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 1-20 are currently pending.
2. Claims 1 and 5-13 are currently amended.
3. The 112(b) rejections to Claim 6-12 have been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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), in view of Dargent (US 20140166814 A1), and in further view of Post (US 20150284111 A1).
8. 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 based in part on a period of an averaged orbit; 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, as explicitly explained in [0125] of Barnhart.
Goodzeit and Barnhart fail to explicitly teach deriving an averaged equation of motion… based in part on a period of an averaged orbit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dargent teaches to derive an averaged equation of motion for the extraterrestrial vehicle based in part on a period of an averaged orbit (Dargent: [0043] and [0044]).
Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Dargent 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 Dargent to derive an averaged equation of motion of the extraterrestrial vehicle based in part on a period of the averaged orbit because it provides the benefit of obtaining a smoother representation of the orbital parameters as opposed to dealing with parameters at an instantaneous state. Dargent explicitly explains these benefits in at least [0043] and [0044].
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, Dargent, 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, Barnhart, and Dargent 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, as explicitly explained in [0028], [0029], and [0032] of Post.
9. Regarding Claim 2, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
10. Regarding Claim 3, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
11. Regarding Claim 4, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
12. 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 based in part on a period of an averaged orbit; 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, as explicitly explained in [0125] of Barnhart.
Goodzeit and Barnhart fail to explicitly teach deriving an averaged equation of motion… based in part on a period of an averaged orbit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dargent teaches to derive an averaged equation of motion for the extraterrestrial vehicle based in part on a period of an averaged orbit (Dargent: [0043] and [0044]).
Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Dargent 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 Dargent to derive an averaged equation of motion of the extraterrestrial vehicle based in part on a period of the averaged orbit because it provides the benefit of obtaining a smoother representation of the orbital parameters as opposed to dealing with parameters at an instantaneous state. Dargent explicitly explains these benefits in at least [0043] and [0044].
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, Dargent, 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, Barnhart, and Dargent 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, as explicitly explained in [0028], [0029], and [0032] of Post.
13. Regarding Claim 6, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
14. Regarding Claim 7, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
15. Regarding Claim 8, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
16. Regarding Claim 9, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
17. Regarding Claim 10, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
18. Regarding Claim 11, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
19. Regarding Claim 12, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
20. 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 based in part on a period of an averaged orbit; 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, as explicitly explained in [0125] of Barnhart.
Goodzeit and Barnhart fail to explicitly teach deriving an averaged equation of motion… based in part on a period of an averaged orbit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dargent teaches to derive an averaged equation of motion for the extraterrestrial vehicle based in part on a period of an averaged orbit (Dargent: [0043] and [0044]).
Goodzeit, Barnhart, and Dargent 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 Dargent to derive an averaged equation of motion of the extraterrestrial vehicle based in part on a period of the averaged orbit because it provides the benefit of obtaining a smoother representation of the orbital parameters as opposed to dealing with parameters at an instantaneous state. Dargent explicitly explains these benefits in at least [0043] and [0044].
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, Dargent, 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, Barnhart, and Dargent 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, as explicitly explained in [0028], [0029], and [0032] of Post.
21. Regarding Claim 14, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
22. Regarding Claim 15, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
23. Regarding Claim 16, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
24. Regarding Claim 17, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
25. Regarding Claim 18, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
26. Regarding Claim 19, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
27. Regarding Claim 20, Goodzeit, Barnhart, Dargent, 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]).
Response to Arguments
28. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Dargent (US 20140166814 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of deriving an averaged equation of motion for the extraterrestrial vehicle based in part of a period of an averaged orbit in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0043] and [0044]. Dargent teaches to average the state of the spacecraft with a formula including the period because it obtains a smoother representation of the orbital parameters.
29. Goodzeit (US 6845950 B1), in view of Barnhart (US 20220227503 A1), in view of Dargent (US 20140166814 A1), and in further view of Post (US 20150284111 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.
30. Claims 1-20 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
31. 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.
32. 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
Prosecution Insights