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 .
This action is response to the application filed on 11/05/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and herein considered.
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of oath/declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/05/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 11/05/2024 (which document listed has been submitted in the U.S Application No. 17/308,581 filed 05/05/2021), is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 11 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 19 of the U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2024/0007210 now patent No.12,166,537 (Application No. 18/465,616) in view of Holmes et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. U.S. 2019/0311631, published on October 10th, 2019 (see table below).
Instant Application 18/937,371
U.S. Patent No. 12,166,537
For claim 1:
1. A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
estimating a zone of occupancy for a satellite at a future time;
determining an interference of the satellite from the zone of occupancy at the future time;
determining a plurality of deconflictions for reducing the interference;
selecting a deconfliction from the plurality of deconflictions based on a business rule; and
sending the deconfliction to a controller of the satellite.
For claim 2:
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the deconfliction comprises movement of a trajectory of the satellite to an updated trajectory.
For claim 3:
3. The device of claim 2, wherein the movement of the trajectory of the satellite removes the satellite from orbit.
For claim 4:
4. The device of claim 2, wherein the movement sends the satellite into a graveyard orbit.
For claim 5:
5. The device of claim 1, wherein the deconfliction comprises movement of a second satellite, and wherein the operations further comprise sending the deconfliction to a second controller of the second satellite.
For claim 6:
6. The device of claim 1, wherein the interference comprises a quality of service for an electromagnetic signal provided by the satellite.
For claim 7:
7. The device of claim 1, wherein the interference comprises a line of sight of an observer with an object in a sky.
For claim 8:
8. The device of claim 1, wherein the interference comprises an overlap of a previously registered identification zone with the zone of occupancy.
For claim 9:
9. The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise recording non-adherence to the deconfliction.
For claim 10:
10. The device of claim 1, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
For claim 11:
11. A non-transitory, machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
estimating a zone of occupancy at a future time for a satellite;
determining an interference of the satellite from the zone of occupancy at the future time;
determining a plurality of deconflictions for reducing the interference;
selecting a deconfliction from the plurality of deconflictions based on a business rule; and
sending the deconfliction to a controller of the satellite.
For claim 12:
12. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the deconfliction comprises movement of a trajectory of the satellite to an updated trajectory.
For claim 13:
13. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the updated trajectory removes the satellite from orbit.
For claim 14:
14. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the updated trajectory sends the satellite into a graveyard orbit.
For claim 15:
15. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise restoring the trajectory of the satellite beyond the future time.
For claim 16:
16. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the deconfliction comprises movement of a second satellite, and wherein the operations further comprise sending the deconfliction to a second controller of the second satellite.
For claim 17:
17. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the interference comprises a quality of service for an electromagnetic signal provided by the satellite, a line of sight of an observer with an object in a sky, an overlap of a previously registered identification zone with the zone of occupancy, or a combination thereof.
For claim 18:
18. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
For claim 19:
19. A method, comprising:
determining, by a processing system including a processor, an interference of a satellite in a zone of occupancy estimated for a future time;
ascertaining, by the processing system, a plurality of deconflictions for minimizing or eliminating the interference;
selecting, by the processing system, a deconfliction from the plurality of deconflictions based on a business rule; and
sending the deconfliction to a controller of the satellite.
For claim 1:
1. A device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
estimating a zone of occupancy for a satellite at a future time;
determining an interference of the satellite from the zone of occupancy at the future time;
determining a deconfliction for minimizing or eliminating the interference; and
sending the deconfliction to a controller of the satellite.
For claim 2:
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the deconfliction comprises movement of a trajectory of the satellite to an updated trajectory.
For claim 3:
3. The device of claim 2, wherein the movement of the trajectory of the satellite removes the satellite from orbit.
For claim 4:
4. The device of claim 2, wherein the movement sends the satellite into a graveyard orbit.
For claim 5:
5. The device of claim 1, wherein the deconfliction comprises movement of a second satellite, and wherein the operations further comprise sending the deconfliction to a second controller of the second satellite.
For claim 6:
6. The device of claim 1, wherein the interference comprises a quality of service for an electromagnetic signal provided by the satellite.
For claim 7:
7. The device of claim 1, wherein the interference comprises a line of sight of an observer with an object in a sky.
For claim 8:
8. The device of claim 1, wherein the interference comprises an overlap of a previously registered identification zone with the zone of occupancy.
For claim 9:
9. The device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise recording non-adherence to the deconfliction.
For claim 10:
10. The device of claim 1, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
For claim 11:
11. A non-transitory, machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
estimating a zone of occupancy at a future time for a satellite;
determining an interference of the satellite from the zone of occupancy at the future time;
determining a deconfliction for minimizing or eliminating the interference; and
sending the deconfliction to a controller of the satellite.
For claim 12:
12. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the deconfliction comprises movement of a trajectory of the satellite to an updated trajectory.
For claim 13:
13. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the updated trajectory removes the satellite from orbit.
For claim 14:
14. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the updated trajectory sends the satellite into a graveyard orbit.
For claim 15:
15. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise restoring the trajectory of the satellite beyond the future time.
For claim 16:
16. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the deconfliction comprises movement of a second satellite, and wherein the operations further comprise sending the deconfliction to a second controller of the second satellite.
For claim 17:
17. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the interference comprises a quality of service for an electromagnetic signal provided by the satellite, a line of sight of an observer with an object in a sky, an overlap of a previously registered identification zone with the zone of occupancy, or a combination thereof.
For claim 18:
18. The non-transitory, machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment.
For claim 19:
19. A method, comprising:
determining, by a processing system including a processor, an interference of a satellite in a zone of occupancy estimated for a future time;
ascertaining, by the processing system, a plurality of deconflictions for minimizing or eliminating the interference;
selecting, by the processing system, a deconfliction from the plurality of deconflictions; and
sending the deconfliction to a controller of the satellite.
The US 18/937,371 does not explicitly disclose selecting a deconfliction from the plurality of deconflictions based on a business rule. However, Holmes from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses update trajectory deconfliction of a trajectory of the aircraft and trajectories of one or more other aircraft, and generate a guidance output associated with a route of the aircraft based on integration of the dynamic parameters, the trajectory deconfliction and the internal factors (see Holmes, at least abstract, paragraph [0007], [0108]-[0112]; [0114]; may consider all factors that may impact flight path optimization ( e.g., relative to internal factors set by the pilot or an operator, and external factors that may be dynamically changing) to output the guidance option 375 graphically). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention U.S. 2024/0007210 to include selecting a deconfliction from the plurality of deconflictions based on a business rule as taught by Holmes. The motivation for doing this is to provide system networks provided in the internal factors for each path or route option generated by the trajectory manager. As the dynamic parameters are received, and perhaps change, the path or route options may be updated based on impacts to the path or route options generated by the trajectory manager to effectively update the route score, rank or suitability rating.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus).” ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Conclusion
The prior arts made or recorded and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosures. Speidel et al. (U.S 2022/0052753), discloses a spacecraft in orbit that provides infrastructure for the mobile network and computations for the future may be predicted based on satellite trajectories, also discloses cellular networks to deconflict potential intercell interference and with sufficient adjacent cell interference mitigation control.
Revol (U.S 2018/0100934), discloses method for a vehicle moving on a constrained trajectory, implemented by a location device comprises tachometry means, odometry means, a group of at least one satellite geopositioning receiver and a time base synchronized to a satellite geopositioning system.
Tronc et al. (U.S 2014/0321358), discloses given uplink multiplexing resource, a maximum allowable interference level, with respect to the satellite, for radio electric signals transmitted from the coverage area is estimated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN-HUONG TRUONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5829. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached on 571-272-3139. 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.
/LAN-HUONG TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
09/28/2026
Prosecution Insights