DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on September 3, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 11 and 21 and canceled claims 5, 15 and 25. Currently, claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-24, 26-30 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims1-4, 6-14, 16-24, 26-30 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 11 and 21.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-24, 26-30 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 11 and 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 9/3/26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 11 of the remarks that the 101 rejection is improper. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues on p. 14 of the remarks that the claims do not recite mental processes and notes examiner ignores the amended language. Examiner notes that this language was not ignored as it was not part of the original claims. Examiner has updated the rejection to show what language is considered additional elements and what language is part of the abstract idea itself. Data gathering from sensors is an additional element that is used to provide data to that is used in the abstract idea for analysis and computing to adjust parameters. Applicant argues on p. 14-15 that the claims are not directed to mathematical concept because the claims do not recite a mathematical formula, equation or defined mathematical relationship. Examiner disagrees and notes generating graphs and time series representations for constraint data are types of mathematical concepts that exist in applicant’s claims and thus the claims are abstract for those reasons. Applicant further argues on p. 16 of the remarks that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s argue that the amended language showing an edge device and sensors integrate the abstract claim into practical application. Examiner disagrees and notes the sensors are a form of data gathering and providing data used in the abstract idea and the edge device processing is a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Applicant additionally argues that the time series representation and mapping temporal relationships are not abstract but rather improve the efficiency and accuracy of launch feasibility assessments. Examiner notes such improvements are improvements to the abstract idea as opposed to another technology or to a computer. Applicant notes improvements from para [0138] and [0238] of applicant’s specification. Examiner notes such improvements are not sufficiently tethered to the claims. Applicant further argues on p. 17 of the remarks that the claims are include additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant argues that the cited paragraphs of the specification do not show the edge computing device or sensors as being well-understood, routine and conventional. Examiner has updated the 101 rejection to reflected the amended language to include para [0122]-[0124], [0133], [0242], [0244] for support, which discusses sensors and edge device in a routine way such as " the sensor registration component 207 of the edge device 205 may be configured to recognize and integrate various sensors (e.g., oxygen sensors, barometers, or any of the sensors 225) and sensor data into the launch operations system or SLSP. Examiner notes data gathering is considered well-understood, conventional and routine. Examiner further notes para [0698] further shows various examples of edge devices that are generic such as a laptop computer for implementing operations.
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, 6-14, 16-24, 26-30 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium). Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-24, 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 11 and 21 recites the abstract idea of identifying a launch window for a launch vehicle at a launch site by receiving constraint data associated with launch operations, the constraint data comprising at least one of terrestrial, atmospheric, orbital, or operational constraints derived from monitoring systems, historical records, or predictive models and generating a time series representation of the standardized constraint data encoding temporal changes in the constraints and normalizing the received constraint data into a standardized format by performing operations comprising resolving inconsistencies, aligning measurement units to a common scale, and structuring data for computational analysis into numerical, categorical, or vectorized representations and generating a constraint graph based on the time-series representation, the constraint graph comprising nodes representing individual constraints and edges representing interdependencies between the constraints wherein generating the constraint graph comprises mapping temporal relationships between airspace availability, maritime clearance zones, weather conditions, and orbital conjunction risks and wherein the constraint graph encodes interdependencies among constraints to enhance the accuracy of launch feasibility assessments and identifying a plurality of time intervals from the constraint graph, wherein each time interval is associated with a computed metric indicating constraint overlap across the time interval and computing a confidence score for each identified time interval based on a statistical analysis of historical launch outcomes, monitoring data, and predictions generated by models trained to evaluate constraint variability and operational feasibility and selecting a launch window from the identified time intervals based on the confidence scores, wherein the selected launch window corresponds to the time interval with the highest confidence score and satisfies predefined launch criteria associated with safety, resource availability, and regulatory compliance and adjusting at least one operational parameter associated with the launch based on the selected launch window, wherein the adjustment comprises modifying a trajectory profile, rescheduling ground operations, or reallocating resources at the launch site to align with the selected window. The claims are directed to a type of adjusting parameters based on received data which is analyzed and computed upon. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are concepts performed in the mind including observation, evaluation and opinion and mathematical concepts and relationships. Applicant’s claims are concepts performed in the mind including observation, evaluation and opinion because the claims are analyzing data and generating graphs to make an observation or evaluation over related parameters. The claims also are mathematical concepts because the claims are generating a constraint graph based on received data to compute a confidence score and make adjustments to a parameter. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as a space launch service platform (SLSP) computing system, comprising: a processing system comprising one or more processors configured to perform steps and computer-implemented method and real-time monitoring system, machine learning models and non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions configured to cause a processing system in a computing device to perform operations and wherein at least a portion of the constraint data is received from a plurality of sensors deployed at a launch site, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least one of a wind speed sensor, a lighting detection sensor, and a precipitation sensor and at least one portion of the constraint data is processed at the launch site by an edge computing device located at the launch site) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a space launch service platform (SLSP) computing system, comprising: a processing system comprising one or more processors configured to perform steps and computer-implemented method and real-time monitoring system, machine learning models and non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions configured to cause a processing system in a computing device to perform operations and wherein at least a portion of the constraint data is received from a plurality of sensors deployed at a launch site, wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least one of a wind speed sensor, a lighting detection sensor, and a precipitation sensor and at least one portion of the constraint data is processed at the launch site by an edge computing device located at the launch site (as evidenced by para [0055]-[0079], [0113]-[0119], [0122]-[0124], [0133], [0204], [0242], [0244], [0422]-[0425], [0696]-[0706] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 2-3, 7-9, 12-13, 17, 19, 22-23, 27-29 also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing generating a launch readiness report comprising the selected launch window, adjusted operational parameters, and an evaluation of constraint satisfaction and wherein receiving the constraint data further comprises aggregating terrestrial object data, orbital object data, weather data, upper atmospheric data, and operational data from multiple sources, including real-time monitoring systems, historical databases, and predictive modeling systems, and to categorize the received constraint data into structured datasets corresponding to predefined categories for terrestrial, atmospheric, orbital, and operational parameters and wherein selecting the launch window further comprises generating a ranked list of alternative launch windows, each associated with a respective confidence score, to provide contingency options in response to real-time changes in constraint conditions and modifying a planned trajectory of the launch vehicle based on real-time updates to constraint data to remain in compliance with airspace, maritime, and orbital clearance regulations. Dependent claims 4, 6, 10, 14, 16, 18-20, 24, 26-30 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as wherein normalizing the received constraint data further comprises applying an artificial intelligence model configured to correct inconsistencies, fill missing values, and classify the constraint data into predefined categories and wherein computing the confidence score for each identified time interval comprises executing a machine learning model trained on historical launch schedules, atmospheric conditions, mission outcomes, and real-time constraint variability to predict the likelihood of satisfying operational criteria and monitoring real-time updates to constraint data; and dynamically adjusting the selected launch window to accommodate changes in constraint conditions and maintain compliance with predefined operational requirements and in response to real-time changes and executing a reinforcement learning model to iteratively refine the launch window selection by incorporating feedback from prior launches and updating machine learning parameters based on historical and real-time performance data (as evidenced by para [0055]-[0079], [0113]-[0119], [0122]-[0124], [0133], [0204], [0242], [0244], [0422]-[0425], [0696]-[0706] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Applicant further argues on p. 17 of the remarks that the ordered combination of the additional elements are significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees and notes the ordered combination behaves in a conventional sequence where data is received, the data is analyzed and has calculations performed on it and some soft of results are generated. Therefore, the 101 rejections are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-24, 26-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al. (US 2017/0278409 A1), a system for reserving airspace for UAV operations where a flight planning system can reserve and allocate airspace for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations and a UAV operator device can submit a flight plan to the flight planning system
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights