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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 09/08/2025 amending Claims 1 – 18. Claims 1 - 18 are examined.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, l. 2 and Claim 4, l. 2 “anode simulator” interpreted as “simulator for an anode”.
Claim 1, l. 3 “propulsion valve load simulators” interpreted as “simulators for propulsion valve loads”.
Claim 1, ll. 4 - 5 “electrical propulsion unit load simulator adapted to receive propulsion unit control signals from a spacecraft under test”.
Claim 1, ll. 6 - 9 “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator … adapted to display a simulated state of three axes of movement for at least one propulsion unit positioner responsive to positioning signals received from the spacecraft” and Claim 7, ll. 1 - 2 “positioner simulator is adapted to simulate the state of at least two three-axis, three phase propulsion unit positioner motors”.
Claim 1, ll. 10 - 11 “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator adapted to display a simulated state of propulsion unit fuel valves responsive to control signals received from the spacecraft”.
Claim 3, l. 2 and Claim 4, ll. 2 - 3 “heater load simulator” interpreted as “load simulator for a heater”.
Claim 3, l. 2 and Claim 4, l. 3 “magnet load simulator” interpreted as “load simulator for a magnet”.
Claim 3, ll. 2 - 3 and Claim 4, l. 3 “igniter simulator” interpreted as “simulator for an igniter”.
Claim 8, ll. 1 - 5 “spacecraft control signal simulator … adapted to selectively output control signals to the propulsion unit load simulator, positioner simulator and fuel valve simulator upon connection to the PPU connector and the control unit connector, to provide a self-test for the propulsion unit load simulator, positioner simulator and fuel valve simulator”.
Claim 10, l. 2 “electrical propulsion unit load simulators” interpreted as “simulators for electrical propulsion unit loads”.
Claim 10, ll. 2 - 3 and Claim 12, l. 4 “anode simulator” interpreted as “simulator for an anode”.
Claim 10, l. 3 “propulsion valve load simulators” interpreted as “simulators for propulsion valve loads”.
Claim 10, ll. 6 - 8 “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator adapted to display a simulated state of three axes of movement for at least one propulsion unit positioner … responsive to positioning signals received from the spacecraft under test” and Claim 16, ll. 1 - 2 “positioner simulator is adapted to simulate the state of at least two three-axis, three phase propulsion unit positioner motors”.
Claim 10, ll. 9 - 11 “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator adapted to display a simulated state of propulsion unit fuel valves responsive to control signals received from the spacecraft under test”.
Claim 12, l. 2 and l. 4 “heater load simulator” interpreted as “load simulator for a heater”.
Claim 12, ll. 2 - 3 and l. 5 “magnet load simulator” interpreted as “load simulator for a magnet”.
Claim 12, l. 3 and l. 4 “igniter load simulator” interpreted as “load simulator for an igniter”.
Claim 17, ll. 1 - 5 “spacecraft control signal simulator … adapted to selectively output control signals to the propulsion unit load simulator, positioner simulator and fuel valve simulator upon connection to the PPU connector and the propulsion unit positioner, to provide a self-test for the propulsion unit load simulator, positioner simulator and fuel valve simulator”.
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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. *** This is a claim rejection heading paragraph. ***
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of simulating an anode. The original written description only disclosed “anode simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Is the “anode simulator” only software? Is the “anode simulator” only hardware? Is the “anode simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of simulating for propulsion valve loads. The original written description only disclosed “propulsion valve load simulators” in Paras. [0002] and [0004] without any additional description. Paras. [0002] and [0004] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Is the “propulsion valve load simulators” only software? Is the “propulsion valve load simulators” only hardware? Is the “propulsion valve load simulators” a combination of software and hardware? Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of receive propulsion unit control signals from a spacecraft under test. The original written description only disclosed “electrical propulsion unit load simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Is the “electrical propulsion unit load simulator” only software? Is the “electrical propulsion unit load simulator” only hardware? Is the “electrical propulsion unit load simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1, 7, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of simulate the state of at least two three-axis, three phase propulsion unit positioner motors. The original written description only disclosed “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Is the “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator” only software? Is the “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator” only hardware? Is the “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of display a simulated state of propulsion unit fuel valves responsive to control signals received from the spacecraft. The original written description only disclosed “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Is the “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator” only software? Is the “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator” only hardware? Is the “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of simulating the heater load. The original written description only disclosed “heater load simulator” in Paras. [0003] and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0003] and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Is the “heater load simulator” only software? Is the “heater load simulator” only hardware? Is the “heater load simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 4 and 5 depend from Claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 13 depends from Claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of simulating the magnet load. The original written description only disclosed “magnet load simulator” in Paras. [0003] and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0003] and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Is the “magnet load simulator” only software? Is the “magnet load simulator” only hardware? Is the “magnet load simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 4 and 5 depend from Claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 13 depends from Claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of simulating the igniter or the igniter load. The original written description only disclosed “igniter load simulator” in Para. [0005] without any additional description. Para. [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Is the “igniter simulator” or “igniter load simulator” only software? Is the “igniter simulator” or “igniter load simulator” only hardware? Is the “igniter simulator” or “igniter load simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 4 and 5 depend from Claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 13 depends from Claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of …selectively output control signals to the propulsion unit load simulator, positioner simulator and fuel valve simulator upon connection to the PPU connector and the control unit connector, to provide a self-test for the propulsion unit load simulator, positioner simulator and fuel valve simulator. The original written description only disclosed “spacecraft control signal simulator” in Para. [0005] without any additional description. Para. [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Is the “spacecraft control signal simulator” only software? Is the “spacecraft control signal simulator” only hardware? Is the “spacecraft control signal simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. *** This is a claim rejection heading paragraph. ***
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 4, 10, and 12 recite “anode simulator” interpreted as “simulator for an anode”, see the Claim Interpretation section above. The original written description only disclosed “anode simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims at least an anode simulator; (B) the nature of the invention - a spacecraft test apparatus or a spacecraft testing system; (C) the state of the prior art – A text search of the over eleven million references in the USPTO patent database revealed that the PGPub of the instant application was the only hit on the limitation “anode simulator”. Therefore the claim limitation was not a term of art and was unknown to the prior art.; (E) the level of predictability in the art – low predictability in the art since Applicant failed to describe the details of the “anode simulator”; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention. The original written description only disclosed “anode simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Since the Specification failed to describe the “anode simulator”, a potential infringer has no idea exactly what is the “anode simulator”. Is the “anode simulator” only software? Is the “anode simulator” only hardware? Is the “anode simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Without knowing the details of the claimed “anode simulator” it would be impossible for a potential infringer to amend around the claimed invention.; (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – it has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)]. Claims 2 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1 and 10 recite “propulsion valve load simulators” interpreted as “simulators for propulsion valve loads”, see the Claim Interpretation section above. The original written description only disclosed “propulsion valve load simulators” in Paras. [0002] and [0004] without any additional description. Paras. [0002] and [0004] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims propulsion valve load simulators; (B) the nature of