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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (CON of PCT Application JP2023/003817 filed February 6th, 2023).
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended the Specification, Abstract, and Claims on July 31st, 2025.
Applicant amended claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 11.
The pending claims are 1 – 11 [Page 9 lines 1 – 8].
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 27th, 2025 and September 3rd, 2025 were before after the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is a single sentence rather than a series of brief sentences written in narrative format describing the inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
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 use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one processor is configured to …” in claim 1.
The Examiner notes the claimed “processor” is being afforded status as connoting sufficient structure and thus does NOT invoke Functional Analysis.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0142206 A1 referred to as “Umeda” throughout), and further in view of Miyashita, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0200984 A1 referred to as “Miyashita” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s September 3rd, 2025 IDS].
Regarding claim 5, see claim 1 which is the apparatus implementing the claimed program.
Regarding claim 1, Umeda teaches a satellite imaging display with coordinates, conditions, and range information to determine imaging capabilities. Miyashita teaches date and time considerations in satellite imaging for storage and possibility determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings and display of Umeda to include data and time with other range / imaging considerations as taught by Miyashita. The combination teaches
at least one processor [Umeda Figure 18 (see at least reference character 501) as well as Paragraphs 225 – 235 and 242 – 245 (CPU as an obvious variant of the claimed processor to one of ordinary skill in the art)] used in connection with a spacecraft that images the earth [Umeda Figures 1 – 3 (see at least reference characters 41 – 43 which use CPU / arrangements in Figure 18 (see at least Paragraphs 226 – 228) and reference characters 22, 31, 31A, and 31B) as well as Paragraphs 42 – 47 (satellites are equipped with cameras capturing ground (obvious variants of the claimed earth to one of ordinary skill in the art – see also Paragraphs 2, 145, 155, and 186) or space images)], wherein
the at least one processor is configured to execute computer readable instructions to [Umeda Figure 18 (see at least reference character 501) as well as Paragraphs 225 – 235 and 242 – 245 (CPU as an obvious variant of the claimed processor to one of ordinary skill in the art)]:
from a terminal device of a user [Umeda Figures 1 – 3 (see at least reference character 43) as well as Paragraphs 43 – 47 (user terminal device)], receive an order condition including coordinates of a point to be imaged or the coordinates and a date and time to image the point [See previous limitation and additionally Umeda Figures 3 – 5 (see at least reference character 81) and 17 as well as Paragraphs 70 (transmit / receive user command to processor / server / satellite), 84 (imaging conditions for landmark / point / location), 92 – 102 (command containing time and coordinates of point / location to image), 122 and 208 – 211 (commands for satellite image to capture); Miyashita Figure 3 (date, time, and coordinates of image captured) as well as Paragraphs 37 – 40 (date and time (combinable with Umeda), location / range / coordinates for imaging by satellite), 50 and 88 (date / time / location associated with satellite images)];
transmit a determination result indicating whether or not the imaging by the spacecraft based on the order condition is possible to the terminal device of the user [Umeda Figures 1, 5, 6, and 10 (see at least check boxes for possibility of imaging) as well as Paragraphs 91, 102 and 109 – 114 (possibility of imaging and real time operation of the satellite to perform the imaged based on time / orbit and time slider for images captured within the conditions), 114 – 118 (user selection of coordinates / orbit location and time for imaging), 120 – 132 (user location / inputs including time), and 224 – 225 (possibility checks for imaging based on conditions) where the checks in Umeda are combinable with inputs from Miyashita Figure 3 (date, time, and coordinates of image captured) as well as Paragraphs 37 – 40 (date and time (combinable with Umeda), location / range / coordinates for imaging by satellite), 50 and 83 – 88 (date / time / location associated with satellite images and possible use of preview images if conditions are possible), 102 and 142 – 145 (possibility of imaging / used actual or extrapolated images for the conditions ordered)]; and
transmit at least one candidate condition including a candidate date and time when the imaging of the point is possible to the terminal device of the user in a case where the determination result indicates that the imaging by the spacecraft based on the order condition is possible [Umeda Figures 1 and 5 – 10 (see at least check boxes for possibility of imaging and scroll bars for the transmission of candidate conditions) as well as Paragraphs 91, 102 and 109 – 114 (possibility of imaging and real time operation of the satellite to perform the imaged based on time / orbit and time slider for images captured within the conditions), 114 – 118 (user selection of coordinates / orbit location and time for imaging), 126 – 136 (user location / inputs including time with selection from possible candidate conditions to use for satellite imaging), and 224 – 225 (possibility checks for imaging based on conditions) where the checks in Umeda are combinable with inputs from Miyashita Figure 3 (date, time, and coordinates of image captured) as well as Paragraphs 37 – 40 (date and time (combinable with Umeda), location / range / coordinates for imaging by satellite), 50 and 83 – 88 (date / time / location associated with satellite images and possible use of preview images if conditions are possible), 102, 118 (candidate list to combine with Umeda Paragraphs 126 – 136 and Figures) and 142 – 145 (possibility of imaging / used actual or extrapolated images for the conditions ordered)].
The motivation to combine Miyashita with Umeda is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of processing information associated with satellite images [Miyashita Paragraphs 2 – 4] in order to improve the user experience [Miyashita Paragraphs 136, 144, and 154 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Umeda and Miyashita which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Umeda teaches a satellite imaging display with coordinates, conditions, and range information to determine imaging capabilities. Miyashita teaches date and time considerations in satellite imaging for storage and possibility determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings and display of Umeda to include data and time with other range / imaging considerations as taught by Miyashita. The combination teaches
receive, from the terminal device of the user, a selection condition selected from the at least one candidate condition [Umeda Figures 1 and 5 – 10 (see at least check boxes for possibility of imaging and scroll bars for the transmission of candidate conditions) as well as Paragraphs 70 – 79 (transmit user operation commands), 81 – 84 (user selection of conditions for imaging), 91, 102 and 114 – 118 (user selection of coordinates / orbit location and time for imaging and area selection), 126 – 136 (user location / inputs including time with selection from possible candidate conditions to use for satellite imaging), and 224 – 225 (possibility checks for imaging based on conditions) where the checks in Umeda are combinable with inputs from Miyashita Figure 3 (date, time, and coordinates of image captured) as well as Paragraphs 37 – 40 (date and time (combinable with Umeda), location / range / coordinates for imaging by satellite), 44, 50 and 83 – 88 (date / time / location associated with satellite images and possible use of preview images if conditions are possible), 102, 118 (candidate list to combine with Umeda Paragraphs 126 – 136 and Figures) and 142 – 148 (possibility of imaging / used actual or extrapolated images for the conditions ordered to transmit)]; and
transmit image data acquired by the spacecraft on a basis of the selection condition or an image generated on a basis of the image data to the terminal device of the user [See previous limitation and additionally Umeda Figures 5- 10 (see in particular Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 146 – 148 and 165 – 170 (image capture from satellite sent to terminal device also combinable with Miyashita Paragraphs 79 – 84)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Umeda and Miyashita.
Regarding claim 3, Umeda teaches a satellite imaging display with coordinates, conditions, and range information to determine imaging capabilities. Miyashita teaches date and time considerations in satellite imaging for storage and possibility determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings and display of Umeda to include data and time with other range / imaging considerations as taught by Miyashita. The combination teaches
display, on the terminal device of the user, a screen in which an imageable range by the spacecraft is visualized on a map by transmitting information including the map and the imageable range on the map [Umeda Figures 4 – 7 (see at least reference characters 115 and 116) as well as Paragraphs 98, 114 – 118 (imaging rages from the satellite and ranges with real-time constraints considered), 136 – 138, and 156 – 164 (turning on / off range information by the user / user control of the range information – combinable with ranges from Miyashita Paragraphs 37 (range with shooting time and date), 81, 93, and 102 (geographical ranges / observation ranges from satellite displayed for user selection)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Umeda and Miyashita.
Regarding claim 4, Umeda teaches a satellite imaging display with coordinates, conditions, and range information to determine imaging capabilities. Miyashita teaches date and time considerations in satellite imaging for storage and possibility determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings and display of Umeda to include data and time with other range / imaging considerations as taught by Miyashita. The combination teaches
wherein the imageable range by the spacecraft is determined using the coordinates or using the coordinates and the date and time [See claim 1 for citations of “coordinates” and additionally Umeda Figures 4 – 7 (see at least reference characters 115, 116, and 117) as well as Paragraphs 98 – 102 (ranges based on satellite location and searching coordinates information ./ user commands), 114 – 118 (imaging rages from the satellite and ranges with real-time constraints considered which is an obvious variant of the “date and time” condition claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 136 – 138, and 156 – 164 (turning on / off range information by the user / user control of the range information – combinable with ranges from Miyashita Paragraphs 37 (range with shooting time and date), 50 and 64 (coordinates used to define ranges to image and available for imaging), 81, 93, and 102 (geographical ranges / observation ranges from satellite displayed for user selection)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Umeda and Miyashita.
Regarding claim 6, Umeda teaches a satellite imaging display with coordinates, conditions, and range information to determine imaging capabilities. Miyashita teaches date and time considerations in satellite imaging for storage and possibility determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings and display of Umeda to include data and time with other range / imaging considerations as taught by Miyashita. The combination teaches
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to store computer readable instructions being executed by the at least one processor mounted in a terminal device of a user to [Umeda Figures 1 – 3 (see at least reference characters 41, 42, 43, and 44) and 18 (see at least reference character 501) as well as Paragraphs 44 – 46 and 75 – 80 (programs in terminal devices executed by processors) and 225 – 235 and 242 – 245 (CPU as an obvious variant of the claimed processor to one of ordinary skill in the art which executes software / programs)]:
transmit an order condition including coordinates of a point to be imaged or the coordinates and a date and time to image the point to a processing device used in connection with a spacecraft that images the earth [Umeda Figures 1, 5, 6, and 10 (see at least check boxes for possibility of imaging) as well as Paragraphs 73 – 80 (transmission from terminal device to satellite of order / inputs), 91 – 98 (satellite management to determine plausibility of user input), 102 and 109 – 114 (possibility of imaging and real time operation of the satellite to perform the imaged based on time / orbit and time slider for images captured within the conditions), 114 – 118 (user selection of coordinates / orbit location and time for imaging), 120 – 132 (user location / inputs including time), and 224 – 225 (possibility checks for imaging based on conditions) where the checks in Umeda are combinable with inputs from Miyashita Figure 3 (date, time, and coordinates of image captured) as well as Paragraphs 37 – 40 (date and time (combinable with Umeda), location / range / coordinates for imaging by satellite), 50 and 83 – 88 (date / time / location associated with satellite images and possible use of preview images if conditions are possible), 102 and 142 – 145 (possibility of imaging / used actual or extrapolated images for the conditions ordered)];
receive, from the processing device, a determination result indicating whether or not the imaging by the spacecraft based on the order condition is possible [Umeda Figures 1, 5, 6, and 10 (see at least check boxes for possibility of imaging) as well as Paragraphs 91 – 98 (processing devices to manage ability of satellites to capture user specified imaging conditions), 102 and 109 – 114 (possibility of imaging and real time operation of the satellite to perform the imaged based on time / orbit and time slider for images captured within the conditions), 114 – 118 (user selection of coordinates / orbit location and time for imaging for the system to determine possibility of conditions), 120 – 132 (user location / inputs including time), 185 – 190 (verification / checks of imaging conditions input by user) and 224 – 225 (possibility checks for imaging based on conditions) where the checks in Umeda are combinable with inputs from Miyashita Figure 3 (date, time, and coordinates of image captured) as well as Paragraphs 37 – 40 (date and time (combinable with Umeda), location / range / coordinates for imaging by satellite), 50 and 83 – 88 (date / time / location associated with satellite images and possible use of preview images if conditions are possible), 102 and 142 – 145 (possibility of imaging / used actual or extrapolated images for the conditions ordered)]; and
receive, from the processing device, at least one candidate condition including a candidate date and time when the imaging of the point is possible in a case where the determination result indicates that the imaging by the spacecraft based on the order condition is possible [Umeda Figures 1 and 5 – 10 (see at least check boxes for possibility of imaging and scroll bars for the transmission of candidate conditions) as well as Paragraphs 91 – 98 (processing devices to manage ability / possibilities of satellites to capture user specified imaging conditions including real time considerations), 102 and 109 – 114 (possibility of imaging and real time operation of the satellite to perform the imaged based on time / orbit and time slider for images captured within the conditions), 114 – 118 (user selection of coordinates / orbit location and time for imaging), 126 – 136 (user location / inputs including time with selection from possible candidate conditions to use for satellite imaging), 185 – 190 (verification / checks of imaging conditions input by user with possible conditions sent) and 224 – 225 (possibility checks for imaging based on conditions) where the checks in Umeda are combinable with inputs from Miyashita Figure 3 (date, time, and coordinates of image captured) as well as Paragraphs 37 – 40 (date and time (combinable with Umeda), location / range / coordinates for imaging by satellite), 50 and 83 – 88 (date / time / location associated with satellite images and possible use of preview images if conditions are possible), 102, 118 (candidate list to combine with Umeda Paragraphs 126 – 136 and Figures) and 142 – 145 (possibility of imaging / used actual or extrapolated images for the conditions ordered)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Umeda and Miyashita as the claims are similar and thus similar motivation exists.
Regarding claim 7, Umeda teaches a satellite imaging display with coordinates, conditions, and range information to determine imaging capabilities. Miyashita teaches date and time considerations in satellite imaging for storage and possibility determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings and display of Umeda to include data and time with other range / imaging considerations as taught by Miyashita. The combination teaches
transmit, to the processing device, a selection condition selected by the user from the at least one candidate condition [Umeda Figures 1 and 5 – 10 (see at least check boxes for possibility of imaging and scroll bars for the transmission of candidate conditions) as well as Paragraphs 70 – 79 (transmit user operation commands), 81 – 84 (user selection of conditions for imaging), 91 – 98 (processing devices to manage ability / possibilities of satellites to capture user specified imaging conditions including real time considerations), 102 and 114 – 118 (user selection of coordinates / orbit location and time for imaging and area selection), 126 – 136 (user location / inputs including time with selection from possible candidate conditions to use for satellite imaging), 185 – 190 (verification / checks of imaging conditions input by user with possible conditions sent) and 224 – 225 (possibility checks for imaging based on conditions) where the checks in Umeda are combinable with inputs from Miyashita Figure 3 (date, time, and coordinates of image captured) as well as Paragraphs 37 – 40 (date and time (combinable with Umeda), location / range / coordinates for imaging by satellite), 44, 50 and 83 – 88 (date / time / location associated with satellite images and possible use of preview images if conditions are possible), 102, 118 (candidate list to combine with Umeda Paragraphs 126 – 136 and Figures) and 142 – 148 (possibility of imaging / used actual or extrapolated images for the conditions ordered to transmit)]; and
receive, from the processing device, image data acquired by the spacecraft on a basis of the selection condition or an image generated on a basis of the image data [See previous limitation and additionally Umeda Figures 5 – 10 (see in particular Figure 7) as well as Paragraphs 146 – 148 and 165 – 170 (image capture from satellite sent to terminal device also combinable with Miyashita Paragraphs 79 – 84)].
See claim 6 for the motivation to combine Umeda and Miyashita.
Regarding claim 8, Umeda teaches a satellite imaging display with coordinates, conditions, and range information to determine imaging capabilities. Miyashita teaches date and time considerations in satellite imaging for storage and possibility determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings and display of Umeda to include data and time with other range / imaging considerations as taught by Miyashita. The combination teaches
display, on a display unit, a screen in which an imageable range by the spacecraft is visualized on a map [Umeda Figures 4 – 7 (see at least reference characters 115 and 116) as well as Paragraphs 98, 114 – 118 (imaging rages from the satellite and ranges with real-time constraints considered), 136 – 138, and 156 – 164 (turning on / off range information by the user / user control of the range information – combinable with ranges from Miyashita Paragraphs 37 (range with shooting time and date), 81, 93, and 102 (geographical ranges / observation ranges from satellite displayed for user selection)].
See claim 6 for the motivation to combine Umeda and Miyashita.
Regarding claim 9, Umeda teaches a satellite imaging display with coordinates, conditions, and range information to determine imaging capabilities. Miyashita teaches date and time considerations in satellite imaging for storage and possibility determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings and display of Umeda to include data and time with other range / imaging considerations as taught by Miyashita. The combination teaches
wherein the imageable range by the spacecraft is determined using the coordinates or using the coordinates and the date and time [See claim 6 for citations of “coordinates” and additionally Umeda Figures 4 – 7 (see at least reference characters 115, 116, and 117) as well as Paragraphs 98 – 102 (ranges based on satellite location and searching coordinates information ./ user commands), 114 – 118 (imaging rages from the satellite and ranges with real-time constraints considered which is an obvious variant of the “date and time” condition claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), 136 – 138, and 156 – 164 (turning on / off range information by the user / user control of the range information – combinable with ranges from Miyashita Paragraphs 37 (range with shooting time and date), 50 and 64 (coordinates used to define ranges to image and available for imaging), 81, 93, and 102 (geographical ranges / observation ranges from satellite displayed for user selection)].
See claim 6 for the motivation to combine Umeda and Miyashita.
Regarding claim 10, Umeda teaches a satellite imaging display with coordinates, conditions, and range information to determine imaging capabilities. Miyashita teaches date and time considerations in satellite imaging for storage and possibility determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings and display of Umeda to include data and time with other range / imaging considerations as taught by Miyashita. The combination teaches
cause the user to designate the coordinates of the point to be imaged on the map included on the screen [See claim 6 for citations of “coordinates” and additionally Umeda Figures 4 – 7 (see at least reference characters 115, 116, and 117) as well as Paragraphs 81 – 87 (user inputs imaging conditions including locations / coordinates), 91 – 98 (user inputs for the real time imaging operation of the satellite), 114 – 118 (imaging rages from the satellite and ranges with real-time constraints considered and user inputs / designations), 136 – 138, and 156 – 164 (turning on / off range information by the user / user control of the range information – combinable with ranges from Miyashita Paragraphs 37 (range with shooting time and date), 81, 93, and 102 (geographical ranges / observation ranges from satellite displayed for user selection)].
See claim 6 for the motivation to combine Umeda and Miyashita.
Regarding claim 11, Umeda teaches a satellite imaging display with coordinates, conditions, and range information to determine imaging capabilities. Miyashita teaches date and time considerations in satellite imaging for storage and possibility determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings and display of Umeda to include data and time with other range / imaging considerations as taught by Miyashita. The combination teaches
the at least one candidate condition includes a plurality of candidate conditions [See claim 6 last limitation for citations and additionally Umeda Figures 4 – 7 (see at least reference characters 115 and 116) as well as Paragraphs 98, 114 – 118 (imaging rages from the satellite and ranges with real-time constraints considered), 136 – 138, and 156 – 164 (turning on / off range information by the user / user control of the range information – combinable with ranges from Miyashita Paragraphs 37 (range with shooting time and date), 81, 93, and 102 (geographical ranges / observation ranges from satellite displayed for user selection) where the ranges render obvious the claimed “plurality” to one of ordinary skill in the art], and
wherein the computer readable instructions being executable by for causing the at least one processor to function to [See claim 6 for citations for same / similar limitation]:
cause the user to select one of the plurality of candidate conditions as a selection condition by displaying the plurality of candidate conditions on a display unit [See first limitation for citations regarding the claimed “plurality of candidate conditions” and additionally Umeda Figures 1 and 5 – 10 (see at least check boxes for possibility of imaging and scroll bars for the transmission of candidate conditions) as well as Paragraphs 70 – 79 (transmit user operation commands), 81 – 84 (user selection of conditions for imaging), 91, 102 and 114 – 118 (user selection of coordinates / orbit location and time for imaging and area selection), 126 – 136 (user location / inputs including time with selection from possible candidate conditions to use for satellite imaging), and 224 – 225 (possibility checks for imaging based on conditions) where the checks in Umeda are combinable with inputs from Miyashita Figure 3 (date, time, and coordinates of image captured) as well as Paragraphs 37 – 40 (date and time (combinable with Umeda), location / range / coordinates for imaging by satellite), 44, 50 and 83 – 88 (date / time / location associated with satellite images and possible use of preview images if conditions are possible), 102, 118 (candidate list to combine with Umeda Paragraphs 126 – 136 and Figures) and 142 – 148 (possibility of imaging / used actual or extrapolated images for the conditions ordered to transmit)]; and
transmit the selection condition to the processing device [See previous limitation and additionally Umeda Figures 4 – 7 (see at least reference characters 115, 116, and 117) as well as Paragraphs 91 – 98 (transmission of commands in part based on user inputs in Paragraphs 70 – 79 or 81 – 84), 114 – 118 (imaging rages from the satellite and ranges with real-time constraints considered), 136 – 138, 146 – 148, 156 – 164 (turning on / off range information by the user / user control of the range information – combinable with ranges from Miyashita Paragraphs 37 (range with shooting time and date), 81, 93, and 102 (geographical ranges / observation ranges from satellite displayed for user selection)].
See claim 6 for the motivation to combine Umeda and Miyashita.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Higgins, et al. (US PG PUB 2024/0214527 A1 referred to as “Higgins” throughout) teaches in Figures 5, 7, and 9 displays showing FOV / limitations of camera imaging with applications for satellites as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights