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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were originally filed on 05/30/2025 and claimed priority on JP2020-078629, which was filed on 04/27/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 05/30/2025 and 02/13/2026 have been considered. An initialed copy of each Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
using a danger alert device, the space situational awareness business device notifies rocket launch plan orbit information or orbit information of a space object that deorbits and descends in orbit to a mega-constellation business operator in claims 1, 9, and 18
a danger analysis device to analyze an orbit of the space objects in claim 18
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to Figure 61, the danger alert device is part of the space traffic management device, which includes a processor.
According to Figure 61, the danger analysis device is part of the space traffic management device, which includes a processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopardekar et al (US 11780612 B1) in view of Fukushima et al (US 20220127018 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Kopardekar and Fukushima respectively)
Regarding Claim 1, Kopardekar teaches a space situational awareness business device that is a business device with which a space situational awareness business operator manages space object information (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 33-Column 4 line 26, the space traffic management service supplier (S3) is interpreted as a space situational awareness business device that an operator uses to manage space object information), the space situational awareness business device comprising:
a space traffic management device that is compatible with space traffic management devices respectively included in business devices that manage space objects (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 66-Column 4 line 32, the space traffic management service supplier (S3), which serves as a controller that communicates with other entities, is interpreted to include the space traffic management device that is compatible with other S3s/space traffic management devices respectively included in business devices that manage space objects), the space traffic management device including a processor (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 66-Column 4 line 13 and Column 10 lines 24-35), wherein
the space situational awareness business device is connected, through the space traffic management device, to a space traffic management system in which the space traffic management devices respectively included in the business devices are mutually connected with a communication line (See at least Kopardekar Column 1 line 59-Column 2 line 18, Column 3 line 33-Column 4 line 32 and Figure 2, the S3s/space traffic management devices are part of the space traffic management system, and are connected to each other through communication lines in order to communicate with one another), and
using a danger alert device, the space situational awareness business device notifies rocket launch plan orbit information or orbit information of a space object…to a mega-constellation business operator (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 lines 38-45, Column 5 lines 15-30, and Column 7 lines 16-36, the S3/business device, which is interpreted to include a danger alert device, notifies ephemeris/orbit information of a space object to an SSA supplier, which is interpreted as the mega-constellation business operator).
Kopardekar fails to disclose the space object… deorbits and descends in orbit.
However, Fukushima teaches the space object… deorbits and descends in orbit (See at least Fukushima Paragraphs 0043-0046, and Figures 4a and 5, the space object is deorbited and lowered in altitude).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Kopardekar with Fukushima to have the space object deorbit and descend in orbit. This modification, as taught by Fukushima, would improve the safety of the system by deorbiting space objects that have become uncontrollable due to fuel depletion or the like during a normal operation (See at least Fukushima Paragraph 0046).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kopardekar teaches the space traffic management device includes:
a space information recorder to record orbit information of a space object (See at least Kopardekar Column 7 lines 16- 36, the S3/space traffic management device, which is interpreted to include the space information recorder, collects and updates the ephemeris, which is interpreted recording orbit information of a space object),
… and
the danger alert device to notify abnormal proximity or a collision with a space object or an intrusion into a danger region by a space object (See at least Kopardekar Column 4 lines 33-45, and Column 8 lines 31-40, the S3, which is interpreted to include the danger alert device, notifies a conjunction, which is interpreted as an abnormal proximity with a space object and an intrusion into a danger region by a space object).
Modified Kopardekar fails to explicitly disclose that the space traffic management device includes…a danger analysis device.
