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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 8/2/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 8/5/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
2. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
3. Claims 6-12 are 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.
4. Claim 6 recites the limitation "a computer system" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More specifically, it is unclear if the computer system in Claim 6 is the same computer system in Claim 5. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer system in Claim 6 is the same computer in Claim 5. Claims 7-12 have the same limitations as Claim 6 except for their dependencies and are rejected for the same reasoning.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodzeit
(US 6845950 B1), in view of Barnhart (US 20220227503 A1), and in further view of Post
(US 20150284111 A1).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Goodzeit teaches a terrestrial-based system for determining a minimum time transfer for an extraterrestrial vehicle, the terrestrial-based system comprising (Goodzeit: [Column 1, Lines 6-8] and [Column 6, Lines 8-16]):
A memory that stores computer-executable instructions; and a processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Goodzeit: [Column 8, Lines 60-67; Column 9, Lines 1-4]):
Determine an initial guess of a first value of a costate of the extraterrestrial vehicle (Goodzeit: [Column 6, Lines 39-44]);
Determine a second value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in full-state orbit dynamics using the first value of the costate… (Goodzeit: [Column 6, Lines 60-63], [Column 9, Lines 26-23], and [Column 9, Lines 46-57]);
Generate instructions for causing the extraterrestrial vehicle to travel along an optimal transfer in full-state orbit dynamics (Goodzeit: [Column 9, Lines 58-67]);
And cause the extraterrestrial vehicle to adjust trajectory based on the generated instructions (Goodzeit: [Column 10, Lines 20-26]).
Goodzeit fails to explicitly teach to derive an averaged equation of motion for the extraterrestrial vehicle; and determine the first value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in averaged orbit dynamics using the averaged equation of motion, the initial guess, and a single shooting technique.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Barnhart teaches to derive an averaged equation of motion for the extraterrestrial vehicle (Barnhart: [0122]);
And determine the first value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in averaged orbit dynamics using the averaged equation of motion, the initial guess... and determine a second value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in full-state orbit dynamics using the first value of the costate… (Barnhart: [0121], [0122], and [0124]).
Goodzeit and Barnhart are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft trajectory 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 Goodzeit to incorporate the teachings of Barnhart to determine the first value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in the averaged orbit dynamics using the averaged equation of motion because it provides the benefit of seeding the perturbed full-state orbit dynamics for computing the transfer trajectory to maintain the spacecraft in its corridor.
Goodzeit and Barnhart fail to explicitly teach using a single shooting technique.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Post teaches determine a… value of the costate for the minimum time transfer… using… the single shooting technique (Post: [0028]).
Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft trajectory 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 Goodzeit and Barnhart to incorporate the teachings of Post to determine the values of the costate of the minimum time transfer using the single shooting technique because it provides the benefit of an approach for optimizing a trajectory by converging to the final point with minimized maneuvers.
10. Regarding Claim 2, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Barnhart teaches to determine the initial guess of the first value of the costate of the extraterrestrial vehicle as corresponding to trajectory boundary conditions of the extraterrestrial vehicle (Barnhart: [0122] and [0207]).
11. Regarding Claim 3, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Goodzeit teaches to determine the second value of the costate in the full-state orbit dynamics using the first value of the costate and the single shooting technique by applying multivariate root solvers to solve for a set of variables that minimize a set of constraints defined within a constraints vector (Goodzeit: [Column 6, Lines 4-11] and [Column 9, Lines 46-52]).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Goodzeit teaches to generate the instructions for causing the extraterrestrial vehicle to travel along the optimal transfer in the full-state orbit dynamics including a path between an initial position and a final position for the extraterrestrial vehicle to follow, wherein the path corresponds to the extraterrestrial vehicle using minimum time to reach the final position (Goodzeit: [Column 2, Lines 63-67; Column 3, Lines 1-5] and [Column 9, Lines 46-57]).
