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 preliminary amendments filed on 3 November 2025.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 have been amended.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 17 October 2024 and 5 August 2025 were filed after the mailing date of the initial disclosure bur prior to any action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 5 and 7 recite a device and methods for conducting a management business for a plurality of space objects, determining whether the orbit forecast information is to be disclosed based on a disclosure threshold and forecast error, when it is foreseen that the satellite in a constellation and a space object will come in proximity to each other, the orbit forecast information and including a forecast time period, a forecast orbital element identifying the orbit and a forecast error based on flight forecast information, managing a rocket launch, managing a satellite including analyzing a collision between space objects to determine when to disclose information and to derive conditions for securing flight safety and avoiding collision. limitations for acquiring information and assigning the working place to the first user. These limitations, as drafted, illustrate a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Conducting a management business, determining whether orbit forecast information is to be disclosed based on a threshold analysis, determining whether information should be disclosed using flight forecasts, managing a rocket launch, managing a satellite and analyzing data to determine collisions and derive conditions for safety to avoid collisions illustrate high level observation and evaluation type functions that could be done the same way mentally or manually with a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component or computer system environment does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements including devices, a memory to store information, processing circuitry, information recorders, describe that data is acquired from devices, and disclosing information via a device. The memory, recorders, and devices from which data is acquired and that discloses information are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and transmission/outputting functions, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity. The devices and circuitry are also recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the additional claim steps in a computerize environment. Each of the additional components is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception in a generic computer environment with generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or linking the steps to a generic computer environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the storing information in memory, recorders that record, and devices from which data is acquired and that disclose information steps that were considered extra solution activity in step 2A above, these have been re-evaluated in step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the device and computer elements are anything other than generic, off the shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. court decisions in MPEP 2106.05 indicate that the mere collection, receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 5 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the recited abstract idea by describing additional observation and evaluation steps including describing that business operators use the devices, for example that rocket launch business operators use the rocket launch business device, orbital transfer business operators, satellite constellation business operators, and a debris retrieval business operator use the different devices. The descriptions of the types of operators are considered non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited nor do they alter the recited structural elements. The recited steps would be performed the same regardless of the specifically named device and operator. Further, the structural elements remain the same regardless of the specifically named device and operator. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention in terms of eligibility. The additional elements recited fail to transform the claims into a patent eligible invention but instead describe additional devices and that in response to a request information is extracted and transmitted. This is considered additional extra solution activity related to data gathering and outputting and when reconsidered does not amount to significantly more, for the same reasons and rationale set forth above. These additional element limitations as a whole describe a generic computer environment that merely executes instructions and the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-6 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).
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
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 a disclosure threshold for determining whether the forecast information is to be disclosed and 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).
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).
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 Kopardekar teaches:
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
the orbit forecast information being included in a space information recorder and being information in which a forecast epoch of an orbit of each of the plurality of space objects, a forecast orbital element that identifies the orbit, and a forecast error that is forecast for the orbit are set based on flight forecast information indicating a flight forecast for each of the plurality of space objects, the flight forecast information being acquired from a management business device used by a management business operator that manages a plurality of space objects flying in space (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:
a disclosure threshold for determining whether forecast information of a satellite constellation management business device is to be disclosed 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).,
As per Claim 6 Kopardekar further teaches:
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kopardekar et al. (US 11,780,612).
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,
wherein a management business device A to manage a rocket launch includes
a space information recorder A to record space object information A including lift-off time information of the rocket launch and orbit forecast information,
wherein a management business device B to manage a satellite in a satellite constellation includes
a space information recorder B to record space object information B including a forecast epoch, forecast orbit information, and a forecast error of each of a plurality of satellites in the satellite constellation,
wherein a management business device C with which an analysis business operator that analyzes a collision between space objects manages space object information includes
a space information recorder C to record space object information acquired from the management business device used by the management business operator that manages the plurality of space objects,
wherein a satellite constellation management business device discloses the space object information B to the space information recorder A and the space information recorder C owned by different business operators for a fee, and
wherein only a single business operator exclusively uses the space object information A and the space object information B at no cost so as to perform a collision analysis to derive a condition for securing flight safety in the rocket launch, so as to avoid a 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kapp et al. (US 2021/0078735) Satellite threat mitigation by application of reinforcement machine learning in physics based space simulations.
JIA et al. (US 2018/0268605) System and method for space situational awareness demonstrations to avoid collisions.
Taormina et al. (US 2002/0003192) Satellite system and method of deploying the same that tracks location information to ensure that further satellites may be deployed safely.
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