However, Kopardekar does disclose that the space traffic management system includes a danger analysis device that is connected to the space traffic management device (See at least Kopardekar Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 16 and Figures 2 and 4, the CAS is interpreted as a danger analysis device, which is connected to the S3/space traffic management device through a communication line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings in modified Kopardekar to have a danger analysis device be included in the space traffic management device since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art in Re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, the danger analysis device/CAS is included in the space traffic management device/S3 instead of being its own separate device. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the space traffic management device/S3 include the danger analysis device, which calculates potential conjunctions, because the space traffic management device/S3 notifies the operators about the possible conjunction and negotiates a maneuver to avoid the possible conjunction (See at least Kopardekar Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 63 and Figures 4 and 5). This modification would allow the space traffic management device/S3 to calculate the possible conjunctions itself rather than relying on an external device.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kopardekar teaches the space traffic management device further includes at least one of:
a danger avoidance action assistance device,
danger avoidance action implementation plan information (See at least Kopardekar Column 8 line 51-Column 9 line 15, and Figure 5, the S3 includes a maneuver plan for the conjunction, which is interpreted as danger avoidance implementation plan information, and negotiates with other S3s, which is interpreted as the S3 including a danger avoidance action assistance device), and
security management information.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kopardekar teaches the space situational awareness business device performs proximity, collision, or intrusion analysis, using the danger analysis device and using pieces of space object information acquired by the space information recorder (See at least Kopardekar Column 4 lines 33-45, Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 16, Column 8 lines 41-50, and Figure 4, the CAS, which is interpreted as the danger analysis device, performs proximity/intrusion analysis using the ephemeris data/information acquired by the space information recorder in the S3), and
when proximity, a collision, or an intrusion involving danger is foreseen, notifies the danger to a business device of a space object to be a party involved, using the danger alert device (See at least Kopardekar Column 8 lines 31-40, the S3, which is interpreted to include the danger alert device, notifies the conjunction, which is interpreted as a proximity or intrusion, to the S3/business device of the party involved).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kopardekar teaches the space situational awareness business device coordinates a danger avoidance action with a management business operator of the space object to be a party involved to which danger is notified by the danger alert device, using the danger avoidance action assistance device (See at least Kopardekar Column 8 line 51-Column 9 line 15, and Figure 5, the S3, which includes the danger avoidance action assistance device, negotiates with other operators involved to coordinate a maneuver plan, which is interpreted as a danger avoidance action), and
discloses danger avoidance action implementation plan information (See at least Kopardekar Column 8 line 64-Column 9 line 15, and Figure 5, the S3 sends/discloses the approved maneuver, which is interpreted as the danger avoidance action implementation plan information, to the operators).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kopardekar teaches the danger avoidance action implementation plan information includes an avoidance action plan created by the danger avoidance action assistance device (See at least Kopardekar Column 4 lines 46-65, and Figure 5, the maneuver, which is interpreted as the danger avoidance action implementation plan information, includes a collision avoidance action plan and is generated by the S3, which includes the danger avoidance action assistance device).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kopardekar fails to disclose the space situational awareness business device notifies a danger alert to a debris removal business device or a mega-constellation business device, and requests a danger avoidance action.
However, Fukushima teaches the space situational awareness business device notifies a danger alert to a debris removal business device or a mega-constellation business device (See at least Fukushima Paragraphs 0043-0046 and Figure 4a, the constellation user uses the business model/device to notify a danger alert to the business device/model of the debris removal agent), and requests a danger avoidance action (See at least Fukushima Paragraphs 0043-0046, the request for deorbiting is interpreted as a request for danger avoidance action).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings in modified Kopardekar with Fukushima to have the space situational awareness business device notify a danger alert to a debris removal business device or a mega-constellation business device, and requests a danger avoidance action. This modification, as taught by Fukushima, would allow a debris removal agent to change the orbit of the space object in order to reduce the risk of a collision (See at least Fukushima Paragraphs 0043-0044), which would improve the safety of the space objects.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kopardekar teaches a space traffic business device to manage space traffic (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 52-Column 4 line 12, the space traffic management service suppliers (S3s) are interpreted as space traffic business devices to manage space traffic), the space traffic business device comprising a processor (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 66-Column 4 line 13 and Column 10 lines 24-35), … wherein
the space traffic business device also has a function of the space situational awareness business device according to claim 1 (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 33-Column 4 line 26, the S3s, which serve as controllers that communicate with other entities, function as both a space traffic business device and a space situational awareness business device).
Modified Kopardekar fails to explicitly disclose the space traffic business device comprising one of a control device of a space plane and a collision avoidance assistance device.
However, Kopardekar does teach the system includes a collision avoidance assistance device that is connected to the space traffic business device (See at least Kopardekar Column, 3 lines 33-51 and Figure 2, the system includes a collision assessment service (CAS), which is interpreted as a collision avoidance assistance device that is connected to the space traffic business device/S3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings in modified Kopardekar to have a collision avoidance assistance device be included in the space traffic business device since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art in Re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, the collision avoidance assistance device /CAS is included in the space traffic business device/S3 instead of being its own separate device. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the space traffic business device/S3 include the collision avoidance assistance device, which calculates potential conjunctions, because the space traffic business device/S3 notifies the operators about the possible conjunction and negotiates a maneuver to avoid the possible conjunction (See at least Kopardekar Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 63 and Figures 4 and 5). This modification would allow the space traffic business device/S3 to calculate the possible conjunctions itself rather than relying on an external device.
Regarding Claim 18, Kopardekar teaches a space situational awareness business device that is a business device with which a space situational awareness business operator manages space object information (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 33-Column 4 line 26, the space traffic management service supplier (S3) is interpreted as a space situational awareness business device that an operator uses to manage space object information), the space situational awareness business device comprising:
a space traffic management device that is compatible with space traffic management devices respectively included in business devices that manage space objects (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 66-Column 4 line 32, the space traffic management service supplier (S3), which serves as a controller that communicates with other entities, is interpreted to include the space traffic management device that is compatible with other S3s/space traffic management devices respectively included in business devices that manage space objects), the space traffic management device including a processor (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 66-Column 4 line 13 and Column 10 lines 24-35), … wherein
the space situational awareness business device is connected, through the space traffic management device, to a space traffic management system in which the space traffic management devices respectively included in the business devices are mutually connected with a communication line (See at least Kopardekar Column 1 line 59-Column 2 line 18, Column 3 line 33-Column 4 line 32 and Figure 2, the S3s/space traffic management devices are part of the space traffic management system, and are connected to each other through communication lines in order to communicate with one another), and
using a danger alert device, the space situational awareness business device notifies rocket launch plan orbit information or orbit information of a space object…to a mega-constellation business operator (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 lines 38-45, Column 5 lines 15-30, and Column 7 lines 16-36, the S3/business device, which is interpreted to include a danger alert device, notifies ephemeris/orbit information of a space object to an SSA supplier, which is interpreted as the mega-constellation business operator).
Kopardekar fails to explicitly disclose that the space situational awareness business device includes…a danger analysis device to analyze an orbit of the space objects.
However, Kopardekar does disclose that the space traffic management system includes a danger analysis device to analyze an orbit of the space objects that is connected to the space situational awareness business device (See at least Kopardekar Column 4 lines 33-45, Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 16, Column 8 lines 41-50, and Figures 2 and 4, the CAS, which is interpreted as the danger analysis device, performs proximity/intrusion analysis by using the ephemeris/orbit data of the space objects, and is connected to the S3/space situational awareness business device through a communication line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings in modified Kopardekar to have a danger analysis device be included in the space situational awareness business device since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art in Re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, the danger analysis device/CAS is included in the space situational awareness business device /S3 instead of being its own separate device. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the space situational awareness business device/S3 include the danger analysis device, which calculates potential conjunctions using the orbit of space objects, because the space situational awareness business device /S3 notifies the operators about the possible conjunction and negotiates a maneuver to avoid the possible conjunction (See at least Kopardekar Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 63 and Figures 4 and 5). This modification would allow the space situational awareness business device /S3 to calculate the possible conjunctions itself rather than relying on an external device.
Modified Kopardekar fails to disclose the space object… deorbits and descends in orbit.
However, Fukushima teaches the space object… deorbits and descends in orbit (See at least Fukushima Paragraphs 0043-0046, and Figures 4a and 5, the space object is deorbited and lowered in altitude).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kopardekar with Fukushima to have the space object deorbit and descend in orbit. This modification, as taught by Fukushima, would improve the safety of the system by deorbiting space objects that have become uncontrollable due to fuel depletion or the like during a normal operation (See at least Fukushima Paragraph 0046).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kopardekar teaches the space traffic management device includes:
a space information recorder to record orbit information of a space object (See at least Kopardekar Column 7 lines 16- 36, the S3/space traffic management device, which is interpreted to include the space information recorder, collects and updates the ephemeris, which is interpreted recording orbit information of a space object); and
the danger alert device to notify abnormal proximity or a collision with a space object or an intrusion into a danger region by a space object (See at least Kopardekar Column 4 lines 33-45, and Column 8 lines 31-40, the S3, which is interpreted to include the danger alert device, notifies a conjunction, which is interpreted as an abnormal proximity with a space object and an intrusion into a danger region by a space object).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Kopardekar teaches the space traffic management device further includes at least one of:
a danger avoidance action assistance device,
danger avoidance action implementation plan information (See at least Kopardekar Column 8 line 51-Column 9 line 15, and Figure 5, the S3 includes a maneuver plan for the conjunction, which is interpreted as danger avoidance implementation plan information, and negotiates with other S3s, which is interpreted as the S3 including a danger avoidance action assistance device), and
security management information,
the space situational awareness business device performs proximity, collision, or intrusion analysis, using the danger analysis device and using pieces of space object information acquired by the space information recorder (See at least Kopardekar Column 4 lines 33-45, Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 16, Column 8 lines 41-50, and Figure 4, the CAS, which is interpreted as the danger analysis device, performs proximity/intrusion analysis using the ephemeris data/information acquired by the space information recorder in the S3), and
when proximity, a collision, or an intrusion involving danger is foreseen, notifies the danger to a business device of a space object to be a party involved, using the danger alert device (See at least Kopardekar Column 8 lines 31-40, the S3, which is interpreted to include the danger alert device, notifies the conjunction, which is interpreted as a proximity or intrusion, to the S3/business device of the party involved).
Claims 9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopardekar in view of Miranda et al (US 20210036772 A1) and Fukushima (Hereinafter referred to as Miranda)
Regarding Claim 9, Kopardekar teaches a space situational awareness business device that is a business device with which a space situational awareness business operator manages space object information (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 33-Column 4 line 26, the space traffic management service supplier (S3) is interpreted as a space situational awareness business device that an operator uses to manage space object information), the space situational awareness business device comprising:
a space traffic management device that is compatible with space traffic management devices respectively included in business devices that manage space objects (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 66-Column 4 line 32, the space traffic management service supplier (S3), which serves as a controller that communicates with other entities, is interpreted to include the space traffic management device that is compatible with other S3s/space traffic management devices respectively included in business devices that manage space objects), the space traffic management device including a processor (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 66-Column 4 line 13 and Column 10 lines 24-35), wherein
the space situational awareness business device is connected, through the space traffic management device, to a space traffic management system in which the space traffic management devices respectively included in the business devices are mutually connected with a communication line (See at least Kopardekar Column 1 line 59-Column 2 line 18, Column 3 line 33-Column 4 line 32 and Figure 2, the S3s/space traffic management devices are part of the space traffic management system, and are connected to each other through communication lines in order to communicate with one another), …and
using a danger alert device, the space situational awareness business device notifies rocket launch plan orbit information or orbit information of a space object…to a mega-constellation business operator (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 lines 38-45, Column 5 lines 15-30, and Column 7 lines 16-36, the S3/business device, which is interpreted to include a danger alert device, notifies ephemeris/orbit information of a space object to an SSA supplier, which is interpreted as the mega-constellation business operator).
Even though Kopardekar teaches the space situational awareness business device is connected to space traffic management devices included in other business devices, Kopardekar fails to explicitly disclose the space situational awareness business device is connected with a space traffic management device included in a specific business device…with a secret line.
However, Miranda teaches connecting two management devices with a secret line (See at least Miranda Paragraphs 0100-0101, the connections between computing devices/management devices include a VPN protection scheme, which is interpreted as a secret line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings in Kopardekar with Miranda to have the space situational awareness business device be connected with a space traffic management device included in a specific business device with a secret line. This modification, as taught by Miranda, would protect the communication between devices (See at least Miranda Paragraph 0101), thus, making the communication line more secure.
Modified Kopardekar fails to disclose the space object… deorbits and descends in orbit.
However, Fukushima teaches the space object… deorbits and descends in orbit (See at least Fukushima Paragraphs 0043-0046, and Figures 4a and 5, the space object is deorbited and lowered in altitude).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Kopardekar with Fukushima to have the space object deorbit and descend in orbit. This modification, as taught by Fukushima, would improve the safety of the system by deorbiting space objects that have become uncontrollable due to fuel depletion or the like during a normal operation (See at least Fukushima Paragraph 0046).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kopardekar teaches the space traffic management device includes:
a space information recorder to record orbit information of a space object (See at least Kopardekar Column 7 lines 16- 36, the S3/space traffic management device, which is interpreted to include the space information recorder, collects and updates the ephemeris, which is interpreted recording orbit information of a space object),
… and
the danger alert device to notify abnormal proximity or a collision with a space object or an intrusion into a danger region by a space object (See at least Kopardekar Column 4 lines 33-45, and Column 8 lines 31-40, the S3, which is interpreted to include the danger alert device, notifies a conjunction, which is interpreted as an abnormal proximity with a space object and an intrusion into a danger region by a space object).
Modified Kopardekar fails to explicitly disclose that the space traffic management device includes…a danger analysis device.
However, Kopardekar does disclose that the space traffic management system includes a danger analysis device that is connected to the space traffic management device (See at least Kopardekar Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 16 and Figures 2 and 4, the CAS is interpreted as a danger analysis device, which is connected to the S3/space traffic management device through a communication line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings in modified Kopardekar to have a danger analysis device be included in the space traffic management device since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art in Re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, the danger analysis device/CAS is included in the space traffic management device/S3 instead of being its own separate device. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the space traffic management device/S3 include the danger analysis device, which calculates potential conjunctions, because the space traffic management device/S3 notifies the operators about the possible conjunction and negotiates a maneuver to avoid the possible conjunction (See at least Kopardekar Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 63 and Figures 4 and 5). This modification would allow the space traffic management device/S3 to calculate the possible conjunctions itself rather than relying on an external device.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kopardekar teaches the space traffic management device further includes at least one of:
a danger avoidance action assistance device,
danger avoidance action implementation plan information (See at least Kopardekar Column 8 line 51-Column 9 line 15, and Figure 5, the S3 includes a maneuver plan for the conjunction, which is interpreted as danger avoidance implementation plan information, and negotiates with other S3s, which is interpreted as the S3 including a danger avoidance action assistance device), and
security management information.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kopardekar teaches the space situational awareness business device performs proximity, collision, or intrusion analysis, using the danger analysis device and using pieces of space object information acquired by the space information recorder (See at least Kopardekar Column 4 lines 33-45, Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 16, Column 8 lines 41-50, and Figure 4, the CAS, which is interpreted as the danger analysis device, performs proximity/intrusion analysis using the ephemeris data/information acquired by the space information recorder in the S3), and
when proximity, a collision, or an intrusion involving danger is foreseen, notifies the danger to a business device of a space object to be a party involved, using the danger alert device (See at least Kopardekar Column 8 lines 31-40, the S3, which is interpreted to include the danger alert device, notifies the conjunction, which is interpreted as a proximity or intrusion, to the S3/business device of the party involved).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kopardekar teaches the space situational awareness business device coordinates a danger avoidance action with a management business operator of the space object to be a party involved to which danger is notified by the danger alert device, using the danger avoidance action assistance device (See at least Kopardekar Column 8 line 51-Column 9 line 15, and Figure 5, the S3, which includes the danger avoidance action assistance device, negotiates with other operators involved to coordinate a maneuver plan, which is interpreted as a danger avoidance action), and
discloses danger avoidance action implementation plan information (See at least Kopardekar Column 8 line 64-Column 9 line 15, and Figure 5, the S3 sends/discloses the approved maneuver, which is interpreted as the danger avoidance action implementation plan information, to the operators).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kopardekar teaches the danger avoidance action implementation plan information includes an avoidance action plan created by the danger avoidance action assistance device (See at least Kopardekar Column 4 lines 46-65, and Figure 5, the maneuver, which is interpreted as the danger avoidance action implementation plan information, includes a collision avoidance action plan and is generated by the S3, which includes the danger avoidance action assistance device).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kopardekar fails to disclose the space situational awareness business device notifies a danger alert to a debris removal business device or a mega-constellation business device, and requests a danger avoidance action.
However, Fukushima teaches the space situational awareness business device notifies a danger alert to a debris removal business device or a mega-constellation business device (See at least Fukushima Paragraphs 0043-0046 and Figure 4a, the constellation user uses the business model/device to notify a danger alert to the business device/model of the debris removal agent), and requests a danger avoidance action (See at least Fukushima Paragraphs 0043-0046, the request for deorbiting is interpreted as a request for danger avoidance action).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings in modified Kopardekar with Fukushima to have the space situational awareness business device notify a danger alert to a debris removal business device or a mega-constellation business device, and requests a danger avoidance action. This modification, as taught by Fukushima, would allow a debris removal agent to change the orbit of the space object in order to reduce the risk of a collision (See at least Fukushima Paragraphs 0043-0044), which would improve the safety of the space objects.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kopardekar teaches a space traffic business device to manage space traffic (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 52-Column 4 line 12, the space traffic management service suppliers (S3s) are interpreted as space traffic business devices to manage space traffic), the space traffic business device comprising a processor (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 66-Column 4 line 13 and Column 10 lines 24-35), … wherein
the space traffic business device also has a function of the space situational awareness business device according to claim 1 (See at least Kopardekar Column 3 line 33-Column 4 line 26, the S3s, which serve as controllers that communicate with other entities, function as both a space traffic business device and a space situational awareness business device).
Modified Kopardekar fails to explicitly disclose the space traffic business device comprising one of a control device of a space plane and a collision avoidance assistance device.
However, Kopardekar does teach the system includes a collision avoidance assistance device that is connected to the space traffic business device (See at least Kopardekar Column, 3 lines 33-51 and Figure 2, the system includes a collision assessment service (CAS), which is interpreted as a collision avoidance assistance device that is connected to the space traffic business device/S3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings in modified Kopardekar to have a collision avoidance assistance device be included in the space traffic business device since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art in Re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, the collision avoidance assistance device /CAS is included in the space traffic business device/S3 instead of being its own separate device. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the space traffic business device/S3 include the collision avoidance assistance device, which calculates potential conjunctions, because the space traffic business device/S3 notifies the operators about the possible conjunction and negotiates a maneuver to avoid the possible conjunction (See at least Kopardekar Column 7 line 45-Column 8 line 63 and Figures 4 and 5). This modification would allow the space traffic business device/S3 to calculate the possible conjunctions itself rather than relying on an external device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopardekar in view of Miranda and Fukushima, and in further view of Ramanujan (US 10652220 B1) (Hereinafter referred to as Ramanujan)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kopardekar fails to disclose the secret line utilizes a cryptographic key.
However, Ramanujan teaches the secret line utilizes a cryptographic key (See at least Ramanujan Column 4 lines 36-52, the VPN/secret line utilizes a cryptographic key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings in modified Kopardekar with Ramanujan to have the secret line utilize a cryptographic key. This modification, as taught by Ramanujan, would ensure the data transmitted on the secret line is secure by encrypting the data with a cryptographic key (See at least Ramanujan Column 4 lines 36-52, the VPN/secret line utilizes a cryptographic key).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Umeda et al (US 20230079285 A1) teaches a network of satellite management device connected to each other
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights