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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information five disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on were filed prior to examination. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response to the 4/15/2026 Restriction Requirement. Applicant elects group I, corresponding to claims 1-4. As Applicant has not expressly stated the election was without traverse, the election is treated as an election without traverse. Accordingly, the claims corresponding to the unelected groupings (claims 5-11) are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 5-11 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-4 have been examined.
This action is non-final.
Summary of Claim Rejections
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for amounting to “data per se”, under
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
Claims 1-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the following prior art of record2:
Non-patent literature, “Space Traffic Management with a NASA UAS Traffic (UTM) Inspired Architecture” (Murakami)
United States Patent Application Publication No. US-20210318670-A1 (Cunningham)
Non-Patent Literature “SPACEFLIGHT SAFETY HANDBOOK FOR SATELLITE OPERATORS” (Safety Handbook)
Non-Patent Literature “Analysis of the Iridium 33-Cosmos 2251 Collision” (Kelso).
Non-Patent Literature, “TWO-LINE ELEMENT SETS – PRACTICE AND USE” (Vallado)
Non-Patent Literature, “State Liability for Space Object Collisions: The Proper Interpretation of ‘Fault’ for the Purposes of International” (Dennerley)
Non-Patent Literature, “H. Rept. 105-851 - Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China” (House Report)
The following prior art is relied upon as supplemental evidentiary support for the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 4:
Non-Patent Literature “CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE - CCSDS 508.0-B-1”
Non-Patent Literature “ORBIT DATA MESSAGES - CCSDS 502.0-B-2”
Non-Patent Literature “Analysis and Consequences of the Iridium 33 Cosmos 2251 Collision” (Anz-Meador)
Non-Patent Literature, “H. Rept. 105-851 - Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China” (House Report)
Non-Patent Literature “Space Insurance: International Legal Aspects” (Malinowska).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Software Per Se
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, under Step 1 of Alice/Mayo test, the claimed “…space information recorder…” of claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes embodiments that do not have a physical or tangible form. I.e., claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, include products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se"). Products without any structural recitations are patent ineligible (See MPEP § 2106.03 (I)). In the instant case, Examiner notes the claimed recorder of claim 1 may include software and/or data lacking a physical or tangible form.
Despite the claims also encompassing embodiments which may be one of the four statutory categories of statutory subject matter, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper, as MPEP § 2106.03 (II) states:
“A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1 of Alice / Mayo analysis: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason”.
The Examiner acknowledges the dependent claims 2-3 indicate the “…space information recorder…” claimed may include processing circuitry, but independent claim 1 does not require this, and Applicant’s specification appears to specifically include embodiments of “…recorders…” which may lack a physical form, as they appear to be merely data:
¶¶177-178 of Applicant Specification (underline and bold emphasis added): “[¶177] … In the storage unit 230, the space information recorder 50 and the alert issuance information 141 are stored. … The storage unit 230 is provided in the memory 921.”3
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the relevant test is the Alice/Mayo test4. The following analysis provided in this section results from the instant application’s claims being examined within the scope of the Alice/Mayo test framework.
With respect Step 1 of Alice/Mayo analysis, claim 1 is directed to a “… space information recorder…”, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, amounts to “data per se”, as explained above. Claims 2-4 are all directed more specifically to a “…space information recorder [which] includes processing circuitry…” Therefore, claim 1 fails at step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: NO), but each of the dependent claims 2-4 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (Step 1 of Alice/Mayo Test: YES).
Based upon consideration of all relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-4 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea of determining space insurance risks. The rationales for the aforementioned determination are explained further below.
With respect Step 2A Prong I of Alice/Mayo analysis, claims 1-4 recite as a whole a method of organizing human activity because independent claims 1 recites:
“1. … space information … to disclose orbit information of a space object flying in outer space, and to record space object information acquired from … a management business operator that manages a plurality of space objects,
the space object information including orbit forecast information that includes a forecast epoch, a forecast orbital element, and a forecast error of each of the plurality of space objects, and includes an estimated collision occurrence time or time period when a collision between a space object A and a space object B included in the plurality of space objects is foreseen,
the space object information also including record orbit information that includes a collision occurrence time estimated by post-accident verification after occurrence of a collision accident between the space object A and the space object B included in the plurality of space objects, location information of the space object A at or immediately before the time concerned, and location information of the space object B at or immediately before the time concerned,
the space information … being used as a basis for evaluating, after occurrence of the collision accident between the space object A and the space object B included in the plurality of space objects, accident liability of the space object A and the space object B that have collided with each other based on a difference between the record orbit information and the forecast orbit information.”
Under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, these are recitations of fundamental economic practices of determining space insurance risks. Additionally, aspects drawn to the “…acquired from… a management business…operator…” are recitations of commercial interactions (e.g., business relations), under broadest reasonable interpretation. Adding one abstract idea to another does not render a claim non-abstract – see MPEP § 2106.04 II A 2 citing RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. 855 F.3d 1322. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong I: Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea).
Prior to step 2A Prong II Alice/Mayo analysis, Examiner notes the following preliminary matter:
Consistent with guidance set forth in MPEP § 2106.04 II B5, Examiner, under step 2A Prong II and step 2B analysis, treats the identified abstract ideas of claim 1 as a single abstract idea of determining space insurance risks, as the commercial activities identified in step 2A prong I are in furtherance of the abstract determining space insurance risks recited.
This judicial exception recited in independent claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong II of revised step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test:
The additional elements “A … recorder…”, and “…a management business device used by…” of claim 1 amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f), (h)), even when considering each claim’s additional elements both separately and as an ordered combination. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014): "… Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words ‘apply it’ " is not enough for patent eligibility. … Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea " ‘to a particular technological environment.’ … Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result”.
The claims merely invoke computers as tools to perform an abstract business process (e.g., the recited determining space insurance risks – see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2)), and Applicant’s claims fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP §§2106.04(d)(1) & 2106.05(a)). For example, the instant claims do not include any specific technical details as to how the claimed management business device or recorder is specifically used, beyond merely sending/receiving data at a high degree of generality, not indistinguishable from a general purpose computer, so as for the space information recorder being merely used as a tool at a high degree of generality to “…[be] used as a basis for evaluating … accident liability…”. Furthermore, the limitations “…to disclose…” and “…to record…” each amount to mere intentions of desired results sought from the recorder; results of which drawn squarely to the abstract idea recited. Furthermore, the instant claims do not include any specific technical details necessarily rooted in the “recorder” or “management business” themselves which could be reasonably construed as providing distinguishing features distinguishable from that of general purpose computers sending/receiving data at a high degree of generality. This issue is exacerbated in further view of the recorder being described with such minimal details, that it, under broadest reasonable interpretation, amounts to “data per se”. There are no technical details device as to how the send/receive the data, and the claims instead merely states the intended results sought by the non-descript recorder at a high degree of generality. This supports the aforementioned determination that the additional elements of the independent claims are merely applied, and merely limit the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.05 (f)(1): “…claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’”, as well as MPEP § 2106.05(a) (underline emphasis added): “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107.
An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not a technological solution to a technological problem (MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (a) II). See the following:
MPEP 2106.05(a) II: “… it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology … Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015): “... our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”
Customedia Techs. V. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2020): “We have held that ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer functionality”.
In light of the above rationales provided for step 2A Prong II analysis, the Examiner respectfully submits the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on an abstract idea that uses computers as tools. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they do no more than represent computers performing functions that correspond to (,i.e., implement,) the acts of the abstract determining space insurance risks, and do not provide details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claims as reflecting an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. (Step 2A Prong II of Alice/Mayo Test: NO, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application). Accordingly, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test: The claim is directed to an abstract idea).
When analyzed under step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1, when viewed as a whole, does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more, as its elements, each viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract determining space insurance risks concept within a particular technological environment, absent of any particular technological details that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP §§ 2106.05 (a), (f), (h) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24 (2014). Even though claim 1 utilizes a “recorder” and “management business device”, the manner by which those elements are used is indistinguishable from mere addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to the abstract idea recited. Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but rather on abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Hence, none of the elements of the independent claims add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (i.e., an inventive concept), as merely employing computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself – see BSG Tech LLC vs. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018): “It has been clear since Alice that a Claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept”.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, the dependent claims have been given the full analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and as an ordered combination (if any). The dependent claims, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the same reasoning as above, and because the claim limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The rationales for the aforementioned determinations are explained further below.
With respect to dependent claim 2, it recites further details outlining aspects of the abstract space insurance processes, per reciting limitations “…wherein the space information … includes … a space insurance program that makes an insurance payment from a pre-collected premium when a collision has occurred between a space object A and a space object B among the plurality of space objects, … sets an insurance premium rate based on the forecast error included in the orbit forecast information.”. The additional elements, “…includes processing circuitry for…” and “…wherein the processing circuitry…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the abstract space insurance processes to try to make them faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, claim 2 does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 3, it recites further details outlining aspects of the abstract space insurance processes, per reciting limitations “…wherein the space information recorder … a space insurance program that makes an insurance payment from a pre-collected insurance premium when a collision has occurred between a space object A and a space object B amount the plurality of space objects, and … extract.. orbit record information as of a time of the collision between the space objects as a collision record from the orbit record information, extract… orbit forecast information as of the time of the collision between the space objects as pre-collision forecast information from the orbit forecast information, and assesses an insurance payment based on a comparison between difference information A and difference information B, the difference information A being a difference between a collision record and pre-collision forecast information of the space object A, the difference information B being a difference between a collision record an pre-collision forecast information of the space object B”. The additional elements, “…includes processing circuitry for…” and “…wherein the processing circuitry extracts…” do no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the abstract space insurance processes to try to make them faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, claim 3 does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is also not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 4, it recites further details outlining aspects of the abstract space insurance processes, per reciting limitations “…. the space information … output a danger alert indicating existence of space objects whose locations at a same time are in a dangerous relationship to the management business operator and an insurance business operator that makes an insurance payment from a pre-collected insurance premium when a collision has occurred between a space object A and a space object B among the plurality of space objects”. The additional element, “…recorder includes processing circuitry to…” does no more than represent the use of computers as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) & 2106.05(h)). Merely automating the abstract space insurance processes to try to make them faster or more efficient does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, claim 4 does not improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is also not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Space Traffic Management with a NASA UAS Traffic (UTM) Inspired Architecture” (Murakami), in further view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US-20210318670-A1 (Cunningham), in further view of Non-Patent Literature “SPACEFLIGHT SAFETY HANDBOOK FOR SATELLITE OPERATORS” (Safety Handbook), in further view of Non-Patent Literature “Analysis of the Iridium 33-Cosmos 2251 Collision” (Kelso), Non-Patent Literature, “TWO-LINE ELEMENT SETS – PRACTICE AND USE” (Vallado), in further view of Non-Patent Literature, “State Liability for Space Object Collisions: The Proper Interpretation of ‘Fault’ for the Purposes of International” (Dennerley).
Additionally, the following prior art is relied upon as supplemental evidentiary support for the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 4:
Non-Patent Literature “CONJUNCTION DATA MESSAGE - CCSDS 508.0-B-1”
Non-Patent Literature “ORBIT DATA MESSAGES - CCSDS 502.0-B-2”
Non-Patent Literature “Analysis and Consequences of the Iridium 33 Cosmos 2251 Collision” (Anz-Meador)
Non-Patent Literature, “H. Rept. 105-851 - Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China” (House Report)
Non-Patent Literature “Space Insurance: International Legal Aspects” (Malinowska).
With respect to claim 1, Murakami discloses:
A space information recorder (Fig. 3, “…STM Service Supplier (S3)…”, including archive, page 17: “…archive…”) to disclose orbit information of a space object flying in outer space,
PNG
media_image1.png
445
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Page 17 of Murakami, underline emphasis added: “The S3 collects metadata regarding each spacecraft under its supervision, disseminates information regarding satellite operational status to the broader STM network, …”
and to record space object information (the owner/operator ephemerides and positional data the owner/operators send to the S3) acquired from a management business device used by a management business operator (Owner/Operator) that manages a plurality of space objects, (Spacecraft, e.g., satellites – see Fig. 3)See pages 17, 19, and Fig. 4 (including caption) of Murakami in further view of Examiner’s Note:
pages 17 of Murakami: “… The operator executes all maneuvers and has decision-making authorities and overall responsibility for the actions of its spacecraft. …”
Page 19 of Murakami, underline emphasis added: “…The owner/operator would arrange to consistently share its contact information, commit to provide timely replies to the S3, provide positional data it gathers for its satellites (periodically or in near real-time), meta-data (satellite geometry, attitude, etc.), and generalized preferences for collision avoidance …”
Caption of Fig. 4 on page 20: “…O/O retains an S3 and transmits ephemeris and metadata for its satellite(s).”
PNG
media_image2.png
505
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note: One of ordinary skill in the art reading Murakami understands Murakami implicitly teaches the Owner/Operator entity is contemplated to include a “…system…” (i.e., the claimed “…a management business device used by a management business operator…”), as one of ordinary skill in the art understands:
The Owner/Operator entity is disclosed to be a part of the “STM Network”, per Figure 3.
the aforementioned cite on page 19 states the owner/operator entity “…provide[s] positional data … in near real-time”.
Murakami discloses on page 17: “…Standard interfaces and a common API structure … allow easy communication between entities …”.
I.e., the Owner/Operator entity is implicitly taught by Murakami to include an Owner/Operator system - a human (e.g., owner/operator) is understood to not be able to carry out all of these functionalities without an associated computer system, and it is not reasonable to construe the O/O’s as only including humans, when explicitly included as an element of a “network” diagram. To further support Examiner’s position, examiner additionally notes that Murakami contemplates the message standards of the disclosed system as including “…Conjunction Data Message (CDM) (CCSDS 508.0-B-1…”, which states, in page 626: “PRIMARY REQUIREMENTS ACCEPTED BY THE CCDM …Requirement … CDM-P01 … The CDM data shall be provided in digital form (computer file)”.
the space object information including orbit … information (ephemerides and positional data) …
See Pages 18-21 of Murakami:
“[page 18] … High accuracy tracking of active satellites can be greatly enhanced by provision of owner/operator ephemerides which can exceed the possible accuracy of non-cooperative tracking information … [page 19] … The owner/operator would … provide positional data it gathers for its satellites …The S3 then updates the STM system roster to indicate that it provides service to this particular satellite. … [page 20]…For this service, S3s would partner with a CAS, passing satellite information along with any necessary meta-data or self-reported ephemerides to the CAS …”
… a … [calculation] error of each of the plurality of space objects …
pages 15-16: “[page 15] … we intend for liability to be determined between S3s and O/Os, and potentially with the inclusion of third-party insurance suppliers. … [page 16]…Establishing auditable records of data provenance is necessary for accountability, particularly as data is transformed from raw observations into SSA products or used as a basis for maneuver decisions. Data accuracy might be at issue in potential liability suits, … . Data integrity verification is necessary to protect against malicious actors or simple errors during transmission, … which could have profound an expensive consequences if … reliance on erroneous data leads to a breakdown … that results in a collision.”
the space object information also including record orbit information … of the space object A … and … of the space object B … [acquired from … a[n]… operator]
See page 19
“[page 19] …The owner/operator would arrange to consistently share its contact information, commit to provide timely replies to the S3, provide positional data it gathers for its satellites (periodically or in near real-time), …”
the space information recorder being used as a basis for evaluating, after occurrence of the collision accident between the space object A and the space object B included in the plurality of space objects, accident liability of the space object A and the space object B that have collided with each other …
See pages 15-16:
“[page 15] … we intend for liability to be determined between S3s and O/Os, and potentially with the inclusion of third-party insurance suppliers. … [page 16]…Establishing auditable records of data provenance is necessary for accountability, particularly as data is transformed from raw observations into SSA products or used as a basis for maneuver decisions. Data accuracy might be at issue in potential liability suits, … . Data integrity verification is necessary to protect against malicious actors or simple errors during transmission, … which could have profound an expensive consequences if … reliance on erroneous data leads to a breakdown … that results in a collision.”)
Examiner’s Note: Murakami does not expressly teach an “occurrence of [a] collision accident between the space object A and the space object B included in the plurality of space objects” as an “in-fact” occurrence. However, Examiner respectfully takes the position that Murakami’s disclosure reasonably suggests one in the context of the liability disclosed, and further suggests that that liability corresponds to determining accident liability of the space object A and the space object B that have collided with each other with respect to the operators and/or others, to one of ordinary skill in the art, as Murakami states data accuracy might be an issue in liability suits (i.e., implying a loss event), and immediately stating after that, that erroneous data (e.g., a form of inaccurate data) may result in a collision (i.e., a clear example of a loss event, to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Examiner, for sake of compact prosecution, notes Murakami fails to verbatim teach that the operator (O/O) entity includes a management business device (even if implicitly taught).
However, Cunningham expressly teaches that operator entities operating satellites execute commands for satellite functionality at control stations (i.e., a management business device – see Abstract, ¶¶3, 7, 11).
Accordingly, given Murakami already implicitly teaches or otherwise reasonably suggests the operators having their own associated computer system, and Cunningham disclosing an operator having control over an associated ground station (i.e., business management device), it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that each of the operator entities of Murakami have each their own corresponding management business device, in order to advantageously submit their computer-generated information autonomously (e.g., rather than manually by a human), as the received of Murakami is already necessarily generated by computer systems.
Murakami in view of Cunningham still fails to disclose the following bolded elements:
[the space object information received from operator … including] … orbit forecast information that includes a forecast epoch, …a forecast error of each of the plurality of space objects, …[and includes] … an estimated collision occurrence time or time period when a collision between a space object A and a space object B included in the plurality of space objects is foreseen, …
the space object information [from operator] also including record orbit information that includes a collision occurrence time estimated by post-accident verification after occurrence of a collision accident between the space object A and the space object B …
[the space object information received from operator … including] location information of the space object A at or immediately before the time concerned, and location information of the space object B at or immediately before the time concerned,
… [determining an] accident liability of the space object A and the space object B that have collided with each other … based on a difference between the record orbit information and the forecast orbit information.
Safety Handbook discloses:
the space object information [from operator] (ephemeris and OPM messages from operator) including orbit forecast information (OPM messages)
“[page 14] … Satellite operators may provide ephemeris in various formats … Operators may elect to include covariance data in order to accommodate probability of collision calculations … ”
“[page 4] … All O/O’s may submit predictive ephemeris to 18 SPCS for screening against the HAC…”
“[page 27] … 18 SPCS respectfully requests that satellite operators notify 18 SPCS of planned, confirmed, and cancelled maneuvers … 18 SPCS has chosen the Orbital Parameter Message (OPM) as the most appropriate method of exchanging maneuver information …[Table 15 on pages 30-31] … OPM DATA … USER_DEFINED_MAN_STATUS … PREDICTED = planned maneuver…”
Examiner note: Examiner notes implicitly teaches O/O’s sending both the ephemeris and the orbit forecast (OPM) information, per OPM table 15’s disclosure of “…USER_DEFINED_EPHEM…Name of the corresponding ephemeris file, if the operator has submitted ephemeris to 18 SPCS for screening…”.
[the orbit forecast information received from operator … including] … a forecast epoch,
“[Table 11 on pages 28-29] OPM DATA … EPOCH …Epoch of state vector in UTC …”
“[page 27] … 18 SPCS respectfully requests that satellite operators notify 18 SPCS of planned, confirmed, and cancelled maneuvers … 18 SPCS has chosen the Orbital Parameter Message (OPM) as the most appropriate method of exchanging maneuver information …[Table 15 on pages 30-31] … OPM DATA … USER_DEFINED_MAN_STATUS … PREDICTED = planned maneuver…”
“[page 17]…EPHEMERIS FORMATS … GENERIC ON-ORBIT EPHEMERIS FORMAT … The data section consists of, for each ephemeris data point, one line which contains the epoch date and time and state vector, … followed by one line holding the six values of the 3x3 lower triangular position covariance matrix.”
“[page 18]…EPHEMERIS FORMATS … MODIFIED ITC EPHEMERIS FORMAT … the data section consists of, for each ephemeris data point, one line which contains the epoch date and time …”
[the orbit forecast information received from operator … including] …a forecast orbital element, …
PNG
media_image3.png
240
782
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“[Page 27, OVERVIEW section] … 18 SPCS respectfully requests that satellite operators notify the 18 SPCS of planned, confirmed, and cancelled maneuvers. … 18 SPCS has chosen the Orbital Parameter Message (OPM) as the most appropriate method of exchanging maneuver information. … [However,] 18 SPCS has made modifications to the message, which are detailed in the following Maneuver Notification Format. … FORMAT … The following tables specify for each section of the OPM … [Table 12, on pages 22-23] … [see image below]”
[the orbit forecast information received from operator … including] … a forecast error of each of the plurality of space objects, … (See tables 14 and 15, further below, as well as page 40: “…A covariance matrix characterizes the uncertainty in a satellite state vector…”)
PNG
media_image4.png
330
783
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
243
783
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[the orbit forecast information received from operator … including] … an estimated collision occurrence time or time period when a collision between a space object A and a space object B included in the plurality of space objects is foreseen, …
“[Table 15 (maneuver parameters), on page 31] … USER_DEFINED_TCA … For COLA [i.e., collision avoidance] maneuvers, provide the Time of Closest Approach (TCE) in UTC of the corresponding conjunction event. Recommend using the TCA in the Conjunction data message”
Accordingly, it would have been rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the “record space object information acquired from a management business device used by a management business operator that manages a plurality of space objects” additionally include orbit forecast information that includes a forecast epoch, a forecast orbital element, and a forecast error of each of the plurality of space objects, forecast orbital elements, a forecast error of each of the plurality of space objects, and include an estimated collision occurrence time or time period when a collision between a space object A and a space object B included in the plurality of space objects is foreseen, as disclosed by Safety Handbook, resulting in said additional data from the operators to be archived in the S3 archive of Murakami in view of Cunningham (e.g., for potential liability determinations), in order to advantageously receive more pertinent data that could be used to determined potential collision events at the S3 system/network (including archive / recorder) of Murakami, and also to provide more pertinent information to liability analyses for Murakami. The addition of the data has a reasonably likelihood of the S3 increasing the overall safety of the satellite operators satellite’s, by having more readily accessible data amongst the registered satellites of the registered satellite operators of Murakami. The combination also advantageously provides more pertinent data in the case of liability analyses being required in the event of a collision of space objects, as the additional data of Safety Handbook (including accuracy related measurements, e.g., the covariance data), can advantageously be used to determine a probability of Collision at its corresponding epoch (i.e., time frame; see at least pages 39-40 of Safety Handbook).
Murakami in view of Cunningham and Safety Handbook still fails to expressly disclose or otherwise clearly render prima facie obvious the following bolded elements:
the space object information [from operator] also including record orbit information that includes a collision occurrence time estimated by post-accident verification after occurrence of a collision accident between the space object A and the space object B …
[the space object information received from operator … including] location information of the space object A at or immediately before the time concerned, and location information of the space object B at or immediately before the time concerned,
… [determining an] accident liability of the space object A and the space object B that have collided with each other … based on a difference between the record orbit information and the forecast orbit information.
As further support to show that the following inclusion of Kelso does not rely upon impermissible hindsight bias, Examiner, as a preliminary matter, notes the following concerning (a) Murakami, (b) Safety Handbook, or (c) the pertinent field of endeavor, e.g., space insurance, and insurance more generally:
Murakami discloses liability analysis being required for potential liability suits (i.e., lawsuits), and heavily implies to one of ordinary skill in the art that the liability may arise from losses corresponding to orbital collision, where measurement accuracy is a relevant factor in determining liability in said liability lawsuits, and suggests those lawsuits may involve insurance companies (See last paragraph of page 16) .
One of ordinary skill in the art reading Murakami understands that liability in the context of insurance (such as the stated or otherwise heavily implied example of Murakami) typically involves submission of an insurance claim and/or subrogation processes, of which necessarily requires information pertaining to the loss (e.g., the underlying data pertinent to the insured object (e.g., satellite)) at the time of loss – This is implicitly understood in dealing with insurance claims of a loss event, generally. Murakami additionally suggests indications of accuracy as relevant in liability determinations.
Safety Handbook by itself discloses that the additional data it advantageously provides to Murakami can be utilized to predict collision probabilities (See Annex A of Safety Handbook), and is outlining a standardized methodology for O/Os.
With respect to both Murakami and Safety Handbook, examiner notes they both:
are concerned with managing risks of collisions and monitoring space objects, where operators are submitting data corresponding to the satellites, and are for collision avoidance / satellite monitoring.
explicitly specify and require a particular standard, that standard being the “Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems” (CCSDS) standards7. Both expressly refer to the CCSDS’s “Orbit Data Message (ODM) CCSDS 502.0-B-2” standard as well8.
Keeping in mind item “d.” immediately above, that same standard (Orbit Data Message (ODM) CCSDS 502.0-B-2)9 explicitly referenced by both Murakami and Safety Handbook contemplates that such data exchanges may be used for “…performing orbit conjunction … studies; …” (page 1-1; page 12 of the supplied PDF).
Kelso, disclosing a post-collision analysis involving review of the pre-collision conjunction predictions (i.e., a post-collision analysis involving an orbit conjunction study), of which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is needed for an insurance liability assessment implied by Murakami, discloses:
… a collision occurrence… (i.e., the Iridum 33-Cosmos 2251 Collision; see title)
… record orbit information that includes a collision occurrence time estimated by post-accident verification after occurrence of a collision accident between the space object A and the space object B …
“…[page 1] at the time of predicted close approach (1656 UTC), Iridium 33 suddenly went silent … [page 2] … TRACKING A COLLISION … SOCRATES did predict a close approach between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 between 16:55:59.670 and 16:55:59:990 UTC … [page 4] Figure 4 shows the orbital geometry just at the time of the collision (based on the predicted time or closest approach in the last SOCRATES report) at 16:55:59.806 UTC …”
Examiner’s Note: Kelso’s disclosure of “…went silent…” is understood to one of ordinary skill in the art as the observation by which “the occurrence of a collision accident[‘s]” time is estimated in post accident verification.
[space object information including] location information of the space object A at or immediately before the time concerned, and location information of the space object B at or immediately before the time concerned
See the orbital geometry Kelso depicted in figure 4, corresponding to time 16:55:59.806 UTC (i.e., immediately before the time concerned)
PNG
media_image6.png
684
841
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“…[page 4] Fig. 3 shows the orbital geometry just at the time of the collision … It can be seen that the objects collided at nearly right angles over northern Russia … the orbital geometry just at the time of the collision … ”
Examiner’s Note: Examiner appreciates that the descriptions of the location provided by Kelso (e.g., “…over northern Russia…”) are likely not what was received from the underlying systems of Kelso, but also notes that Kelso’s ability to identify the location with verbal descriptions as disclosed, and depict them in the agi computer software (see watermark with logo, above) is still indicative of underlying data analogous to that of Murakami and Safety Handbook being utilized in the analysis laid out by Kelso, to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In order to further support examiner’s position that such information disclosed by Kelso (above in the mapping), is understood to be derived from underlying data analogous to that of Safety Handbook, examiner notes the safety handbook disclosing messages from operators that may include (a) OPM messages that may be COLA (collision avoidance) messages10 that may have positional data11 which are timestamped12, as well as (b) Ephermis data with positional data13, of which are (c) already suggested to be used for conjunction analysis per the CCSDS 502.0-B-2 standard referenced in both Murakami and Kelso, of which requires the data to be in digital format14. The CCSDS 502.0-B-2 also discloses data such orbital elements (also called Keplerian elements) used to generate two-line elements (TLEs), which are depicted in graphical form in the retrospective analysis of Kelso (Fig. 3, § 2), and whose underlying data set are contained within the OPM messages of Safety Handbook themselves (i.e., the augmented data of Safety Handbook – see tables 10 and 12) – see at least pages 2-1 and 2-2 of CCSDS 502.0-B-2.
As the last piece of evidentiary support for Examiner’s stance on this particular issue, they note the following prior art reports on the same incident as that of Kelso (i.e., the “Iridium 33-Cosmos 2251 Collision”), which more concretely discloses the data gathered post-analysis in a quantifiable format analogous to that of Safety Handbook:
Non-Patent Literature, “Analysis and Consequences of the Iridium 33-Cosmos 2251 Collision” (Anz-Meador), discloses: “[page 6] … The Collision event … estimated collision parameters … Event time: 10 February 2009, 16h 55m 58.9s GMT … Location: 72.50° N latitude 97.86° E longitude 778.6 km altitude … Relative velocity: 11.647 km/s … Directionality … Orbital Distribution …”15
Accordingly, as (a) one of ordinary skill in the art generally understands that the liability determinations of Murakami would logically require post-accident verification after occurrence of a collision accident between … space object[s]16 based on pre-event data available to the potentially liable operators of Murakami, (b) Safety Handbook expressly disclosing the underlying data needed for such a post-accident liability analysis (i.e., the Ephemeris and OPM data from operators), of which may be used for collision probability measures17, (c) Murakami in view of Safety Handbook rendering obvious the archival of such (e.g., past) data, and (d) Kelso expressly disclosing a post-accident analysis based on past conjunction data analogous to that of Safety Handbook, whose data is at or just prior to a loss incident (e.g., a collision), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the archived past data of Murakami in view of Safety Handbook in a similar manner to Kelso in Kelso’s post-accident analysis for the liability determinations of Murakami, resulting in the use of the space information recorder including the space information recorder being used as a basis for evaluating after occurrence of the collision accident between the space object A and the space object B included in the plurality of space objects, accident liability of the space object A and the space Object B that have collided with each other…, in order to assess the liability determinations of Murakami in view of Cunningham and Safety Handbook’s suggested loss event (e.g., satellite collision) post-accident with extremely pertinent information.
In order to further support examiner’s aforementioned statement that the liability determinations of Murakami are generally understood to require post-accident verification after occurrence of a collision accident between … space object[s] to one of ordinary skill in the art, Examiner notes the following prior art generally indicating the processes of “space insurance”, of which are generally known to one of ordinary skill in the art of “space insurance”:
Non-Patent Literature, “House Report 105-851” (House Report). House Report generally disclosing the typical processes of space insurance, where space information corresponding to the space object (e.g., satellite) is generally used as a basis for evaluating, after occurrence of the collision accident, accident liability based on recorded data (underline and bold emphasis added):
“…[pages 306-307] Space Insurance Claims of Loss … The Proof of loss is a statement issued to the insurers and is signed ant notarized by the insured client; … it includes the time the loss occurred, details as to what happened, and technical information such as telemetry data, frequencies, and power levels at the time of the failure …The insured is obligated to disclose any relevant issues, including the results of any failure investigations … The insurers must have this information – and a substantiated theory of the failure … Third-party liability space insurance covers legal liability arising from damage to a third party during the … in-orbit operations.”
Non-Patent Literature, “Space Insurance: International Legal Aspects” (Malinowska)18. Malinowska is generally pertinent for the same reasons as House Report, in that it discloses the general processes of space insurance, to one of ordinary skill in the art. Malinowska is relevant for disclosing (a) third party liability insurance (pages 156, 250), (b) third-party risks including liability caused by space objects (e.g., satellites; page 250), (c) contemplation of the entities liable under such a third-party liability (TPL) insurance (page 251), of which may include (c.1) “the participants of the space mission”, and/or (c.2) any operator entity, per statements on pages 254-255: “…It is worth noting that the OST [the outer space treaty] does not refer to any types of space activity for which the … [entity] should bear responsibility or liability, as the only reference is made to the space object causing the damage. That is why it is understood broadly as any activity in outer space. Examples given include the activities of the … operation and control of a satellite. It is clear from the above liability rules, that the space treaties adopated a concept of ‘channeled’ liability, which is present as a kind of tendency … deriving the entity liable from person of the actual wrongdoer.” (e.g., entities analogous to the potentially liable operators of Murakami), and (d) discloses loss / proof-of-loss information in third-party liability insurance schemes (pages 354 and 359-371), which may involve (d.1) the time of loss (page 360), (d.2) telemetry data of the satellite (page 360), and (d.3) subrogation (pages 360- 371).
Murakami in view of Cunningham, Safety Handbook, and Kelso still fails to expressly disclose or otherwise clearly render prima facie obvious the following:
… [determining an] accident liability of the space object A and the space object B that have collided with each other … based on a difference between the record orbit information and the forecast orbit information.
However Vallado discloses a portion of the above, specifically:
… [determining] a difference between the record orbit information (owner ephemeris – analogous to the received ephemeris of Safety Handbook) and the forecast orbit information (TLE ephemeris – analogous to the data elements of tables 11 and 12 of Safety Handbook19). “…The owner ephemeris is differenced to the spliced TLE ephemeris. The differences are plotted in radial, in-track and cross-track directions. The range is simply the magnitude of the difference.”
Accordingly, it would have been rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the recorder of Murakami in view of Cunningham, Safety Handbook, and Kelso could have their data analogous to the owner ephemeris and TLE ephemeris of Vallado be used to determine a difference between the record orbit and the forecast orbit information, in order to advantageously determine a level of accuracy between the forecast relative to the record information (of which the post-collision analysis of Murakami in view of Cunningham in view of Safety Handbook, and Kelso is based per Kelso).
Murakami in view of Cunningham, Safety Handbook, Kelso and Vallado still fails to render prima facie obvious that the accident liability of Murakami should be based on a difference between the record orbit information and the forecast orbit information. (i.e., the calculation of Vallado, which is prima facie obvious a calculation that the underlying archived data of Murakami in view of Cunningham, Safety Handbook, Kelso and Vallado could be used to perform).
However, Dennerley discloses or otherwise reasonably suggests … [determining an] accident liability of the space object A and the space object B that have collided with each other … based on a difference between the record orbit information and the forecast orbit information, as a matter of fault analysis for the purposes of liability determinations in a satellite collision / space insurance context. See the following cites of pages 295-296, underline and bold emphasis added:
“…As discussed … the standard of care established … is that of constructive knowledge. This standard of care presupposes that by virtue of …[an entity’s] control over its territory, it should have known about the acts or omissions … that interfere with the rights of other … [entities]. … the … due diligence obligation with its constructive knowledge fault standard … will be the relevant fault standard to fall back on with regard to space activities. … this would mean that by virtue of … [an entity’s] … control over its space objects, it is presumed that … [an entity] will have constructive knowledge about the circumstances surrounding the operation of the space object, including the possibility of its collision with another space object. Indeed, … space objects are operated consciously and knowingly … meaning that when a space object deviates from its orbital path or behaves strangely, … causing it to [colliding with another space object,] the operator [failing to avert such a collision should be] held liable on the basis of fault ... . … the operators of active space objects, are in a position to know when the objects under their control should be manoeuvred. Arguably constructive knowledge would thus be the more appropriate standard of fault … .”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the STM’s archive (i.e., the space information recorder being used) of Murakami in view of Cunningham, Safety Handbook, Kelso, and Vallado as a basis for evaluating, after occurrence of the collision accident between the space object A and the space object B included in the plurality of space objects, accident liability of the space object A and the space object B that have collided with each other, based on a difference between the record orbit information and the forecast orbit information, as suggested by Dennerly (and realized by the calculations of Vallado), in order for the liability determinations based on data accuracy of Murakami to advantageously be determined in an objective, quantifiable, and facts-based manner.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Cunningham, Safety Handbook, Kelso, Vallado, and Dennerley, as applied in claim 1, in further view of Non-Patent Literature, “H. Rept. 105-851 - Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China” (House Report).
With respect to claim 4, Murakami in view of Cunningham, Safety Handbook, Kelso, and Vallado, and Dennerley renders obvious the recorder of claim 1. The following claim limitations are rejected under the same rationale as parent claim 1, mutatis mutandis:
… a collision has occurred between a space object A and a space object B among the plurality of space objects.
Murakami additionally discloses:
wherein the space information recorder includes processing circuitry to output a danger alert indicating existence of space objects whose locations at a same time are in a dangerous relationship to the management business operator …(see page 22 of Murakami: “For conjunction messages that are determined to present a sufficient threat, the S3 notifies the O/O and proposes a collision avoidance maneuver.”).
Murakami in view of Cunningham, Safety Handbook, Kelso, Vallado, and Dennerley fails to disclose that Murakami’s danger alert is sent to an insurance business operator, despite sending alerts (as shown above), and contemplating involvement of insurance companies (page 15: “We intend for liability to be determined between S3s and O/Os, and potentially with the inclusion of third-party insurance suppliers”) and contemplating liability policy (page 9, item “e)”).
However, House Report discloses:
wherein the space information recorder includes processing circuitry to output a danger alert … to … an insurance business operator that makes an insurance payment from a pre-collected insurance premium when a [loss event] has occurred
Page 306 of House Report strongly advises any pertinent information that where an occurrence is likely to result in a claim as being sent to the insurer; examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art understands the conjunction messages presenting a sufficiently high risk of collision are indicative of “a[n]… occurrence likely to result in a claim”, in the context of Murakami:
“…[pages 306] … Insurers are advised of any occurrence likely to result in a claim..”
With respect to the “that makes an insurance payment from a pre-collected insurance premium when a [loss event] has occurred” portion of mapping, see pages 305-306:
“[page 305] A space insurance deposit between 10 and 20 percent of the premium is required when the policy period commences. The balance of the premium is usually due to the underwriters no later than 30 days prior to launch. [page 306] Claims incurred will surpass premiums collected, a disappointing year for underwriters. …”
Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes the claims claim the recorder. The qualifying details of the insurance business operator (i.e., “that makes an insurance payment from a pre-collected insurance premium when a collision has occurred between a space object A and a space object B among the plurality of space objects”) are beyond the scope of the recorder itself, and have little to no patentable weight.
Accordingly, given Murakami discloses transmissions of messages triggered by a certain degree of risk (i.e., a likelihood of loss event) to operators, and contemplates involvement of insurance providers the same as operators for liability determinations, and House Report providing disclosure that any occurrence likely to result in a claim should be provided to insurers, and it would have been rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the S3 (including archive) send sufficiently high-risk conjunction alerts to the insurance company, resulting in the S3 system of Murakami in view of Cunningham, Safety Handbook, Kelso, Vallado, and Dennerley to output a danger alert indicating the existence of space objects whose locations at a same time are in a dangerous relationship to the management business operator, in order to advantageously automate transmission of pertinent data to the insurance company/supplier/business-operator insuring one or both of the high-risk satellites.
No Prior Art Rejection
Claims 2 and 3 overcome 35 U.S.C. 102/103 for the following reasons:
Based on prior art search results, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the following claimed subject matter when viewed as an ordered combination with the other elements claimed, and does not teach:
… wherein the space information recorder includes processing circuitry for a space insurance program …
The closest prior art of record found during search is the same prior art applied in claims 1 and 4.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Non-Patent Literature, “Risk of Collision - an Operator Perspective” (Cacioni) – at least section II is pertinent.
Foreign Patent Document KR-101222501-B1 (KR ‘501). At least abstract and Fig. 1 are pertinent.
Non-Patent Literature “FAQ” (SDA). The FAQ of the Space Data Association is pertinent for disclosing data analogous to Murakami being permitted expressly for insurance purposes (See page 1 of PDF supplied).
Non-Patent Literature “Space debris: On collision course for insurers?” (ReSwiss). At least pages 17, 23, and 29 are pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-6624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
1 I.e., the subject matter examined.
2 See detailed 103 rejections further within office action for each claim’s specific combination of prior art.
3 Examiner takes the stance that Applicant Specification’s statement of “computing device(s) 900 may include discrete components (e.g., a full GPU dedicated to the computing device 900), virtual components […] or a combination thereof” is taken to mean that there are embodiments of systems that are entirely virtual, given the second underlined, “virtual components”, in further view of subsequent third underline stating “or a combination thereof”.
4 See MPEP § 2106 I.
5MPEP §2106.04 II B, underline emphasis added: “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea for Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B ... rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually.”
6 Non-Patent Literature “Conjunction Data Message” (CDM); the June 2013 release.
7 See section 2 on page 7 of Murakami, and at least pages 14, 19, 38, 40 of Safety Handbook.
8 See section 2 on page 7 of Murakami, and at least page 19 of Safety Handbook.
9 Provided as Non-Patent Literature, “Orbit Data Message (ODM) CCSDS 502.0-B-2” (hereinafter, “ODM B-2”).
10 Page 30, bottom of table 15 of Safety Handbook
11 Pages 28-29, table 11.
12 Page 28, table 10 of Safety Handbook.
13Page 14 of Safety Handbook
14 See Table C-1 on page 62 of the CCSDS 502.0-B-2 standard.
15 Examiner takes official notice that the latitude, longitude, altitude format of Anz-Meador can equivalently be converted into/represented by Safety Handbook’s disclosed J2000.0 (x, y, z) kilometer format.
16 Examiner provides additional evidentiary support for their position after the obviousness statement herein.
17 E.g., see pages 27-43 of Safety Handbook.
18 Examiner notes they have limited access to Malinowska, so only a few select pages are provided.
19 Of which constitute in part the OPM messages.
Prosecution Insights