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
The 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 7, 10, 20 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as used in the current rejection.
In response to amendments of claim 1, which detail three disengagement coils on a different side of the satellite, and the three sides of the satellite are mutually perpendicular and configured to face respective sides of adjacent satellites, reference Denham is looked to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Denham (US 20190385774).
In regards to claim 1, Denham discloses a satellite ([0044] discloses satellites) for inclusion in a satellite assembly comprising a plurality of satellites for deployment in space, to orbit a given planet with a gaseous atmosphere,
the satellite comprising a satellite disengagement mechanism configured to separate the satellite from one or more adjacent satellites of the satellite assembly (abstract “An electromagnetic mooring system (MMS) that includes a first object and a second object”, [0044] “This tri-state device may then reject (or push) an adjacent satellite, essentially launching the adjacent satellite”),
wherein the satellite disengagement mechanism comprises
wherein each of the three disengagement coils is disposed on a different side of the satellite (Denham as seen at least in Fig. 9), and
wherein the three sides of the satellite are mutually perpendicular and configured to face respective sides of adjacent satellites during a launch of the satellite assembly and prior to the separation of the satellite from the adjacent satellites (Denham Fig. 6 and 9, [0039] disclose use of magnetic couplers to transfer heat, arrows indicate heat movement and presence of magnetic coupling on 3 perpendicular sides).
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.
Claim 2-4, 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denham in views of Schilling (US 11104456).
In regards to claim 2, Denham discloses the satellite of claim 1,
wherein the satellite disengagement mechanism further comprises a disengagement controller (Denham [0022] “an electronic processor may be used to switch the magnetic coupler from an OFF state to an ON state”),
Denham does not expressly disclose: wherein the disengagement controller comprises a bulk capacitor,
Schilling teaches a capacitor/accumulator for use in a satellite using magnetic field generating coils (C12:5 “additionally inside an energy storage is arranged, for example as rechargeable accumulator”),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Denham with Schilling by providing a capacitor/accumulator for use in a satellite using magnetic field generating coils as these devices are well known in the art for space satellites.
Denham as combined further discloses:
a driver circuit configured to discharge an electric charge held within the bulk capacitor through the one or more disengagement coils to induce a magnetic field in the one or more disengagement coils (Denham [0021], [0022] “The state change is accomplished by applying a pulse of current through a coil in the direction that causes an external magnetic field that permanently switches the magnetic polarity”).
In regards to claim 3, Denham as combined discloses the satellite of claim 2,
wherein the one or more disengagement coils comprises a plurality of disengagement coils (Denham [0021] discloses the couplers use of coils “the magnetic coupler uses a reversible coil”, Schilling C15:65 discloses a plurality of disengagement coils ref. 38 within satellite), and wherein the driver circuit is configured to discharge the electric charge held within the bulk capacitor through the plurality of disengagement coils simultaneously (Denham it would have been obvious to activate the disengagement coils simultaneously in order to release the satellite from al surrounding structures).
In regards to claim 4, Denham as combined discloses the satellite of claim 3, further comprising at least one connection pin configured to provide an electrical connection between the satellite and the one or more adjacent satellites (Fig. 8 ref. 806, [0047] discloses electrical connection via pin),
In regards to claim 6, Denham discloses the satellite of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein one or more of the disengagement coils is configured to contribute to attitude control of the satellite using magnetic torque.
Schilling teaches a magnet coil for a satellite used in attitude adjustment ([0034] “…magnetorquer device for the combined attitude control in any direction”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Denham with Schilling by providing one or more of the disengagement coils is configured to contribute to attitude control of the satellite using magnetic torque in order to adjust the satellite by using a minimum amount of power.
Claim 7, 8, 9, 10, 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossettini et al (US 20200299004) in view of Uzo-Okoro et al (US 20220144460).
In regards to claim 7, Rossettini discloses a satellite assembly comprising:
one or more clusters of satellites (abstract, seen in Figs. 3, 6),
Rossettini does not expressly disclose: each cluster of satellites comprising a plurality of satellites arranged in a 1 U satellite frame and physically connected together,
Uzo-Okoro teaches transporting a cluster of satellites within a satellite frame (Fig. 11B refs. 1120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rossettini with Uzo-Okoro by providing each cluster of satellites comprising a plurality of satellites arranged in a 1 U satellite frame and physically connected together in order to transport a great number of satellites within a satellite dispensing system.
Rossettinin as combined further discloses:
wherein each cluster of satellites is configured such that satellites of the plurality of satellites separate from each other sequentially such that they are no longer physically connected (Rossettini abstract “releasing said orbital transport spacecraft at orbital height, when said space launcher reaches orbital height, by imparting a separation thrust to said orbital transport spacecraft, releasing satellites in sequence from the cargo area”).
In regards to claim 8, Rossettini discloses the satellite assembly of claim 7, wherein each cluster comprises eight or more satellites (Rossettini seen at least in Fig. 6).
