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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: “as to maintain relative phases the plurality of satellites” in grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 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.
For Claim 1, the term “processing circuitry” does not clearly define a specific structure, is this hardware, software, both? As such the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-3 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1. The Examiner suggest language such as “processing circuitry configured with memory having instructions which form…” or something similar.
For Claims 1 and 2, “when” is used which is unclear as it is not clear if what comes after is positively required by the claim. As such the claim is indefinite. Claim 3 is indefinite as being dependent on Claim 2.
For Claim 2, “each orbital plane has an orbital inclination such that orbital periods of the plurality of orbital planes are equal to each other” is unclear as inclination does not define orbital periods. The altitude of the orbit is what defines the orbital period, as such satellites with different attitudes would have different orbital periods not equal orbital periods. Therefore, the Claim 2 is indefinite. Claim 3 is indefinite as being dependent on Claim 2.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meek (US PgPub #2018/0022474).
For Claim 1, the figures of Meek ‘474 disclose as best understood a satellite constellation forming system to form a satellite constellation forming system to form a satellite constellation which is composed of a satellite group and in which the satellite group provides a service cooperatively, the satellite constellation having a plurality of orbital planes (104) in which a plurality of satellites (102) fly at a same orbital altitude in each orbital plane, the satellite constellation forming system comprising: processing circuitry to form the satellite constellation in which orbital altitudes of the plurality of orbital planes are mutually different, and the processing circuitry forms the plurality of orbital planes in a sinusoidal shape, when relative altitude differences between adjacent orbital planes in the plurality of orbital planes are arranged sequentially.
For Claim 2, the figures of Meek ‘474 disclose as best understood when the processing circuitry forms the satellite constellation in which orbital altitudes of the plurality of orbital planes are mutually different; when relative altitude differences between adjacent orbital planes in the plurality of orbital planes are arranged sequentially, the sinusoidal shape is formed and each orbital plane has an orbital inclination such that orbital periods of the plurality of orbital planes are equal to each other.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Olds (US Patent #5887257).
For Claim 1, the figures of Olds ‘257 disclose as best understood a satellite constellation forming system to form a satellite constellation forming system to form a satellite constellation which is composed of a satellite group and in which the satellite group provides a service cooperatively, the satellite constellation having a plurality of orbital planes (117 and 127) in which a plurality of satellites (110 and 120) fly at a same orbital altitude in each orbital plane, the satellite constellation forming system comprising: processing circuitry to form the satellite constellation in which orbital altitudes of the plurality of orbital planes are mutually different, and the processing circuitry forms the plurality of orbital planes in a sinusoidal shape, when relative altitude differences between adjacent orbital planes in the plurality of orbital planes are arranged sequentially.
For Claim 2, the figures of Olds ‘257 disclose as best understood when the processing circuitry forms the satellite constellation in which orbital altitudes of the plurality of orbital planes are mutually different; when relative altitude differences between adjacent orbital planes in the plurality of orbital planes are arranged sequentially, the sinusoidal shape is formed and each orbital plane has an orbital inclination such that orbital periods of the plurality of orbital planes are equal to each other.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olds (US Patent #5887257) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Scott (US Patent #5803407).
For Claim 3, the figures of Olds ‘257 disclose a ground facility (140) to track and control a satellite constellation, however it is silent about specifically commanding the satellites to adjust their position. However, figure 8 of Scott ‘407 teaches a ground facility generating a command to adjust an altitude of each satellite so as to maintain relative phases of the satellite in the orbital plane and to adjust the orbital altitude and orbital inclination the satellite to fully control the location of the satellite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Olds ‘257 with the satellite control of Scott ‘407. The motivation to do so would be to provide full control of the movement and location of the satellites.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Each of the references teaches having satellites in different orbits with different altitudes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights