are issued in response to identified conflicts because by utilizing specific alerting decision logic, the combination enables accurate predictions of trajectories and more accurate alerts that can assist owners/operators in avoiding potentially undesirable proximity with other objects or aircrafts (Brandao Col. 1:30-41).
Neither Kopardekar nor Brandao explicitly recite that the forecast error is a forecast for the orbit of each space object and indicates an amount of error in the space object forecast values. However, Patera teaches a trajectory collision conflict prediction method and more closely utilizes prediction errors. Patera further teaches:
a forecast error that is forecast for the orbit of each of the plurality of satellites in the satellite constellation (Patera in at least [0004-0005, 0015, 0019, 0021, 0023, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0044, 0051-0054, 0056, 0070] describe determining errors for forecasts for each of a plurality of space objects, the errors indicating an amount of error in each forecast)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ability to determine errors and evaluate when to provide notifications of an issue or potential collection to include the techniques for taking prediction errors for space objects into account because each of the elements were known but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combined the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements perform the same function as they did individually. By taking the uncertainty of the forecasts or prediction error into account when deciding when to provide potential conflict notifications, the combination enables more accurate collision conflict probability evaluation leading to improved conflict resolution through craft maneuvering that reduces collision risk to acceptable levels (Patera [0005-0010]).
As per Claim 8 Kopardekar describes analyzing trajectories, i.e. orbit forecast information, to determine whether or not a potentially hazardous situation warrants action, Kopardekar analyzes whether resident space objects are within a hazardous distance of each other and moves to avoid a potential conjunction by acting to mitigate the potential conjunction. Col. 6:49-Col. 7:2 describes verifying data integrity to protect against simple errors and to prevent the reliance on erroneous data. Neither Kopardekar nor Brandao explicitly recite but Patera further teaches:
wherein the forecast error includes a travelling direction error and an orthogonal direction error for the orbit of each of the plurality of space objects (Patera in at least [0005, 0015, 0021, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0046, 0051-0052, 0054-0056, 0059, 0070, 0092-0093] describe forecast error including direction and orthogonal transformation and relative errors for space objects and other error basis).
Patera is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 9 Kopardekar describes analyzing trajectories, i.e. orbit forecast information, to determine whether or not a potentially hazardous situation warrants action, Kopardekar analyzes whether resident space objects are within a hazardous distance of each other and moves to avoid a potential conjunction by acting to mitigate the potential conjunction. Col. 6:49-Col. 7:2 describes verifying data integrity to protect against simple errors and to prevent the reliance on erroneous data. Neither Kopardekar nor Brandao explicitly recite but Patera further teaches:
wherein the forecast error further includes a basis for the forecast error (Patera in at least [0005, 0015, 0021, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0046, 0051-0052, 0054-0056, 0059, 0070, 0092-0093] describe forecast error including direction and orthogonal transformation and relative errors for space objects and other error basis).
Patera is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 10 Kopardekar describes analyzing trajectories, i.e. orbit forecast information, to determine whether or not a potentially hazardous situation warrants action, Kopardekar analyzes whether resident space objects are within a hazardous distance of each other and moves to avoid a potential conjunction by acting to mitigate the potential conjunction. Col. 6:49-Col. 7:2 describes verifying data integrity to protect against simple errors and to prevent the reliance on erroneous data. Neither Kopardekar nor Brandao explicitly recite but Patera further teaches:
wherein the basis of the forecast error includes at least one of: a means for measurement of the orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, content of data processing performed to improve precision of location coordinate information for each of the plurality of space objects, or a result of statistical evaluation on past data of each of the plurality of space objects (Patera in at least [0005, 0015, 0021, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0046, 0051-0052, 0054-0056, 0059, 0070, 0092-0093] describe forecast error including direction and orthogonal transformation and relative errors for space objects and other error basis including measurements, coordinate information, statistical analyses, and historical data).
Patera is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 11 Kopardekar describes analyzing trajectories, i.e. orbit forecast information, to determine whether or not a potentially hazardous situation warrants action, Kopardekar analyzes whether resident space objects are within a hazardous distance of each other and moves to avoid a potential conjunction by acting to mitigate the potential conjunction. Col. 6:49-Col. 7:2 describes verifying data integrity to protect against simple errors and to prevent the reliance on erroneous data. Neither Kopardekar nor Brandao explicitly recite but Patera further teaches:
wherein the basis for the forecast error includes each of: a means for measurement of the orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, content of data processing performed to improve precision of location coordinate information for each of the plurality of space objects, and a result of statistical evaluation on past data of each of the plurality of space objects (Patera in at least [0005, 0015, 0021, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0046, 0051-0052, 0054-0056, 0059, 0070, 0092-0093] describe forecast error including direction and orthogonal transformation and relative errors for space objects and other error basis including measurements means, coordinate improvement information, statistical analyses, and historical data).
Patera is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 12 Kopardekar further teaches:
wherein the forecast error further includes a verification record of the forecast error (Kopardekar describes analyzing trajectories, i.e. orbit forecast information, to determine whether or not a potentially hazardous situation warrants action, Kopardekar analyzes whether resident space objects are within a hazardous distance of each other and moves to avoid a potential conjunction by acting to mitigate the potential conjunction. Col. 6:49-Col. 7:2 describes verifying data integrity to protect against simple errors and to prevent the reliance on erroneous data).
As per Claim 13 Kopardekar does not explicitly recite that the evaluation is based on a disclosure threshold that determines whether to disclose the forecast information and the forecast error. However, Brandao teaches an air traffic system using procedural trajectory predictions for air-crafts and determining whether a violation is predicted and based on that information generating an alert output(Abstract). Brandao further teaches:
determine that the orbit forecast information is to be disclosed to the different management business device when the forecast error is equal to or greater than the disclosure threshold, and determine that the orbit forecast information is not to be disclosed to the different management business device when the forecast error is less than the disclosure threshold (Brandao in at least Col. 1:30-41, Figs. 1, 3 and Col. 7:50-Col. 8:5, Col. 26:62-Col. 27:10, Col. 28:60-Col. 29:2 illustrate and describe determining whether predicted violations should trigger alerts, different trigger techniques can be utilized to define when to take action and what type of alert or warning should be issued, double trigger thresholds can also be utilized to send immediate alerts and analysis to prevent erroneous predicted violations is also taken into consideration).
Brandao is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Neither Kopardekar nor Brandao explicitly recite that the forecast error is a forecast for the orbit of each space object and indicates an amount of error in the space object forecast values. However, Patera teaches a trajectory collision conflict prediction method and more closely utilizes prediction errors. Patera further teaches:
determining whether or not to disclose information based on (2) the forecast error indicating the amount of error included in the forecast values of the plurality of space objects (Patera in at least [0004-0005, 0015, 0019, 0021, 0023, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0044, 0051-0054, 0056, 0070] describe determining errors for forecasts for each of a plurality of space objects, the errors indicating an amount of error in each forecast and utilizing that error determination to compare the values to a threshold to decide when to declare a conflict and when resolution maneuvers are necessary to avoid conflict collisions)
Patera is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 14 Kopardekar does not explicitly recite that the evaluation is based on a disclosure threshold that determines whether to disclose the forecast information and the forecast error. However, Brandao teaches an air traffic system using procedural trajectory predictions for air-crafts and determining whether a violation is predicted and based on that information generating an alert output(Abstract). Brandao further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to extract, as disclosure forecast information, orbit forecast information for which the forecast error is equal to or greater than the disclosure threshold, and to output the disclosure forecast information to the different management business device (Brandao in at least Col. 1:30-41, Figs. 1, 3 and Col. 7:50-Col. 8:5, Col. 26:62-Col. 27:10, Col. 28:60-Col. 29:2 illustrate and describe obtaining data to determine whether predicted violations should trigger alerts, different trigger techniques can be utilized to define when to take action and what type of alert or warning should be issued, double trigger thresholds can also be utilized to send immediate alerts and analysis to prevent erroneous predicted violations is also taken into consideration).
Brandao is combined based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Neither Kopardekar nor Brandao explicitly recite that the forecast error is a forecast for the orbit of each space object and indicates an amount of error in the space object forecast values. However, Patera teaches a trajectory collision conflict prediction method and more closely utilizes prediction errors. Patera further teaches:
determining whether or not to disclose information when orbit forecast information for which the forecast error is equal to or greater than the disclosure threshold (Patera in at least [0004-0005, 0015, 0019, 0021, 0023, 0033, 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0044, 0051-0054, 0056, 0070] describe determining errors for forecasts for each of a plurality of space objects, the errors indicating an amount of error in each forecast and utilizing that error determination to compare the values to a threshold to decide when to declare a conflict and when resolution maneuvers are necessary to avoid conflict collisions)
Patera is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 15 Kopardekar further teaches:
wherein, upon receiving an information disclosure request from the different management business device, the processing circuitry transmits the disclosure forecast information to the different management business device for a fee (Kopardekar describes analyzing trajectories, i.e. orbit forecast information, to determine whether or not a potentially hazardous situation warrants action and whether resident space objects are within a hazardous distance of each other and moves to avoid a potential conjunction by acting to mitigate the potential conjunction, Col. 6:49- Col. 7:2 describes that the suppliers of data and information may negotiate payment strategies that monetize all downstream uses of their data)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights