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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 05/18/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claim 13 has been amended, and no claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-13, filed 05/18/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the double patenting rejections, the remarks did not provide persuasive arguments against the rejections. The co-pending applications were reviewed and the language does not appear to significantly differentiate between distinct inventions. Therefore, the rejections under double patenting are maintained.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the interview and further research found the rejected terms to be terms of the art and not indefinite. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the combination of an initial guess of a costate being used to solve for a first value in that costate in averaged dynamics and that value being used to solve for a second value of the same costate in a full-state, while using single-shooting method. Further search and consideration did not find art that taught all of the limitations or any combination of art that would be obvious without hindsight. Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 13 of U.S. Applications 18/793,695 (Notice of Allowance sent 07/18/2026), 18/793,696, and 18/793,700 (Notice of Allowance sent 04/30/2026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the instant claims recite elements that are obvious variants of the co-pending applications, there are no new or improved elements other that some of the patentably indistinct variations. The claims deviate only by the optimization of time vs propellant and the where the computing occurs these variations are represented by common drawings and are comingled in scope.
Claims 2-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are dependent on the independent claims and are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being substantial duplicates of the claims 2-4, 6-12, and 14-20 of U.S. Applications 18/793,695, 18/793,696, and 18/793,700.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under double patenting, but would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer was formally filed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art found at this time, taken alone or in combination, teach all the limitations in the claims. The examiner could find no motivation to combine references to read on all the limitations without improper hindsight.
The following references are the most relevant prior art and are representative of the current state of the art:
Taheri et al. (Enhanced Smoothing Technique for Indirect Optimization of Minimum-Fuel Low-Thrust Trajectories) discloses extended logarithmic-smoothing technique integrated with an indirect method to efficiently generate minimum-fuel time-fixed low-thrust rendezvous trajectories. It does not explicitly disclose using averaging dynamics, or the costate solution from the smoothed dynamics being using in non-smoothed dynamics.
Dargent (US 2014/0166814 A1) discloses averaging dynamics as a parameter of the average state over one orbit instead of dealing with parameters of instantaneous state, making it possible to obtain a smoother representation of the orbital parameters. It does not explicitly disclose using an initial guess of a costate used to calculate a value in or out of the averaged dynamics, or the costate solution from the averaged dynamics being using in full state dynamics.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights