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 .
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 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 will be treated as a representative claim and reads:
A system for planning a mission for a plurality of spacecraft flying in formation, the system comprising:
an input for receiving data representing a sequence of spatial configurations of the plurality of spacecraft;
a retargeting module configured to generate instructions for causing the plurality of spacecraft to transition between spatial configurations of the sequence of spatial configurations, including determining a trajectory with periods of fuel-free motion and periods of actuated motion according to a fuel limitation constraint for at least one spacecraft of the plurality of spacecraft.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system for planning a mission for a plurality of spacecraft flying in formation, the system comprising:
an input for receiving data representing a sequence of spatial configurations of the plurality of spacecraft;
a retargeting module configured to generate instructions for causing the plurality of spacecraft to transition between spatial configurations of the sequence of spatial configurations, including determining a trajectory with periods of fuel-free motion and periods of actuated motion according to a fuel limitation constraint for at least one spacecraft of the plurality of spacecraft [mental process/step].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, generate…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at collected data and forming a simple judgment of a plan. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A system for planning a mission for a plurality of spacecraft flying in formation, the system comprising:
an input for receiving data representing a sequence of spatial configurations of the plurality of spacecraft [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
a retargeting module configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] generate instructions for causing the plurality of spacecraft to transition between spatial configurations of the sequence of spatial configurations, including determining a trajectory with periods of fuel-free motion and periods of actuated motion according to a fuel limitation constraint for at least one spacecraft of the plurality of spacecraft.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “an input…”, the Examiner submits, this is recited at a high level of generality, as a general means of gathering configuration data, such that it amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “retargeting module…” is recited at a high level of generality as a general computing unit for performing generic computer functions, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a retargeting module amounts to no more than merely applying the exception using a generic computing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, as discussed above, the ”input” amounts to no more than a mere insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible
Dependent claims 2-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Particularly, the dependent claims either recite additional abstract concepts as either simple judgments or mathematical constraints forming further abstract concepts, or further data gathering steps, which remain insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, dependent claims 2-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1
Therefore, claims 1-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
The Examiner recommends reciting similar features to the final limitations of independent claims 18, 19, and 20, that the generated instructions from the retargeting module are executed by the plurality of spacecraft to cause a change in state or configuration of the plurality of spacecraft, which would likely be found to be a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially affected” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially affected” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, what one individual of ordinary skill would have determine to be substantially affecting a second spacecraft is may not be the same as what another of ordinary skill would have found to be substantially affecting the second spacecraft. As such, the bounds of the claim cannot be established. For the purposes of prior art application, this term has been interpreted to read as “affected”.
Claim 5 recites similar language to claim 4 and therefore is similarly indefinite.
Claims 5 depends upon claim 4 and Claims 6-8 depend upon claim 5 and therefore these dependent claims inherit the indefiniteness of claims 4 and 5 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non-patent Literature Sanchez “Towards Fuel-Efficient Formation Flying of an Observatory and External Occulter at Sun-Earth L2”.
In regards to claim 1, Sanchez teaches a system for planning a mission for a plurality of spacecraft flying in formation, the system comprising: (Pages 3, 4, 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning for spacecrafts in formation.)
an input for receiving data representing a sequence of spatial configurations of the plurality of spacecraft; (Page 39, sequence of retargeting maneuvers for observatory and external occulter spacecraft formation flying mission is developed, which must be received by the system in order to be later planned and is a sequence of spatial configurations.)
a retargeting module configured to generate instructions for causing the plurality of spacecraft to transition between spatial configurations of the sequence of spatial configurations, including determining a trajectory with periods of fuel-free motion and periods of actuated motion according to a fuel limitation constraint for at least one spacecraft of the plurality of spacecraft. (Pages 36, 52, fuel-free trajectories may be selected that once entered allow the spacecraft to travel without requiring fuel and at other times fuel is required according to minimum fuel optimal control transfers which is a fuel limitation constraint to minimize fuel. Pages 39, 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning and therefore include components acting as retargeting module which determine instructions for observatory and external occulter spacecraft to execute sequence of retargeting.)
