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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/1/2026 has been entered.
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 incorporate limitations from claims 2 and 3 reference Schilling is looked to concerning the limitations of “disengagement controller comprises a bulk capacitor.”
Concerning the limitation “the driver circuit is configured to discharge an electric charge held within the bulk capacitor through the plurality of disengagement coils simultaneously” newly found reference Welle is looked to.
Concerning the limitation “each disengagement coil provides a repulsive force between the satellite and an adjacent satellite in a different translational degree of freedom” Denham is looked to. As seen in Fig. 6 the flow arrow indicates the presence of magnetic coupling on sides of the satellites. These sides providing faces through which translational degrees of freedom present.
Concerning the limitation “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 is looked to. As seen in Figure 6, at least a central satellite of the satellite lattice has flow arrows and thus magnetic couplings along mutually perpendicular sides.
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 1, 4, 6, 20, 21 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. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 1 and 20 recite the limitation “such that each disengagement coil provides a repulsive force between the satellite and an adjacent satellite in a different translational degree of freedom”. Does this mean the translation degrees of freedom are oriented from different faces of the satellite? Or different directions from a single face of the satellite?
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 1, 4, 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denham (US 20190385774) in views of Schilling (US 11104456) in view of Welle (US 20220033111).
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),
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),
such that each disengagement coil provides a repulsive force between the satellite and an adjacent satellite in a different translational degree of freedom (Denham [0039] discloses “satellite lattice” and magnetic couplers between satellites, arrows indicate heat movement and presence of magnetic coupling on 3 perpendicular sides of at least the central satellite, the 3 sides each representing a face for a translation degree of freedom), and
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 or vice versa”),
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 plurality of disengagement coils simultaneously to induce a magnetic field in the plurality of 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").
Denham does not expressly disclose: the driver circuit is configured to discharge an electric charge held within the bulk capacitor through the plurality of disengagement coils simultaneously.
Welle teaches the simultaneous release of adjacent satellites ([0100] “latch 1342 operated as instructed, thereby simultaneously releasing the connection between satellites 1330 and 1340 and the connection between satellites 1340 and 1324”)
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 Welle by providing the means for the driver circuit to discharge an electric charge held within the bulk capacitor through the plurality of disengagement coils simultaneously in order to more quickly release the satellites.
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 (Denham 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-15, 18, 19, 22-27 allowed.
Claim 1, 4, 6, 20, 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights