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 Amendments
The amendment filed November 11th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 11th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 15, “…wherein the heat pipe…” should read “…wherein the at least one heat pipe…” for the purpose of consistency.
In claim 1 lines 15-16, “…the first panel and the second panel…..the second panel and the third panel.” should read “…the first radiator panel and the second radiator panel…..the second radiator panel and the third radiator panel.” for the purpose of consistency in the use of the limitation.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 depends on cancelled claim 3. For the purpose of examination claim 5 is considered to depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodzeit et al. (US 2013/0200221) in view of Smith et al. (US 2016/0305714).
Regarding claim 1, Goodzeit et al. ‘221 teaches (figures 1-5) a satellite/spacecraft (100) comprising:
a first radiator panel (160A) on a first side of a central body of the satellite/spacecraft (100) (clearly seen in figure 4A) (Para 0034);
a second radiator panel (170A) on a second side of the central body of the satellite/spacecraft (100) (clearly seen in figure 4A) (Para 0034);
at least one heat pipe (210) having at least a first portion embedded between a first face and a second face of the first radiator panel, and having at least a second portion embedded between a first face and a second face of the second radiator panel (clearly seen in figures 4A-5), and having at least a third exposed portion/flexible section (220) non-abuttingly connecting and positioned between the first radiator panel and the second radiator panel when coupled to the satellite, the at least one heat pipe structurally supporting the first radiator panel relative to the second radiator panel without an external panel support structure (clearly seen in figure 5) (Para 0034-0035), and
a third radiator panel (150A) positioned on a third side of the central body of the satellite/spacecraft (100) (clearly seen in figure 4A), wherein the second radiator panel (170A) is an intermediate radiator panel between the first (160A) and third (150A) radiator panels, the second radiator panel (170A) and the third radiator panel are non-abutting and wherein a first heat pipe (210) of the at least one heat pipe is bent along a first bend axis between the first panel (160A) and the second panel (170A), and a second heat pipe (210) of the at least one heat pipe is bent along a second bend axis between the second panel (170A) and the third panel (150A) (clearly seen in figure 4A; heat pipe connecting first and second panels bents at first bend axis between the first and second panels, and heat pipe connecting second and third panels bents at second bend axis between the second and third panels) (Para 0034-0035)
but it is silent about the satellite wherein the at least on heat pipe is at least one continuous heat pipe extending between the first, second and third radiator panels.
Smith et al. ‘714 teaches (figures 1-10) the satellite including a first radiator panel (104) on a first side of the satellite, a second radiator panel (108) on a second side of the satellite and a third radiator panel (106) on a third side of the satellite (100) (clearly seen in figure 1), wherein the second radiator panel (108) is an intermediate radiator panel between the first (104) and third (106) radiator panels, and wherein the at least on heat pipe (370) is at least one continuous heat pipe extending between the first, second and third radiator panels (clearly seen in figure 3) (Para 0028-0030, 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goodzeit et al. ‘221 to incorporate the teachings of Smith et al. ‘714 to configure the satellite wherein the at least on heat pipe is at least one continuous heat pipe extending between the first, second and third radiator panel.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance structural support provided by at least one heat pipe.
Regarding claim 2, modified Goodzeit et al. ‘221 teaches (figures 1-5) the satellite/spacecraft (100) wherein the first radiator panel (160A) and the second radiator panel (170A) are planar and are arranged at an angle relative to each other, the angle formed by a portion of the at least one heat pipe (210) between the first radiator panel (160A) and the second radiator panel (170A) (clearly seen in figure 4A) (Para 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 4, modified Goodzeit et al. ‘221 teaches (figures 1-5) the satellite/spacecraft (100) wherein the at least one heat pipe (210) comprises at least a first heat pipe (210) extending from the first radiator panel (160A) into the second radiator panel (170A), and at least a second heat pipe (210) extending from the second radiator panel (170A) into the third radiator panel (150A) (clearly seen in figure 5) (as modified by Smith et al. ‘714; multiple heat pipes (210s) passes through first, second and third radiator panels).
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), modified Goodzeit et al. ‘221 teaches (figures 1-5) the satellite/spacecraft (100) wherein the at least one heat pipe (210) comprises a plurality of continuous heat pipes (210s) extending between and embedded in the first, second and third radiator panels (clearly seen in figure 5) (as modified by Smith et al. ‘714; multiple heat pipes (210s) passes through first, second and third radiator panels).
Regarding claim 7, modified Goodzeit et al. ‘221 teaches (figures 1-5) the satellite/spacecraft (100) wherein the at least one heat pipe (210) is at least one continuous heat pipe and includes a first exposed portion (220) between the non-abutting first radiator panel and the second radiator panel, and a fourth exposed portion (220) between the second radiator panel and a non-abutting third radiator panel (clearly seen in figures 4A-5) (as modified by Smith et al. ‘714).
Regarding claim 9, Goodzeit et al. ‘221 teaches (figures 1-5) the satellite/spacecraft (100) wherein the angle formed by a portion of the at least one heat pipe (210) is in a range of 10-170 degrees (clearly seen in figure 4A; angle between the first and second radiator panels is ~90 degrees (approx.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument with respect to “flexible portion” of Goodzeit et al. ‘221, see pages 6-7, are irrelevant as the claim limitation doesn’t recite “flexible portion”. Moreover, Goodzeit et al. ‘221 is flexible in a sense that it can be bent which is similar to the bending of the heat pipes of the current application.
In response to applicant's argument with respect to the combination of Goodzeit et al. ‘221 and Smith et al. ‘714, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Also, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that having a single heat pipe extending through all three radiator panels instead of two separate heat pipes connecting first and second radiator panels and second and third radiator panels respectively enhances the structural integrity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights