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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
2. Claims 7 and 16 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (US 9740465 B1), in view of Nicholson (US 20200223568 A1), and in further view of Norwood (US 20220127023 A1).
7. Regarding Claim 1, Coleman teaches a space vehicle comprising (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 16-23]):
A massless payload, wherein the massless payload comprises dynamically modifiable software configured to indicate one or more actions to be taken by the space vehicle (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 44-62] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the massless payload is equivalent to software applications.),
A primary controller, wherein the primary controller includes software that is not modified based on modifications to the massless payload (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 63-67; Column 3, Line 1]. Note that the primary controller including software that is not modified based on modifications to the massless payload is equivalent to deploying the tested application to the orbiting satellite platforms to execute the application.).
A test controller operatively communicating with the massless payload… one or more operational systems including at least one of actuators or sensors of the space vehicle that are controlled based on: commands from the test controller during a test condition generated to implement the one or more actions indicated by the massless payload (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 63-67; Column 3, Line 1]. Note that the test controller communicating with the massless payload is equivalent to the software application uploaded to the satellites.);
And commands by the primary controller during normal operation (Coleman: [Column 6, Lines 17-22] and [Column 7, Lines 11-27]).
Coleman fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more actions are part of a rendezvous proximity operation (RPO) between the space vehicle and a payload deployed by the space vehicle in association with a state in which the payload is spaced apart from the space vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nicholson teaches wherein the one or more actions are part of a rendezvous proximity operation (RPO) between the space vehicle and a payload deployed by the space vehicle in association with a state in which the payload is spaced apart from the space vehicle (Nicholson: [0056] and [0072] Note that activating the propulsion system of the spacecraft servicing device to retreat from the pod/target spacecraft is equivalent to the actions that are a part of the rendezvous proximity operation.).
Coleman and Nicholson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coleman to incorporate the teachings of Nicholson for the action to be a part of a rendezvous proximity operation between a space vehicle and payload because it provides the benefit of reliable and robust servicing and updating of payloads.
Coleman and Nicholson fail to explicitly teach the test controller comprises the massless payload.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Norwood teaches a primary controller, wherein the primary controller includes software that is not modified based on modifications to the massless payload (Norwood: [0018]);
And a test controller operatively communicating with the massless payload, wherein the test controller comprises the massless payload (Norwood: [0025], [0026], and [0036] Note that the test controller comprises the massless payload is equivalent to the external test equipment connected at the test port to transfer command and processing data signals to the functional sub-systems.).
Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft test control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coleman and Nicholson to incorporate the teachings of Norwood to include a primary controller and test controller on the same spacecraft wherein the test controller comprises dynamically modifiable software because it provides the benefit of testing and controlling the spacecraft to make repairs and service the aircraft by performing diagnostics and updating software once it has already been launched into orbit. Including a test port on the spacecraft provides access for testing.
8. Regarding Claim 2, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied as above in Claim 1, and further, Coleman teaches the primary controller is further configured to modify the massless payload based on commands from a ground station, and the test controller is configured to communicate with the actuators and sensors of the one or more operational systems (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 44-62] and [Column 5, Lines 65-67; Column 6, Lines 1-5]).
9. Regarding Claim 4, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied as above in Claim 1, and further, Coleman teaches the massless payload is modified based on communication with a ground station (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 44-62] and [Column 5, Lines 65-67; Column 6, Lines 1-5]).
10. Regarding Claim 5, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Nicholson teaches the one or more operational systems include thrusters (Nicholson: [0051] and [0056]).
11. Regarding Claim 6, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Nicholson teaches wherein in the state in which the payload is spaced apart from the space vehicle, the space vehicle and the payload are in low earth orbit (LEO) (Nicholson: [0037] and [0056]).
12. Regarding Claim 7, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Nicholson teaches t wherein the massless payload is configured to implement the RPO between the space vehicle and the payload deployed by the space vehicle, wherein the payload deployed by the space vehicle is a satellite (Nicholson: [0037], [0056], and [0072] Note that the payload deployed by the satellite is a satellite because the pod attached target spacecraft is in an orbit.).
13. Regarding Claim 8, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Nicholson teaches wherein the massless payload is configured to determine the one or more actions to be taken by the space vehicle as part of the RPO between the space vehicle and the payload deployed by the space vehicle (Nicholson: [0038], [0056], and [0072]).
14. Regarding Claim 9, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Coleman teaches wherein the test controller is configured to issue one or more commands to the one or more operational systems based on the one or more actions (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 44-62]).