13. Regarding Claim 5, Goodzeit teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to (Goodzeit: [Column 1, Lines 6-8], [Column 6, Lines 8-16], and [Column 8, Lines 60-67; Column 9, Lines 1-4]):
Determine an initial guess of a first value of a costate of the extraterrestrial vehicle (Goodzeit: [Column 6, Lines 39-44]);
Determine a second value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in full-state orbit dynamics using the first value of the costate… (Goodzeit: [Column 6, Lines 60-63], [Column 9, Lines 26-23], and [Column 9, Lines 46-57]);
Generate instructions for causing the extraterrestrial vehicle to travel along an optimal transfer in full-state orbit dynamics (Goodzeit: [Column 9, Lines 58-67]);
And cause the extraterrestrial vehicle to adjust trajectory based on the generated instructions (Goodzeit: [Column 10, Lines 20-26]).
Goodzeit fails to explicitly teach to derive an averaged equation of motion for the extraterrestrial vehicle; and determine the first value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in averaged orbit dynamics using the averaged equation of motion, the initial guess, and a single shooting technique.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Barnhart teaches to derive an averaged equation of motion for the extraterrestrial vehicle (Barnhart: [0122]);
And determine the first value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in averaged orbit dynamics using the averaged equation of motion, the initial guess... and determine a second value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in full-state orbit dynamics using the first value of the costate… (Barnhart: [0121], [0122], and [0124]).
Goodzeit and Barnhart are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft trajectory 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 Goodzeit to incorporate the teachings of Barnhart to determine the first value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in the averaged orbit dynamics using the averaged equation of motion because it provides the benefit of seeding the perturbed full-state orbit dynamics for computing the transfer trajectory to maintain the spacecraft in its corridor.
Goodzeit and Barnhart fail to explicitly teach using a single shooting technique.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Post teaches determine a… value of the costate for the minimum time transfer… using… the single shooting technique (Post: [0028]).
Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft trajectory 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 Goodzeit and Barnhart to incorporate the teachings of Post to determine the values of the costate of the minimum time transfer using the single shooting technique because it provides the benefit of an approach for optimizing a trajectory by converging to the final point with minimized maneuvers.
14. Regarding Claim 6, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Barnhart teaches to determine the initial guess of the first value of the costate of the extraterrestrial vehicle as corresponding to trajectory boundary conditions of the extraterrestrial vehicle (Barnhart: [0122] and [0207]).
15. Regarding Claim 7, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Goodzeit teaches to determine the second value of the costate in the full-state orbit dynamics using the first value of the costate and the single shooting technique by applying multivariate root solvers to solve for a set of variables that minimize a set of constraints defined within a constraints vector (Goodzeit: [Column 6, Lines 4-11] and [Column 9, Lines 46-52]).
16. Regarding Claim 8, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Goodzeit teaches to generate the instructions for causing the extraterrestrial vehicle to travel along the optimal transfer in the full-state orbit dynamics including a path between an initial position and a final position for the extraterrestrial vehicle to follow, wherein the path corresponds to the extraterrestrial vehicle using minimum time to reach the final position (Goodzeit: [Column 2, Lines 63-67; Column 3, Lines 1-5] and [Column 9, Lines 46-57]).
17. Regarding Claim 9, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Barnhart teaches to determine a time-transfer initial guess for an orbital transfer of the extraterrestrial vehicle when the averaged orbit dynamics derives in response to minimizing time transfer of the extraterrestrial vehicle (Barnhart: [0121] and [0122]).
18. Regarding Claim 10, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Barnhart teaches to determine the first value of the costate in the averaged orbit dynamics by solving a two-point boundary value problem with the averaged equation of motion and the initial guess as inputs, wherein the two-point boundary value problem is solved with the single shooting technique (Barnhart: [0122] and [0124]).
19. Regarding Claim 11, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Barnhart teaches to determine the first value of the costate in the averaged orbit dynamics by solving the two-point boundary value problem with the averaged equation of motion and a user-supplied initial guess as inputs (Barnhart: [0101], [0104], and [0122]).
20. Regarding Claim 12, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Goodzeit teaches to determine a control direction of the extraterrestrial vehicle by propagating the costate with spacecraft states using an augmented state vector (Goodzeit: [Column 9, Lines 26-23] and [Column 9, Lines 46-57]).
21. Regarding Claim 13, Goodzeit teaches a computer-implemented method for determining a trajectory for an extraterrestrial vehicle, the method comprising (Goodzeit: [Column 1, Lines 6-8] and [Column 6, Lines 8-16]):
Determining an initial guess of a first value of a costate of the extraterrestrial vehicle (Goodzeit: [Column 6, Lines 39-44]);
Determining a second value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in full-state orbit dynamics using the first value of the costate… (Goodzeit: [Column 6, Lines 60-63], [Column 9, Lines 26-23], and [Column 9, Lines 46-57]);
Generating instructions for causing the extraterrestrial vehicle to travel along an optimal transfer in full-state orbit dynamics (Goodzeit: [Column 9, Lines 58-67]);
And causing the extraterrestrial vehicle to adjust trajectory based on the generated instructions (Goodzeit: [Column 10, Lines 20-26]).
Goodzeit fails to explicitly teach to deriving an averaged equation of motion for the extraterrestrial vehicle; and determining the first value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in averaged orbit dynamics using the averaged equation of motion, the initial guess, and a single shooting technique.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Barnhart teaches to deriving an averaged equation of motion for the extraterrestrial vehicle (Barnhart: [0122]);
And determining the first value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in averaged orbit dynamics using the averaged equation of motion, the initial guess... and determining a second value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in full-state orbit dynamics using the first value of the costate… (Barnhart: [0121], [0122], and [0124]).
Goodzeit and Barnhart are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft trajectory 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 Goodzeit to incorporate the teachings of Barnhart to determine the first value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in the averaged orbit dynamics using the averaged equation of motion because it provides the benefit of seeding the perturbed full-state orbit dynamics for computing the transfer trajectory to maintain the spacecraft in its corridor.
Goodzeit and Barnhart fail to explicitly teach using a single shooting technique.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Post teaches determining a… value of the costate for the minimum time transfer… using… the single shooting technique (Post: [0028]).
Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of spacecraft trajectory 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 Goodzeit and Barnhart to incorporate the teachings of Post to determine the values of the costate of the minimum time transfer using the single shooting technique because it provides the benefit of an approach for optimizing a trajectory by converging to the final point with minimized maneuvers.
22. Regarding Claim 14, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Barnhart teaches determining the initial guess of the first value of the costate of the extraterrestrial vehicle as corresponding to trajectory boundary conditions of the extraterrestrial vehicle (Barnhart: [0122] and [0207]).
23. Regarding Claim 15, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Goodzeit teaches determining the second value of the costate in the full-state orbit dynamics using the first value of the costate and the single shooting technique by applying multivariate root solvers to solve for a set of variables that minimize a set of constraints defined within a constraints vector (Goodzeit: [Column 6, Lines 4-11] and [Column 9, Lines 46-52]).
24. Regarding Claim 16, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Goodzeit teaches generating the instructions for causing the extraterrestrial vehicle to travel along the optimal transfer in the full-state orbit dynamics including a path between an initial position and a final position for the extraterrestrial vehicle to follow, wherein the path corresponds to the extraterrestrial vehicle using either minimum time or minimum propellant to reach the final position (Goodzeit: [Column 2, Lines 63-67; Column 3, Lines 1-5] and [Column 9, Lines 46-57]).
25. Regarding Claim 17, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Barnhart teaches determining a time-transfer initial guess for an orbital transfer of the extraterrestrial vehicle when the averaged orbit dynamics derives in response to minimizing time transfer of the extraterrestrial vehicle (Barnhart: [0121] and [0122]).
26. Regarding Claim 18, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Barnhart teaches determine the first value of the costate in the averaged orbit dynamics by solving a two-point boundary value problem with the averaged equation of motion and the initial guess as inputs, wherein the two-point boundary value problem is solved with the single shooting technique (Barnhart: [0122] and [0124]).
27. Regarding Claim 19, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 18, and further, Barnhart teaches determining the first value of the costate in the averaged orbit dynamics using the averaged equation of motion, the initial guess, and the single shooting technique by solving the two-point boundary value problem with the averaged equation of motion and a user-supplied initial guess as inputs (Barnhart: [0101], [0104], and [0122]).
28. Regarding Claim 20, Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Post remain as applied above in Claim 13, and further, Goodzeit teaches determining a control direction of the extraterrestrial vehicle by propagating the costate with spacecraft states using an augmented state vector (Goodzeit: [Column 9, Lines 26-23] and [Column 9, Lines 46-57]).
Conclusion
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bolle (US 20130046520 A1)
Goodzeit (US 7246775 B1)
30. 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
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663