In regards to claim 9, Rossettini discloses the satellite assembly of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose: wherein each cluster comprises a two-by-two-by-two array of satellites. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rossettini by providing each cluster comprises a two-by-two-by-two array of satellites in order to fit CubeSats of a chosen size within the deployer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regards to claim 10, Rossettini discloses the satellite assembly of claim 7, wherein the satellite assembly comprises a plurality of clusters (Rossettini discloses a number of cubesats in a cluster, Fig. 6 at least, of which, half can be released, while the other half remains in the canister), and wherein the satellite assembly is configured such that clusters of the plurality of clusters separate from each other sequentially (Rossettini Fig. 8 release pf satellites from cluster).
In regards to claim 22, Rossettini discloses a method of deploying satellites from a satellite assembly according to claim 7, the method comprising: disposing the satellite assembly inside a launch vehicle (Rossettini Fig. 1 discloses launch vehicle ref. 102); controlling the launch vehicle to deploy the satellite assembly into an initial orbit (Rossettini abstract); and controlling the satellite assembly to separate satellites from the satellite assembly in a sequence (Rossettini abstract “releasing satellites in sequence from the cargo area”).
Claim 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossettini, Uzo-Okoro as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Denham et al (20190385774).
In regards to claim 11, Rossettini as combined discloses the satellite assembly of claim 7, but does not expressly disclose: wherein each satellite comprises a plurality of guide pins and guide holes,
Denham teaches male female connector for adjacent satellites, Fig. 8 ref. 800.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rossettini with Denham by providing each satellite comprises a plurality of guide pins and guide holes in order to align each satellite during loading and after launch.
Rossettini as combined further discloses:
wherein the guide pins of each satellite are configured to insert into corresponding guide holes of one or more adjacent satellites (as seen in Fig. 8 of Denham), to align the satellite relative to the one or more adjacent satellites (intended use, as seen in Fig. 8 of Denham alignment necessary for insertion).
In regards to claim 12, Rossettini as combined discloses the satellite assembly of claim 11, wherein the one or more clusters comprises a plurality of clusters (Rossettini Fig. 3, 6), Rossettini does not expressly disclose: wherein the one or more adjacent satellites comprises at least one satellite in an adjacent cluster.
Denham teaches adjacent satellites connected, Fig. 6, Fig. 9, lower satellite in cluster on left connected to adjacent satellite on right.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rossettini with Denham by providing the one or more adjacent satellites comprises at least one satellite in an adjacent cluster in order to allow a greater number of a chosen size satellites in the cluster.
In regards to claim 13, Rossettini as combined discloses the satellite assembly of claim 11, wherein one or more of the plurality of guide pins are configured to provide an electrical connection between the satellite and the adjacent satellite (Denham [0047] “data is transmitted over the connection in a traditional serial protocol or as using a data over power method”).
In regards to claim 14, Rossettini as combined discloses the satellite assembly of claim 7, but does not expressly disclose: wherein each satellite comprises at least one connection pin configured to provide an electrical connection between the satellite and an adjacent satellite.
Denham teaches male female connector for adjacent satellites which provides an electrical connection, [0047] “in some embodiments, data is transmitted over the connection in a traditional serial protocol or as using a data over power method”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rossettini with Denham by providing each satellite comprises at least one connection pin configured to provide an electrical connection between the satellite and an adjacent satellite in order to data or power to be transmitted to adjacent satellites.
In regards to claim 15, Rossettini as combined discloses the satellite assembly of claim 14, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the at least one connection pin is a spring-loaded pin. However, it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute the mating pin arrangement of Rossettini as combined not spring loaded in order to ensure the pin mates with the receptacle by extending fully, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
In regards to claim 16, Rossettini discloses the satellite assembly of claim 7, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising a satellite disengagement system configured to separate one or more satellites from a remaining one or more satellites of the satellite assembly.
Denham teaches a satellite disengagement system (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rossettini with Denham by providing a satellite disengagement system configured to separate one or more satellites from a remaining one or more satellites of the satellite assembly in order to release the satellites at a given time.
In regards to claim 17, Rossettini discloses the satellite assembly claim 16, wherein the satellite assembly comprises a plurality of clusters (Rossettini Fig. 2), and wherein the satellite disengagement system is configured to separate one or more clusters from a remaining one or more clusters of the satellite assembly (Rossettini Fig. 2, in releasing satellites from adjacent chambers, the disengagement system separates satellites from one another, note the satellites are not disclosed as directly attached).
In regards to claim 18, Rossettini discloses the satellite assembly of claim 17, but does not expressly disclose: wherein each cluster comprises two half-clusters, and wherein the satellite disengagement system is configured to separate one of the two half-clusters from the other of the two half-clusters. As read, a cluster may be a single stack within a dispenser.
Rossettini teaches a number of cubesats in a cluster, Fig. 6 at least, of which, half can be released, while the other half remains in the canister.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rossettini by providing each cluster comprises two half-clusters, and wherein the satellite disengagement system is configured to separate one of the two half-clusters from the other of the two half-clusters in order to release the satellites at a desired point for increased coverage.
In regards to claim 19, Rossettini as combined discloses the satellite assembly of claim 18, wherein each half-cluster comprises two quarter-clusters, and wherein the satellite disengagement system is configured to separate one of the two quarter-clusters from the other of the two quarter-clusters (Rossettini teaches a number of cubesats in a cluster, Fig. 6 at least, of which, one can be released, while the others remain in the canister).
Claim 23-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossettini, Uzo-Okoro as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hope et al (8437892).
In regards to claim 23, Rossettini discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the sequence includes separating satellites from the at least one cluster such that a separated sub-cluster of satellites is separated from a remaining sub-cluster (Rossettini teaches a number of cubesats in a cluster, Fig. 6 at least, of which, half can be released, while the other half remains in the canister).
Rossettini does not expressly disclose: wherein the attitude of the separated sub-cluster is adjusted to increase an amount of differential drag between the separated sub-cluster and the remaining sub-cluster.
Hope teaches “Formation establishment and maintenance will be accomplished solely by varying the cross-sectional area of the spacecraft in the direction of motion in order to induce differential drag” C6:38, “At other times, the attitude of the spacecraft is adjusted to increase or decrease the projected area in a desired direction”C2:32.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Rossettini with Hope by providing the attitude of the separated sub-cluster is adjusted to increase an amount of differential drag between the separated sub-cluster and the remaining sub-cluster in order to maintain formation.
In regards to claim 24, Rossettini as combined discloses the method of claim 23, further comprising selecting which of the plurality of satellites are included in the sub-cluster based on an estimated differential drag of the separated sub-cluster (Hope C7:21 “During primary formation establishment and nominal operations in formation maintenance, control is performed relative to the anchor spacecraft, defined as the spacecraft with the highest mean velocity”).
In regards to claim 25, Rossettini as combined discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the sequence includes sequentially separating satellites from the separated sub-cluster until each satellite has been separated (Bagdanov [0024] “The satellite can thus be released precisely at a desire time by the fixing apparatus”).
In regards to claim 26, Rossettini as combined discloses the method of claim 25, further comprising setting the separated satellites into different altitudes and orbital planes using differential drag and/or differential nodal precession and/or differential lift (Hope C10:15 “In the secondary formation mode, differential drag is used to redistribute the formation” thus changing orbital plane and altitude).
In regards to claim 27, Rossettini as combined discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the sequence includes separating satellites from the at least one cluster such that a separated sub-cluster of satellites is separated from a remaining sub-cluster (Rossettini teaches a number of cubesats in a cluster, Fig. 6 at least, of which, half can be released, while the other half remains in the canister, Rossettini as combined capanble or performing the claimed limitation, MPEP 2112.01), wherein the attitude of the separated sub-cluster is adjusted to increase an amount of differential lift between the separated sub-cluster and the remaining sub-cluster (Hope C10:11 “differential drag is used to counteract perturbing forces that would tend to alter the desired inter-satellite separation”).
Claim 20, 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denham in view of Rossettini.
In regards to claim 20, Denham discloses a satellite assembly comprising one or more clusters of satellites (Figs. 6, 9),
While Denham discloses each cluster of satellites comprising a plurality of satellites and physically connected together (Denham Figs. 6 and 9, physically conned by way of electromagnetic coupling), Denham does not expressly disclose: each cluster of satellites arranged in a 1 U satellite frame,
Rossettini teaches 1U satellite frame (seen in Figs. 3 and 4) and clusters of satellites to fit within a satellite deploying frame (Fig. 6 refs. 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Denham with Rossettini by providing each cluster of satellites arranged in a 1U satellite frame in order to carry a greater number and size of satellites to orbit.
Denham as combined further discloses:
wherein each cluster of satellites is configured such that satellites of the plurality of satellites separate from each other sequentially such that they are no longer physically connected (Rossettini abstract “releasing satellites in sequence from the cargo area”), wherein at least one of the satellites comprises a satellite disengagement mechanism configured to separate the satellite from one or more adjacent satellites of the satellite assembly (Denham abstract MMS system), wherein the satellite disengagement mechanism comprises
In regards to claim 21, Denham as combined further discloses the satellite assembly of claim 20, wherein the satellites include a first satellite comprising a first disengagement coil and a second satellite comprising a second disengagement coil (Denham as seen in Fig. 9), wherein the first disengagement coil is disposed on a first side of the first satellite (Denham as seen in Fig. 9), wherein the second disengagement coil is disposed on a second side of the second satellite, and wherein, prior to separation, the first side and the second side face each other (Denham as seen in Fig. 9, refs. 902, 904).
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 VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MEDHAT BADAWI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642