15. Regarding Claim 13, Coleman teaches a method of assembling a space vehicle, the method comprising (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 16-23]):
Arranging a massless payload, wherein the massless payload is dynamically modifiable software that is configured to indicate one or more actions to be taken by the space vehicle… wherein the massless payload is operatively stored on a test controller… (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 44-62] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the massless payload is equivalent to software applications.);
Configuring a primary controller comprised in the space vehicle to provide modifications to the massless payload that are received from a ground location, the primary controller having operational software which is not modified based on modifications to the massless payload (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 63-67; Column 3, Line 1] and [Column 5, Lines 65-67; Column 6, Lines 1-5]. Note that the primary controller including software that is not modified based on modifications to the massless payload is equivalent to deploying the tested application to the orbiting satellite platforms to execute the application.);
And arranging one or more operational systems coupled to the primary controller and the test controller, the one or more operational systems including actuators or sensors of the space vehicle that are controlled based on commands from the primary controller during normal operation, wherein the primary controller is arranged to allow the test controller to access the one or more operational systems during a testing operation to perform the one or more actions to be taken by the space vehicle indicated by the massless payload (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 44-62] and [Column 4, Lines 50-67]).
Coleman fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more actions are part of a rendezvous proximity operation (RPO) between the space vehicle and a payload deployed by the space vehicle in association with a state in which the payload is spaced apart from the space vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nicholson teaches wherein the one or more actions are part of a rendezvous proximity operation (RPO) between the space vehicle and a payload deployed by the space vehicle in association with a state in which the payload is spaced apart from the space vehicle (Nicholson: [0056] and [0072] Note that activating the propulsion system of the spacecraft servicing device to retreat from the pod/target spacecraft is equivalent to the actions that are a part of the rendezvous proximity operation.).
Coleman and Nicholson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coleman to incorporate the teachings of Nicholson for the action to be a part of a rendezvous proximity operation between a space vehicle and payload because it provides the benefit of reliable and robust servicing and updating of payloads.
Coleman and Nicholson fail to teach a test controller comprised in the space vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Norwood teaches arranging a massless payload, wherein the massless payload is dynamically modifiable software that is configured to indicate one or more actions to be taken by the space vehicle, wherein the massless payload is operatively stored on a test controller comprised in the space vehicle (Norwood: [0025], [0026], and [0036] Note that the test controller comprises the massless payload is equivalent to the external test equipment connected at the test port to transfer command and processing data signals to the functional sub-systems.);
And configuring a primary controller comprised in the space vehicle to provide modifications to the massless payload… (Norwood: [0018]).
Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft test control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coleman and Nicholson to incorporate the teachings of Norwood to include a primary controller and test controller composed in the space vehicle wherein the test controller stores dynamically modifiable software because it provides the benefit of testing and controlling the spacecraft to make repairs and service the aircraft by performing diagnostics and updating software once it has already been launched into orbit. Including a test port on the spacecraft provides access for testing.
16. Regarding Claim 14, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Nicholson teaches the arranging the one or more operational systems includes arranging thrusters (Nicholson: [0051] and [0056]).
17. Regarding Claim 15, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Nicholson teaches arranging a payload for deployment by the space vehicle, wherein in the state in which the payload is spaced apart from the space vehicle, the space vehicle and the payload are in low earth orbit (LEO) (Nicholson: [0037] and [0056]).
18. Regarding Claim 16, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Nicholson teaches the arranging the massless payload includes configuring the massless payload to implement the RPO between the space vehicle and a payload deployed by the space vehicle, wherein the payload deployed by the space vehicle is a satellite (Nicholson: [0037], [0056], and [0072] Note that the payload deployed by the satellite is a satellite because the pod attached target spacecraft is in an orbit.).
19. Regarding Claim 17, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Nicholson teaches the arranging the massless payload includes configuring the massless payload to determine the one or more actions to be taken by the space vehicle as part of the RPO between the space vehicle and the payload deployed by the space vehicle (Nicholson: [0038], [0056], and [0072]).
20. Regarding Claim 18, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Coleman teaches the configuring the primary controller includes the primary controller issuing one or more commands to the one or more operational systems based on the one or more actions (Coleman: [Column 2, Lines 44-62]).
21. Regarding Claim 19, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 18, and further, Nicholson teaches affixing a modular liquid propellant thruster system to the space vehicle (Nicholson: [0051]).
22. Regarding Claim 20, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, Nicholson teaches the affixing the modular liquid propellant thruster system includes coupling the thrusters to the space vehicle (Nicholson: [0051]).
23. Claims 3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (US 9740465 B1), in view of Nicholson (US 20200223568 A1), in view of Norwood (US 20220127023 A1), and in further view of Bryan (US 20180346152 A1).
24. Regarding Claim 3, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Coleman fails to explicitly teach a deployment mechanism configured to provide retention force to secure the space vehicle to an adapter ring of a launch vehicle during launch and safely release the space vehicle from the adapter ring during deployment.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bryan teaches a deployment mechanism configured to provide retention force to secure the space vehicle to an adapter ring of a launch vehicle during launch and safely release the space vehicle from the adapter ring during deployment (Bryan: [0018], [0023], and [0044]).
Coleman, Nicholson, Norwood, and Bryan are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood to incorporate the teachings of Bryan to include a deployment mechanism to secure the space vehicle to an adapter ring of a launch vehicle and safely release the space vehicle from the adaptor ring during deployment because it provides the benefit of safely deploying the spacecraft using a launch vehicle.
25. Regarding Claim 10, Coleman, Nicholson, Norwood, and Bryan remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Nicholson teaches a modular liquid propellant thruster system configured to be affixed to the space vehicle (Nicholson: [0051]).
26. Regarding Claim 11, Coleman, Nicholson, Norwood, and Bryan remains as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Nicholson teaches the modular liquid propellant thruster system is one of the one or more operational systems and includes the thrusters (Nicholson: [0051]).
27. Regarding Claim 12, Coleman, Nicholson, Norwood, and Bryan remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Nicholson teaches two of the thrusters of the modular liquid propellant thruster system produce different thrust forces (Nicholson: [0051]).
28. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (US 9740465 B1), in view of Nicholson (US 20200223568 A1), in view of Norwood (US 20220127023 A1), and in further view of Weiss (US 20220063842 A1).
29. Regarding Claim 21, Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood remains as applied above in Claim 20.
Coleman fails to explicitly teach selecting the modular liquid propellant thruster system based on balancing minimizing of mass and volume of the modular liquid propellant thruster system with maximizing of maneuverability of the modular liquid propellant thruster system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Weiss teaches selecting the modular liquid propellant thruster system based on balancing minimizing of mass and volume of the modular liquid propellant thruster system with maximizing of maneuverability of the modular liquid propellant thruster system (Weiss: [0011]).
Coleman, Nicholson, Norwood, and Weiss are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coleman, Nicholson, and Norwood to incorporate the teachings of Weiss to minimize mass and volume of the thruster system with maximizing maneuverability of the thruster system because it provides the benefit of optimizing the thruster system for reducing costs.
Response to Arguments
30. Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
31. First, the Applicant has alleged "nowhere does Nicholson teach or suggest that by the target spacecraft 20 (alleged 'payload') is an object which has been deployed by the spacecraft servicing device 100." The Examiner disagrees.
Nicholson teaches in [0056] that rendezvous and proximity operations are facilitated to deploy, install, or remove a pod 102 from a target spacecraft. These operations are equivalent to an RPO because the spacecraft servicing device 100 is controlled to rendezvous in proximity the target spacecraft. In [0072] of Nicholson, it is explained that the spacecraft servicing device installs the pod on the target spacecraft via a connection and the satellite servicing device eventually releases from the pod/target spacecraft. After the satellite servicing device releases, the propulsion system is activated to retreat from the pod/target satellite to a safe location. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the retreat from the activated propulsion system is equivalent to the RPO. As currently claimed, there is no indication what specific maneuvers are a part of RPOs. Therefore, the RPO may be interpreted as any rendezvous that occurs in proximity to another object (e.g., pod/target spacecraft). As a result, the satellite servicing device deploys the pod onto the target spacecraft and retreats to a safe location (away from the pod and target spacecraft).
32. Second, the Applicant has alleged "nowhere does Nicholson teach or suggest that the 'rendezvous and proximity operations are between the target spacecraft 20 and the pod 102." The Examiner disagrees.
Nicholson teaches in [0056] that the satellite servicing device performs the rendezvous and proximity operations relative to the target spacecraft. Further, in [0072], it is explained the pod 102 is attached to the target spacecraft and the satellite servicing device activates its propulsion system to retreat from the pod and target spacecraft. Therefore, the rendezvous and proximity operations are between the satellite servicing device and the pod/target spacecraft. As currently claimed, there is no indication what specific maneuvers are a part of RPOs, and therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the RPO may be interpreted as any rendezvous that occurs in proximity to another object (e.g., pod/target spacecraft).
33. Third, the Applicant has alleged that Nicholson "fails to teach or suggest 'the massless payload is configured to implement the RPO between the space vehicle and the payload deployed by the space vehicle' at least for the same reasons presented herein with respect to the independent claim 1, from which claim 7 depends from." The Examiner disagrees.
As previously explained in response to the arguments regarding Claim 1, Nicholson teaches in [0056] and [0072] that the propulsion system is activated to retreat the spacecraft servicing device to a safe location (away from pod/target spacecraft) after deploying the pod onto the target spacecraft. The rendezvous and proximity operations are between the satellite servicing device and the pod/target spacecraft. Therefore, Nicholson teaches the massless payload implements the RPO between the space vehicle and payload deployed by the space vehicle because the propulsion system of the spacecraft servicing device is used to retreat to a safe location.
34. Fourth, the Applicant has alleged "Nicholson fails to teach or suggest 'the payload deployed by the space vehicle is a satellite, as further recited in amended claim 7." The Examiner disagrees.
Nicholson's spacecraft servicing device is used to deploy, install, and/or remove pods from a target spacecraft in orbit. In [0072], the pod is installed onto the target spacecraft. Further, [0037] explains the target spacecraft is in an orbit. Therefore, the pod attached to the target spacecraft is a satellite (or at least part of a satellite) because it is a space object that is in orbit.
35. The cited prior art teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
36. Claims 1-21 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
37. 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.
38. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights