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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 9/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/28/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20250192873A1 (Galic).
Regarding claim 1, Galic teaches for the following as claimed:
A system for enhanced marine ship detection (Figs. 1a-c, Fig. 2; Abstract; par. 1), comprising:
a ground segment including a mission planning system configured to receive an order for ship detection from an ordering device generate a set of tasking commands based on the order, wherein each tasking command includes a set of coordinates for data collection by a satellite (par. 164 i.e., “new request” for detection of new target);
an intersatellite link (ISL) relay layer comprising a plurality of relay satellites in Earth orbit, the ISL relay layer configured to receive the set of tasking commands from the mission planning subsystem (pars. 12, 69, 87; claim 4);
a plurality of Earth observation satellites having overlapping accessible swaths, including: a first Earth observation satellite having a first sensor and a first imaging swath width, the first Earth observation satellite configured to receive a first tasking command of the set of tasking commands, the first tasking command including a first set of coordinates, from the ISL relay layer, collect first sensor data at the first set of coordinates, and send the first sensor data to the ISL relay layer; a set of trailing Earth observation satellites including at least a second Earth observation satellite, the second Earth observation satellite having a second sensor and a second imaging swath width, wherein the second Earth observation satellite trails behind the first Earth observation satellite on the same ground track as the first Earth observation satellite, the second Earth observation satellite configured to receive a second tasking command, including a second set of coordinates, from the ISL relay layer, collect second sensor data at the second set of coordinates, and send the second sensor data to the ISL relay layer, wherein the second set of coordinates is based on the first sensor data (Figs. 2, 5; pars. 9, 25, 102-103, 140, 168-170; i.e., “ZOI” reads against claimed “imaging swath width”; multiple satellites may observe the same ZOI or different ZOI as depicted in Fig 5; the satellites may be configured in an ISL relay fashion as depicted in Fig. 2; each of the satellites depict in Figs. 2, 5 comes with various sensors and coordinates data (par. 0140); each satellites are Earth observation satellites (pars. 168-69));
and a reception system to receive ship detection data including the first sensor data and second sensor data from the ISL relay layer, wherein the ship detection data is processed to generate at least one vessel detection report (Fig. 2; pars. 101-168 i.e., computing system 200 reads on claimed “reception system” and the various databases 220 depict functionalities encompassing the recited limitations. E.g., “Target” database 225 depicts ship detection data, inter alia; “Routing table” database 222 depicts ISL relay functionalities; the stored contents of exemplified databases read on claimed “report”).
Regarding claim 2, The system of claim 1 wherein the vessel detection report includes at least one of a position of at least one ship, an estimated size of at least one ship, a heading of at least one ship, a velocity of at least one ship, an AIS data correlation of at least one ship, an image chip of at least one ship, a vessel of interest (VOI) classification of at least one ship (As discussed in claim 1 rejection above, and with reference to Fig. 2 and esp. pars. 148-165, the “Target” database 225 substantiates this claim).
Regarding claim 3, The system of claim 1, wherein the set of trailing Earth observation satellites further comprises N Earth observation satellites which each trail in sequence behind the second Earth observation satellite, wherein N is any positive integer, each of the N Earth observation satellites having a respective sensor and a respective imaging swath width, wherein each of the N Earth observation satellites is configured to receive a respective tasking command from N tasking commands sent to the ISL relay layer by the mission planning system, collect respective sensor data based on the respective tasking command, and send the respective sensor data to the ISL relay layer (As discussed in claim 1 rejection above, and with reference to Fig. 2 and esp. pars. 117-127, the satellites 211 read on claimed “N Earth observation satellites”; claimed “sensor data” and “imaging swath width” already discussed in claim 1 above; claimed “ISL relay layer” already discussed in claim 1 above; see also pars. 140-145 for additional context).
Regarding claim 4, The system of claim 3, wherein the second tasking command is altered based on the first sensor data (As discussed in claims 1 and 3 rejections above, and with reference to Figs. 1-2 and esp. pars. 117-122, the ephemeris database 221 facilitates “alteration” based on sensor data from satellites 211, e.g., alteration of satellite orbits based on “sensed” orientations; Fig. 1b depicts possible scenario wherein satellite 120 alters its orbit based on relayed communications with satellite 121 and vice-versa (pars. 68-69)).
Regarding claim 5, The system of claim 3, wherein the ISL relay layer receives the N respective tasking commands from the mission planning system before the first sensor data is collected and sent to the ISL relay layer (As discussed in claims 1 and 3 rejections above, and with reference to Figs. 1c & 2 and esp. pars. 93-97, i.e., ground stations are able to communicate with satellite constellation and sending instructions (commands) to the satellites; see also Abstract; pars. 9, 27, 65-67, 122, 336; Figs. 3a-b & 6 for additional context).
Regarding claim 6, The system of claim 5, wherein each of the N respective tasking commands is altered based on data from Earth observation satellites which each of the N Earth observation satellites trails (Rejections of claims 1, 3, 5 apply here fully; see also Figs. 4a-b & 5 for illustrative context).
Regarding claim 7, The system of claim 1, wherein the ground segment further includes at least one spacecraft control system configured to control and maintain operation of any of the plurality of Earth observation satellites (Rejections of claims 1, 3, 5 apply here fully; see also Fig. 2; pars. 128-138 for additional context).
Regarding claim 8, The system of claim 1, wherein the ground segment further includes at least one data chain subsystem configured to receive image data from at least one ground terminal and reconstruct the image data into raw data for processing into products (Fig. 2, “target database” 225 reads on claimed “data chain subsystem”; see also pars. 152-167 for additional context on captured images or image features for eventual identification of “targets”).
Regarding claim 9, The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first sensor data and the second sensor data is sent to a ground terminal of the ground segment via the plurality of relay satellites to be processed by the ground terminal (Rejection of claim 1 is applicable here; see also Fig. 2; pars. 140-145 for additional context).
Regarding claim 10, The system of claim 1, wherein the second Earth observation satellite has a smaller swath width and a greater resolution than the first Earth observation satellite (Rejection of claim 1 is applicable here; see also Fig. 5; pars. 299-300 for additional context. It should be noted that the “zone of interest” ZOI is not fixed or of same size).
Regarding claim 11, The system of claim 3, wherein each of the N Earth observation satellites has a smaller swath width and a greater resolution than a preceding Earth observation satellite (Rejection of claims 1, 3 and 10 is applicable here; see also Fig. 5; pars. 299-300 for additional context. It should be noted that the “zone(s) of interest” ZOIs are not of fixed size nor the capability of each satellite producing observed image(s) of the same resolution).
Regarding claim 12, A method of maritime surveillance, comprising: receiving, by a network interface or input interface at a mission planning system of a ground segment, an order for maritime surveillance from an ordering device; generating, by a processor of the mission planning system, a plurality of tasking commands based on the order, wherein each tasking command includes a set of coordinates for a satellite; transmitting, via an antenna system of the ground segment, the plurality of tasking commands to an intersatellite link (ISL) relay layer as an RF signal; transmitting, by an antenna system of the ISL relay layer, a first tasking command of the plurality of tasking commands to a first Earth observation satellite, wherein the first tasking command includes a first set of coordinates; collecting, by a first sensor of the first Earth observation satellite having a first remote sensing swath width, first remote sensing data at the first set of coordinates received from the ISL relay layer and transmitting the first remote sensing data to the ISL layer via an antenna system of the first Earth observation satellite; cross-cueing, via the ISL relay layer, at least a second earth observation satellite to collect a second remote sensing data, at a second set of coordinates, using a second sensor having a second remote sensing swath width, the cross-cueing based on a second tasking command and the first remote sensing data, wherein the first Earth observation satellite and the second Earth observation satellite have overlapping accessible swath widths and wherein the second Earth observation satellite trails the first Earth observation satellite on the same ground track; transmitting, via an antenna system of the second earth observation satellite, the second remote sensing data to the ISL relay layer; transmitting, via the antenna system of the ISL relay layer, maritime surveillance information as an RF signal to a reception system of the ground segment for display at an end user device of the ground segment; displaying, on a graphical user interface of an end user device, at least one vessel detection report generated from the maritime surveillance information (Claim 12 is a method claim with implementation steps corresponding to system claims 1-11. Thus, the rejections of claims 1-11 are fully incorporated herein. See also pars. 175-179 for context on claimed “displaying … on graphical user interface … of end user. With respect to claimed “cross-cueing”, this is simply communications between satellites utilizing ISL relay protocol which is addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, The method of claim 12 further comprising: cross-cueing, via the intersatellite link relay layer, N Earth observation satellites, wherein N is any positive integer, to collect respective remote sensing data, wherein each of the N Earth observation satellites trails in sequence behind the second Earth observation satellite, the cross-cueing for each of the N Earth observation satellites is based on a respective tasking command and the remote sensing data from each of the Earth observation satellites which each respective N Earth observation satellites is trailing, and wherein each of the N Earth observation satellites has a Nth remote sensing swath width and each of the N Earth observation satellites has an overlapping accessible swath width with the first Earth observation satellite and the second Earth observation satellite (The rejections of claims 1-12 are fully incorporated herein).
Regarding claim 14, The method of claim 12 further comprising at least one spacecraft control system configured to control any of the plurality of Earth observation satellites (The rejections of claims 1-12 are fully incorporated herein. The claimed “spacecraft control system” based on broadest reasonable interpretation BRI is simply a control center 200 as depicted in Fig. 2 for example. Observation satellite as depicted in Fig. 2 is by definition “spacecraft”).
Regarding claim 15, The method of claim 12 further comprising at least one data chain subsystem configured to receive image data from at least one ground terminal and reconstruct the image data into raw data for processing into products (Rejection of claim 8 applies here).
Regarding claim 16, The method of claim 12 wherein the second Earth observation satellite has a smaller swath width and a greater resolution than the first Earth observation satellite (Rejection of claim 10 applies here).
Regarding claim 17, The method of claim 12 wherein each of the N Earth observation satellites has a smaller swath width and a greater resolution than a preceding Earth observation satellite (Rejection of claim 11 applies here).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7332. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 17:00.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 2-7332. 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.
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