the invention - a spacecraft test apparatus or a spacecraft testing system; (C) the state of the prior art - A text search of the over eleven million references in the USPTO patent database revealed that the PGPub of the instant application was the only hit on the limitation “propulsion valve load simulators”. Therefore the claim limitation was not a term of art and was unknown to the prior art.; (E) the level of predictability in the art – low predictability in the art since Applicant failed to describe the details of the “propulsion valve load simulators”; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention. The original written description only disclosed “propulsion valve load simulators” in Paras. [0002] and [0004] without any additional description. Paras. [0002] and [0004] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Since the Specification failed to describe the “propulsion valve load simulators”, a potential infringer has no idea exactly what is the “propulsion valve load simulators”. Is the “propulsion valve load simulators” only software? Is the “propulsion valve load simulators” only hardware? Is the “propulsion valve load simulators” a combination of software and hardware? Without knowing the details of the claimed “propulsion valve load simulators” it would be impossible for a potential infringer to amend around the claimed invention.; (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – it has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)]. Claims 2 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1 and 10 recite “electrical propulsion unit load simulator adapted to receive propulsion unit control signals from a spacecraft under test”, see the Claim Interpretation section above. he original written description only disclosed “electrical propulsion unit load simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims electrical propulsion unit load simulator; (B) the nature of the invention - a spacecraft test apparatus or a spacecraft testing system; (C) the state of the prior art - A text search of the over eleven million references in the USPTO patent database revealed that the PGPub of the instant application was the only hit on the limitation “electrical propulsion unit load simulator”. Therefore the claim limitation was not a term of art and was unknown to the prior art.; (E) the level of predictability in the art – low predictability in the art since Applicant failed to describe the details of the “electrical propulsion unit load simulator”; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention. The original written description only disclosed “electrical propulsion unit load simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0003], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Since the Specification failed to describe the “electrical propulsion unit load simulator”, a potential infringer has no idea exactly what is the “electrical propulsion unit load simulator”. Is the “electrical propulsion unit load simulator” only software? Is the “electrical propulsion unit load simulator” only hardware? Is the “electrical propulsion unit load simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Without knowing the details of the claimed “electrical propulsion unit load simulator” it would be impossible for a potential infringer to amend around the claimed invention.; (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – it has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)]. Claims 2 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1 and 10 recite “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator … adapted to display a simulated state of three axes of movement for at least one propulsion unit positioner responsive to positioning signals received from the spacecraft” and Claims 7 and 16 recite “positioner simulator is adapted to simulate the state of at least two three-axis, three phase propulsion unit positioner motors”, see the Claim Interpretation section above. The original written description only disclosed “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator; (B) the nature of the invention - a spacecraft test apparatus or a spacecraft testing system; (C) the state of the prior art - A text search of the over eleven million references in the USPTO patent database revealed that the PGPub of the instant application was the only hit on the limitation “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator”. Therefore the claim limitation was not a term of art and was unknown to the prior art.; (E) the level of predictability in the art – low predictability in the art since Applicant failed to describe the details of the “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator”; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention. The original written description only disclosed “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Since the Specification failed to describe the “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator”, a potential infringer has no idea exactly what is the “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator”. Is the “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator” only software? Is the “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator” only hardware? Is the “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Without knowing the details of the claimed “spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator” it would be impossible for a potential infringer to amend around the claimed invention.; (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – it has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)]. Claims 2 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1 and 10 recite “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator adapted to display a simulated state of propulsion unit fuel valves responsive to control signals received from the spacecraft”, see the Claim Interpretation section above. The original written description only disclosed “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator; (B) the nature of the invention - a spacecraft test apparatus or a spacecraft testing system; (C) the state of the prior art - A text search of the over eleven million references in the USPTO patent database revealed that the PGPub of the instant application was the only hit on the limitation “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator”. Therefore the claim limitation was not a term of art and was unknown to the prior art.; (E) the level of predictability in the art – low predictability in the art since Applicant failed to describe the details of the “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator”; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention. The original written description only disclosed “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator” in Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0002], [0004], and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Since the Specification failed to describe the “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator”, a potential infringer has no idea exactly what is the “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator”. Is the “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator” only software? Is the “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator” only hardware? Is the “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Without knowing the details of the claimed “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator” it would be impossible for a potential infringer to amend around the claimed invention.; (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – it has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)]. Claims 2 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 11 – 18 depend from Claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 3, 4, and 12 recite “heater load simulator” interpreted as “load simulator for a heater”, see the Claim Interpretation section above. Claims 3, 4, and 12 recite “magnet load simulator” interpreted as “load simulator for a magnet”, see the Claim Interpretation section above. Claims 3 and 4 recite “igniter simulator” interpreted as “simulator for an igniter” and Claim 12 recites “igniter load simulator” interpreted as “simulator for an igniter load”, see the Claim Interpretation section above. The original written description only disclosed “heater load simulator” and “magnet load simulator” in Paras. [0003] and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0003] and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. The original written description only disclosed “igniter load simulator” in Para. [0005] without any additional description. Para. [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims a heater load simulator, at least one magnet load simulator and an igniter simulator; (B) the nature of the invention - a spacecraft test apparatus or a spacecraft testing system; (C) the state of the prior art - A text search of the over eleven million references in the USPTO patent database revealed that the PGPub of the instant application was the only hit on the limitations “heater load simulator”, “magnet load simulator”, and “igniter simulator”, and “igniter load simulator”. Therefore the claim limitations were not terms of art and were unknown to the prior art.; (E) the level of predictability in the art – low predictability in the art since Applicant failed to describe the details of the “heater load simulator”, “magnet load simulator”, and “igniter simulator”, and “igniter load simulator”.; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention. The original written description only disclosed “heater load simulator” and “magnet load simulator” in Paras. [0003] and [0005] without any additional description. Paras. [0003] and [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. The original written description only disclosed “igniter load simulator” in Para. [0005] without any additional description. Para. [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Since the Specification failed to describe the “heater load simulator”, “magnet load simulator”, and “igniter simulator”, and “igniter load simulator”, a potential infringer has no idea exactly what is the “heater load simulator”, “magnet load simulator”, and “igniter simulator”, and “igniter load simulator”. Is the “heater load simulator”, “magnet load simulator”, and “igniter simulator”, and “igniter load simulator” only software? Is the “heater load simulator”, “magnet load simulator”, and “igniter simulator”, and “igniter load simulator” only hardware? Is the “heater load simulator”, “magnet load simulator”, and “igniter simulator”, and “igniter load simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Without knowing the details of the claimed “heater load simulator”, “magnet load simulator”, and “igniter simulator”, and “igniter load simulator” it would be impossible for a potential infringer to amend around the claimed invention.; (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – it has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)]. Claims 4 and 5 depend from Claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claim 13 depends from Claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 8 and 17 recite “spacecraft control signal simulator … adapted to selectively output control signals to the propulsion unit load simulator, positioner simulator and fuel valve simulator upon connection to the PPU connector and the control unit connector, to provide a self-test for the propulsion unit load simulator, positioner simulator and fuel valve simulator”, see the Claim Interpretation section above. The original written description only disclosed “spacecraft control signal simulator” in Para. [0005] without any additional description. Para. [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Is the “spacecraft control signal simulator” only software? Is the “spacecraft control signal simulator” only hardware? Is the “spacecraft control signal simulator” a combination of software and hardware? When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims spacecraft propulsion unit positioner simulator; (B) the nature of the invention - a spacecraft test apparatus or a spacecraft testing system; (C) the state of the prior art - A text search of the over eleven million references in the USPTO patent database revealed that the PGPub of the instant application was the only hit on the limitation “spacecraft control signal simulator”. Therefore the claim limitation was not a term of art and was unknown to the prior art.; (E) the level of predictability in the art – low predictability in the art since Applicant failed to describe the details of the “propulsion unit fuel valve simulator”; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention. The original written description only disclosed “spacecraft control signal simulator” in Para. [0005] without any additional description. Para. [0005] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. Since the Specification failed to describe the “spacecraft control signal simulator”, a potential infringer has no idea exactly what is the “spacecraft control signal simulator”. Is the “spacecraft control signal simulator” only software? Is the “spacecraft control signal simulator” only hardware? Is the “spacecraft control signal simulator” a combination of software and hardware? Without knowing the details of the claimed “spacecraft control signal simulator” it would be impossible for a potential infringer to amend around the claimed invention.; (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – it has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)].
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 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragrap