DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 7, 9-19, 21-24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doubrere (US 2018/0029727) in view of Wittmann (US 6 565 043) and Hosick et al. (US 6 032 904), and in the alternative, further in view of Ho (US 2017/0283094).
Regarding independent claims 7, 9, 19, and 21, and claim 28:
Doubrere discloses a satellite comprising a body (20) and two thruster groups each having a plurality of thrusters (21/21’ and 22/22’),
a controller (e.g. [0136]) “configured to” control the thruster groups and configured to:
fire the thrusters simultaneously in a direction opposite the travel direction (as schematically depicted in Fig 1; [0056]; claim 19), and
operating the thrusters, e.g. during orbit transfers ([0093]), such that different thrusters may be operated at different distances, in odd numbers, and/or in different numbers between each group, relative to the satellite center of gravity to compensate for the thrusters of the other group (Fig 6 depicts the thrusters of each group controlled by different means, and the booms move the thruster groups separately, thus the controller is configured to operate the thrusters as such); and
first and second adjustment mechanisms (141/151, et al.) having the respective thruster groups mounted thereto for adjusting the distances,
wherein each adjustment mechanism including rod-shaped booms (14, 15), first body-side gimbals (142, 152), thruster bases (146, 156), and thruster side gimbals (143, 153).
Doubrere discloses controlling single axis pivots, but does not disclose two-axis gimbals.
Wittmann teaches two-axis gimbals (230) for spacecraft thrusters.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Doubrere to use two-axis gimbals as taught by Wittmann for the predictable advantage of increasing the articulations available for the thrusters, as each articulation would now be movable in two axes instead of only one, in order to provide greater fine-tuned control of the thrust vector (multiple points of articulation permit various changes at each point and about each axis) or to permit continued control in the event of the failure of one gimbal (as each gimbal may rotate about multiple axes, some redundancy via overlap is provided), and since multi-axis gimbals are alternative equivalent devices for articulating spacecraft thrust vectors in a predictable manner.
Doubrere discloses the first and second adjustment mechanisms mounted at the corners to the surfaces where solar panels are provided toward an anti-earth surface (Fig 1, attached to north 104 and south 103 faces with panels 11, 11’; the panels are mounted to the surface at the edge of the surface toward anti-earth surface 102), but does not disclose that the placement is adjacent to a first corner.
Hosick teaches a satellite having thrusters mounted at a non-edge location, adjacent the corner/edge (Hosick depicts the thruster toward the corner in Fig 1C; insofar the figures of instant application depict space between the respective edges and the mount, the term “corner” is interpreted as a region, not a specific point), on the (north/south) surfaces sharing solar panels (e.g. Fig 1C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Doubrere to mount the thrusters adjacent the corner as taught by Hosick as this is a known location for placing articulated thrusters on the spacecraft for providing attitude control in a predictable manner, which location also eases manufacturing and transport by locating the devices on a flatter, more stable surface (e.g. the surface giving more “play” for attachment since it’s larger than the edge, fewer components “jutting out” and subject to damage), and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
The limitation defining the position of the corners does not change the interpretation of the placement of the attachments “adjacent” to the corners above. However, in the alternative, Ho teaches that thruster arm pivots may be provided at opposing corners/vertices (e.g. Fig 4) or anywhere along the length of the satellite ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Doubrere to use pivots at the corners as taught by Ho for the as these are functionally equivalent placements for providing thruster arm pivots to operate in a predictable manner, to provide extra momentum during use (being more away from center, thus a greater distance from the CG, increase the moment of the force acting upon the body), and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Doubrere provides for thrust groups, but does not specifically provide for thruster groups having differing number of thrusters from each other.
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention (as evinced by [0032] where the numbers may be the same or different, equally), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a different number of thrusters to innately provide differing thrust values, e.g. at the start of orbit to counter known movements of particular direction (e.g. particular deployment spin) to ensure proper orientation for operation, or to account for offset center of gravity, which may require more force for some directions than others, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Note: The claims refer to substantially to capabilities of operation based on control of the thrusters. However the claims are directed to the apparatus, not the method of use, and the controller is configured to operate due to the arrangement of the thrusters on booms and the manner in which the control signals are provided (as in e.g. Fig 6, the control system groups thrusters from differing thruster sets for activation). Further, the limitations of “satisfy a condition” is neither a method step nor intended use, but rather an intended result.
Regarding independent claim 10, and claims 11-15, 22-24, and 27:
The discussion above regarding claims 7 and 9 is relied upon.
The claims recite the operational capabilities due to the ability to move and operate the thruster groups. Doubrere thus meets the capability of the claims as providing a system with such movable thruster groups capable of performing the desired maneuvers.
Regarding claims 16-18:
The discussion above regarding claims 7 and 19 is relied upon.
Doubrere discloses a satellite having movable thrusters, but does not disclose a method of determining the target distance values, changing the positions of the thruster groups inversely dependent upon the number of thrusters used, using a different number of thrusters in one group relative to the other, or providing thrust in the travel direction without thrust in the orthogonal direction.
One of ordinary skill recognizes that the movable thrusters would likely create differing moment vectors about the satellite as they are moved (moment equals force times distance). As the arms are moved to provide desired thrust, the arms may not be able to symmetrical apply forces, particularly due to the body of the satellite blocking some trajectories (e.g. exhaust adversely acting upon the body) and the limitations of the arm movements themselves (e.g. the arm cannot move through the body). The arms would then be asymmetrically applied to provide a given thrust. Such dissymmetry would cause adverse moments upon the satellite, i.e. “turning” the satellite to an undesired orientation and/or direction.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would then return to the moment equation to adjust the force when the distance cannot be adjusted in order to produce the same moment to counter these adverse moment effects. Thruster force adjustment can only occur via two methods, by either reducing the level of thrust from each thruster or reducing the number of thrusters activated. Thus, as the distance for one thruster group increases/decreases relative to the distance of the other group, the number of thrusters used in the first group (or the exhaust level thereof) may be decreased/increased respectively to retain a consistent moment upon the satellite. This is particularly enabled by Doubrere by the use of multiple PPU that each apply commands to differing thrusters (as schematically depicted in Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Doubrere to modify the number of thrusters activated based on the number in the group and distance from the body as one of ordinary skill would recognize that adverse moments caused by the limitations of arm movement would need to be accounted for, and reducing the number of thrusters firing is one of a limited number of finite techniques for adjusting the force to applied to the satellites to counter these adverse effects.
Note: the limitation “so that a production of momentum around a center of gravity of the satellite is avoided” is a statement of the result/goal of the method as performed, and not a method step itself. Further, the equilibrium and disequilibrium states of claims 17 and 18 are defined by the thrusters being used, and are thus encompassed by the above reasoning to use the thrusters in the prescribed manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments generally reiterating previous arguments, the examiner relies on remarks made in the previous responses. In particular, the arguments rely on the intended use of the apparatus, which Doubrere is configured to perform due to the thruster system structure and arrangement of the control system as described above. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With regard to the method, the amended control limitations are a natural component of the process as already understood by those in the art, as described above. In order to adequately provide thrust without adverse attitude or steering changes, the moments on the satellite created by the thrusters must be determined. This is based on mathematical formulas that must include the distances of the thrusters from the CG of the satellite (as noted above), which would inherently require determining such distances in order to make the calculations. “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law” (emphasis added). MPEP 2144.
Further, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619