DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
2. Claim 13 is new.
3. Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-8 are currently amended.
4. The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections to Claim 1-12 have been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staley (US 20020040950 A1) in view of Schilling (US 20190389602 A1).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Staley teaches a device for controlling the angular velocity of an out-of-service spacecraft making it possible to facilitate the operations of active removal of the spacecraft as space debris (Staley: [0003] and [0098]),
Comprising a stator and a rotor able to move on a rotation axis with respect to the stator (Staley: [0037], [0100], and [0120]),
Wherein the stator is configured to be driven by the spacecraft to be stabilized (Staley: [0120]),
Wherein the rotor is configured to orient itself… (Staley: [0101]),
And wherein the stator comprises an electrically conductive non- ferromagnetic body while the rotor comprises a magnetized system configured to induce, in the stator, eddy currents for braking a relative movement of the rotor with respect to the stator (Staley: [0099] and [0101]).
Staley fails to explicitly teach wherein the rotor is configured to orient itself along a terrestrial magnetic field.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schilling teaches wherein the rotor is configured to orient itself along a terrestrial magnetic field (Schilling: [0034] Note that using the reaction wheel for attitude alignment in an axis direction is equivalent to the rotor orienting itself.).
Staley and Schilling are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Staley to incorporate the teachings of Schilling to orient the rotor along the terrestrial magnetic field because it provides the benefit of achieving satellite attitude control with fast reaction and minimum energy consumption. Staley explains that the goal is to point the satellite at the earth. However, Schilling explains that it is advantageous to align the magnetic coils of the rotor with the earth's magnetic field to enable a rotation of the attitude.
10. Regarding Claim 2, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Staley teaches wherein the rotor is guided in at least one housing in the stator, the rotor comprising at least one magnet cooperating with at least one counter-magnet disposed in said housing in the stator, so as to cause a magnetic levitation of the rotor with respect to the stator when the attitude control device is in microgravity and also when the attitude control device is in terrestrial gravity (Staley: [0099] and [0101]).
11. Regarding Claim 3, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Staley teaches means for maintaining respective magnetized zones of the stator and of the rotor at a distance, wherein the means for maintaining respective magnetic zones is arranged to withstand forces at takeoff and at jettison, and wherein the means for maintaining respective magnetized zones comprises at least one ring of the rotor and a shoulder of the stator (Staley: [0101], [0116], and [0191]).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Staley teaches said the ring is configured to cooperate with said the shoulder disposed at a distance and facing said ring in an axial direction and in a radial direction, said shoulder being disposed so as to guarantee a minimum distance between the respective magnetized zones of the stator and of the rotor (Staley: [0101] and [0116]).
13. Regarding Claim 5, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Staley teaches wherein the rotor comprises parts constituting a pivot axis and a flexible diaphragm, said ring of the rotor being mechanically connected to the pivot axis by the diaphragm (Staley: [0107]).
14. Regarding Claim 6, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Schilling teaches wherein the magnetized system comprises a plurality of braking magnets disposed along a plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of the rotor (Schilling: [0034]).
15. Regarding Claim 7, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Schilling teaches wherein magnetic moments of the braking magnets are added together in a non-zero component in said plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of the rotor so that the braking magnets also enable the rotor to be oriented along the terrestrial magnetic field (Schilling: [0034]).
16. Regarding Claim 8, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Schilling teaches wherein the magnetic moments of several of the braking magnets are perpendicular to said plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of the rotor, so that their magnetic field passes through said plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of the rotor to induce eddy currents in at least two zones of the stator body located facing on either side of said plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of the rotor (Schilling: [0034]).
17. Regarding Claim 9, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Staley teaches wherein the magnetic moments of several of the braking magnets form an oblique angle with respect to said plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of the rotor (Staley: [0017] and [0099]).
18. Regarding Claim 10, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Staley teaches a spacecraft comprising at least one angular- velocity control device according to Claim 1 (Staley: [0003] and [0098]).
19. Regarding Claim 11, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Staley teaches means for controlling attitude on three axes adapted to stabilize the attitude of the spacecraft in activity, said angular-velocity control device acting simultaneously on the means for controlling the attitude of the spacecraft in activity and exerting a negligible action with respect to these means for controlling the attitude of the spacecraft in activity (Staley: [0005], [0101], and [0168]).
20. Regarding Claim 12, Staley and Schilling remains as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Staley teaches wherein said angular-velocity control device is arranged so that the rotation axis of the rotor forms an angle of less than or equal to 45o with a greatest-inertia axis of the spacecraft, so that the out-of-service spacecraft tends towards a rotation movement about this greatest-inertia axis (Staley: [0017] and [0099]).
21. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staley (US 20020040950 A1), in view of Schilling (US 20190389602 A1), and in further view of Abbasi (US 20200255165 A1).
22. Regarding Claim 13, Staley teaches a device for controlling the angular velocity of an out-of-service spacecraft making it possible to facilitate the operations of active removal of the spacecraft as space debris (Staley: [0003] and [0098]),
Comprising a stator and a rotor able to move on a rotation axis with respect to the stator (Staley: [0037], [0100], and [0120]),
Wherein the stator is configured to be driven by the spacecraft to be stabilized (Staley: [0120]),
Wherein the rotor is configured to orient itself… (Staley: [0101]),
And wherein the stator comprises an electrically conductive non- ferromagnetic body while the rotor comprises a magnetized system configured to induce, in the stator, eddy currents for braking a relative movement of the rotor with respect to the stator (Staley: [0099] and [0101]).
Staley fails to explicitly teach wherein the rotor is configured to orient itself along a terrestrial magnetic field.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schilling teaches wherein the rotor is configured to orient itself along a terrestrial magnetic field (Schilling: [0034] Note that using the reaction wheel for attitude alignment in an axis direction is equivalent to the rotor orienting itself.).
Staley and Schilling are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Staley to incorporate the teachings of Schilling to orient the rotor along the terrestrial magnetic field because it provides the benefit of achieving satellite attitude control with fast reaction and minimum energy consumption. Staley explains that the goal is to point the satellite at the earth. However, Schilling explains that it is advantageous to align the magnetic coils of the rotor with the earth's magnetic field to enable a rotation of the attitude.
Staley and Schilling fail to teach the magnetized system further comprises a magnetic-moment bias provided by an asymmetric arrangement of polarities of the braking magnets or by dedicated orientation magnets to provide a compass function that maintains the rotor orientation in the terrestrial magnetic field in the absence of an on-board energy source.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Abbasi teaches the magnetized system further comprises a magnetic-moment bias provided by an asymmetric arrangement of polarities of the braking magnets or by dedicated orientation magnets to provide a compass function that maintains the rotor orientation in the terrestrial magnetic field in the absence of an on-board energy source (Abbasi: [0004] and [0011]).
Staley, Schilling, and Abbasi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of satellite control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Staley and Schilling to incorporate the teachings of Abbasi to maintain the rotor orientation in the terrestrial magnetic field in the absence of an onboard energy source by providing an asymmetric arrangement of polarities of the braking magnets because it provides the benefit of controlling the attitude of the spacecraft based on the rotor. Abbasi explains in [0073] that the spacecraft improves on other designs because it can control the attitude and maintain the orientation without energy demanding components.
Response to Arguments
23. Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
24. First, the Applicant has alleged that "the Section 103 rejection of Claim 1 is respectfully traversed" and "Schilling is a satellite-level magnetorquer control, not a device rotor that 'orients itself.'" The Examiner disagrees.
Schilling teaches in [0034] that the reaction wheel is used for attitude alignment in an axis direction. It is also explained that the satellite is aligned along the Earth's magnetic field. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this is equivalent to the rotor (reaction wheel) orienting itself along a terrestrial magnetic field. The Applicant may further clarify how the rotor orients itself in order to overcome Schilling.
25. Second, the Applicant has alleged "Staley teaches away from using the Earth's field by shielding the rotor and minimizing external flux. That is, Staley's rotor is expressly designed to avoid torques from external magnetic fields..." and "the above-noted features are the opposite of a design that relies on Earth's magnetic field to bias the rotor." The Examiner disagrees.
It appears that the applicant is arguing the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As was specifically stated in the Nonfinal Office Action mailed 9/4/2025, Staley was only used to disclose a stator comprises electrically conductive non-ferromagnetic body and a rotor to induce eddy currents for braking a relative movement of rotor. Schilling was used to teach to orient the rotor along a terrestrial magnetic field. Thus, Staley still teaches the features for which it was cited.
Further, the Examiner relied upon the Applicant's specification to understand the invention. In [0070] of the present specification, it is explained that the forces and torques acting on the rotor are small and there is no claim language that indicates the forces and torques cannot be minimized. As similarly taught in Staley, the rotor is designed to minimize torques. Although Staley does not explicitly teach orienting itself along a terrestrial magnetic field, Schilling has been applied to teach this for attitude control while aligned with the Earth.
26. Third, the Applicant has alleged "the proposed combination requires replacing Staley's active rotor actuation with Schilling's powered bus coils, whereas Claim 1 recite a passive eddy-current device" and "Staley's rotor is moved by a torque-generation device... by contrast, Application respectfully submits that Schilling's attitude actuation relies on powered coils." The Examiner disagrees.
It appears that the Applicant is reading the limitations of the claim narrower than they actually read. There is no indication in the claim language that the rotor orients itself passively or that the eddy currents are induced passively. As a result, Staley in view of Schilling teach the claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Also, note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that coils in Schilling generate torque, and is therefore a torque generation device as taught in Staley. Staley teaches in at least [0099] and [0101] to induce eddy currents for braking a relative movement of the rotor.
27. Fourth, the Applicant has alleged that they "disagree with the mapping of the 'rotor configured to orient itself along the terrestrial magnetic field' to the disclosed features in paragraph [0034] of Schilling" and "Schilling actually teaches that the power coils align the small satellite 'along the Earth's magnetic field,' not that any rotor in a device or subassembly 'orients itself.'" The Examiner disagrees.
Schilling teaches in [0034] that the reaction wheel is used for attitude alignment in an axis direction. It is also explained that the satellite is aligned along the Earth's magnetic field. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this is equivalent to the rotor (reaction wheel) orienting itself along a terrestrial magnetic field.
28. Fifth, the Applicant has alleged "the proposed combination is, therefore, not a simple substitution but a redesign that undermines Staley's core teaching" and "there are no motivation and reasonable expectation of success by the combination... Nothing in Staley suggests replacing or re-purposing its shielded, low-leakage rotor with a rotor that must interact with the Earth's field as in Schilling." The Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Staley explains that the goal is to point the satellite at the earth. However, Schilling explains that it is advantageous to align the magnetic coils of the rotor with the earth's magnetic field to enable a rotation of the attitude.
29. Sixth, the Applicant has alleged "Schilling... teaches only the magnetic field coils for bus-level attitude control, and does not teach or disclose braking magnets arranged in the claimed planes or eddy-current braking in a stator." The Examiner disagrees.
Schilling teaches in at least [0034] that the magnet coils are at 90 degrees for attitude control. These magnetic coils are equivalent to the braking magnets disposed on a plane perpendicular to the rotation of the axis of the rotor.
30. Seventh, the Applicant has alleged "Staley and Schilling does not teach or disclose 'wherein the magnetized system further comprises a magnetic-moment bias provided by an asymmetric arrangement of polarities of the braking magnets or by dedicated orientation magnets to provide a compass function that maintains the rotor orientation in the terrestrial magnetic field in the absence of an on-board energy source.’ This argument is moot because Abbasi (US 20200255165 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of maintaining the rotor orientation in the terrestrial magnetic field in the absence of an on-board energy source in at least [0004] and [0011]. Abbasi explains in that the spacecraft improves on other designs because it can control the attitude and maintain the orientation without energy demanding components.
31. Staley (US 20020040950 A1), in view of Schilling (US 20190389602 A1), and in further view of Abbasi (US 20200255165 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
32. Claims 1-13 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
33. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663