In regards to claim 2, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 1 wherein a first spacecraft of the plurality of spacecraft is in a halo orbit around a Lagrange point. (Pages 153, 154, mission operates at Lagrange point L2 in a halo orbit.)
In regards to claim 3, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 2 wherein the Lagrange point is Sun-Earth L2. (Pages 153, 154, mission operates at Lagrange point Sun-Earth L2.)
In regards to claim 4, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 2 wherein a second spacecraft is in an orbit substantially affected by two astronomical bodies. (Page 45, two body assumption is applied to spacecraft, including second spacecraft, in which gravitational analysis is restricted to two most significant bodies.)
In regards to claim 5, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 4 wherein the second spacecraft’s orbit is substantially affected by solar radiation pressure. (Page 148, solar radiation pressure is incorporated into model of spacecraft.)
In regards to claim 6, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 5 wherein the second spacecraft is under the fuel limitation constraint. (Pages 36, 52, fuel-free trajectories may be selected that once entered allow the spacecraft to travel without requiring fuel and at other times fuel is required according to minimum fuel optimal control transfers which is a fuel limitation constraint to minimize fuel applied to both spacecraft.)
In regards to claim 9, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising an output for providing a mission plan including the instructions to at least some spacecraft of the plurality of spacecraft. (Pages 39, 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning and therefore include components acting as retargeting module which determine instructions for observatory and external occulter spacecraft to execute sequence of retargeting. This provides instructions to at least some of the spacecraft.)
In regards to claim 10, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 1 wherein at least one spacecraft is a telescope and at least one spacecraft is a starshade. (Page 39, spacecrafts include an observatory, which a telescope, and an occulter, which is a starshade.)
In regards to claim 11, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 10 wherein the mission includes observing a plurality of target stars to detect exoplanets. (Page 4, 35, 153, 154, observatory is deployed for exoplanet observing mission and observing exoplanets has been established within the disclosure as being well-known, where target stars are observed to detect exoplanets.)
In regards to claim 12, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 11 further comprising an ordering module configured to determine the sequence of spatial configurations based at least in part on the locations of the plurality of target stars. (Pages 153, 154, transfers of lines of sight for each target star are determined and ordered, Pages 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning and therefore include components acting as ordering module.)
In regards to claim 13, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the trajectory is further determined according to a time constraint. (Page 35, timing constraints are conventionally used to schedule imaging trajectories of space observatories.)
In regards to claim 14, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 13 wherein the time constraint is based in part on a predetermined integration time for observing the target stars. (Page 35, 119, timing constraints are conventionally used to schedule imaging trajectories of space observatories, including managing integration time which may be required by instruments and thereby predetermined.)
In regards to claim 15, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 11 wherein a first spatial configuration of the sequence of spatial configurations locates the starshade along a line-of-sight between the telescope and a first star of the plurality of target stars. (Page 24, occulter is positioned between observatory and star at the line of sight of the observatory to the star.)
In regards to claim 16, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the first spatial configuration locates the starshade at a predetermined distance from the telescope such that the starshade occludes light from the first target star from reaching the telescope while allowing light from exoplanets orbiting the first target star to reach the telescope. (Page 25, occulter is configured to slew to align itself with observatory and target star while maintaining a fixed separation distance. Page 3, occulter suppresses host starlight from the particular star while allowing for imaging of the obscured exoplanet corresponding to the target start. Imaging the exoplanets requires the light from the exoplanets orbiting the start to reach the observatory.)
In regards to claim 17, Sanchez teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the trajectory is determined using naturally occurring dynamics. (Pages 125-127, 153, trajectories are selected to align with flow of natural dynamics and do not counteract natural dynamics.)
In regards to claim 18, Sanchez teaches a formation of a plurality spacecraft wherein one or more of the spacecraft is configured to: (Pages 3, 4, plurality of spacecraft perform mission.)
receive instructions for causing the plurality of spacecraft to transition between spatial configurations of the sequence of spatial configurations, including determining periods of fuel-free motion and periods of actuated motion according to a fuel limitation constraint for at least one spacecraft of the plurality of spacecraft; (Pages 36, 52, fuel-free trajectories may be selected that once entered allow the spacecraft to travel without requiring fuel and at other times fuel is required according to minimum fuel optimal control transfers which is a fuel limitation constraint to minimize fuel for spacecraft. Pages 39, 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning and therefore include components acting as retargeting module which determine instructions for observatory and external occulter spacecraft to execute sequence of retargeting, where the instructions must be first received.) and
execute the instructions to cause the plurality of spacecraft to transition between spatial configurations of the sequence of spatial configurations. (Pages 39, 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning and therefore include components acting as retargeting module which determine instructions for observatory and external occulter spacecraft to execute sequence of retargeting, where the instructions must be first received, and the spacecraft are operated according to the mission plan, including transition between configurations.)
In regards to claim 19, Sanchez teaches a method for operating a formation of a plurality of spacecraft, the method comprising: (Page 153, 154, method for plurality of spacecraft formation mission.)
receiving instructions for causing the plurality of spacecraft to transition between spatial configurations of the sequence of spatial configurations, including determining periods of fuel-free motion and periods of actuated motion according to a fuel limitation constraint for at least one spacecraft of the plurality of spacecraft; (Pages 36, 52, fuel-free trajectories may be selected that once entered allow the spacecraft to travel without requiring fuel and at other times fuel is required according to minimum fuel optimal control transfers which is a fuel limitation constraint to minimize fuel for spacecraft. Pages 39, 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning and therefore include components acting as retargeting module which determine instructions for observatory and external occulter spacecraft to execute sequence of retargeting, where the instructions must be first received.) and
executing the instructions to cause the plurality of spacecraft to transition between spatial configurations of the sequence of spatial configurations. (Pages 39, 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning and therefore include components acting as retargeting module which determine instructions for observatory and external occulter spacecraft to execute sequence of retargeting, where the instructions must be first received, and the spacecraft are operated according to the mission plan, including transition between configurations.)
In regards to claim 20, Sanchez teaches software embodied on a non-transitory, computer readable medium, the software comprising instructions for causing one or more spacecraft of a plurality of spacecraft to: (Pages 3, 4, 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning for spacecrafts in formation through software which must be stored in non-transitory computer-readable media.)
receive instructions for causing the plurality of spacecraft to transition between spatial configurations of the sequence of spatial configurations, including determining periods of fuel-free motion and periods of actuated motion according to a fuel limitation constraint for at least one spacecraft of the plurality of spacecraft; (Pages 36, 52, fuel-free trajectories may be selected that once entered allow the spacecraft to travel without requiring fuel and at other times fuel is required according to minimum fuel optimal control transfers which is a fuel limitation constraint to minimize fuel for spacecraft. Pages 39, 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning and therefore include components acting as retargeting module which determine instructions for observatory and external occulter spacecraft to execute sequence of retargeting, where the instructions must be first received.) and
execute the instructions to cause the plurality of spacecraft to transition between spatial configurations of the sequence of spatial configurations. (Pages 39, 88, 133, computer and processors perform mission planning and therefore include components acting as retargeting module which determine instructions for observatory and external occulter spacecraft to execute sequence of retargeting, where the instructions must be first received, and the spacecraft are operated according to the mission plan, including transition between configurations.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huo (US 20230382563) teaches Lagrange points for spacecraft.
Petrischev et al. (RU 2741143) teaches controlling spacecraft based on fuel and Lagrange points.
Non-patent Literature Katpui Sipowa et al. “Fuel-Optimal Geometric Path Planning Algorithm for Spacecraft Formation Flying” teaches control of spacecraft operating in formation.
Non-patent Literature Ross “The Interplanetary Transport Network” teaches known techniques of fuel-free interplanetary travel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights