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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “method for determining a trajectory for an vehicle” should be “method for determining a trajectory for a vehicle.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 terms “averaged orbit dynamics” and “full-state orbit dynamics” do not appear to be defined in the specification in a way that would inform one of ordinary skill how a first value would be determined in one while a second value is determined in the other. It will be assumed that the averaged orbit dynamics would read on an approximated trajectory while the full-state orbit dynamics would read on an actual/exact trajectory.
Claims 2-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 5, and 13 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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, 18/793,696, and 18/793,700. 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.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taheri et al. (Co-states Initialization of Minimum-Time Low-Thrust Trajectories Using Shape-based Methods), hereinafter Taheri, in view of Dargent (US 2014/0166814 A1), hereinafter Dargent.
With respect to claims 1, 5, and 13, Taheri discloses a method for determining a trajectory for a vehicle, the method comprising: deriving an equation of motion for the vehicle; (see at least [p. 4054, sec II, ¶ 1] “the governing equations of motion are derived”)
determining an initial guess of a first value of a costate of the vehicle; (see at least [p. 4055, ¶ below eqn. (11)] “this problem requires an initial guess for the unknown initial co-states values… and final time”)
determining the first value of the costate for a minimum time transfer in averaged orbit dynamics using the equation of motion, the initial guess, and a single shooting technique; (see at least [abstract] “co-state initialization which is a crucial step in solving minimum-time low-thrust trajectory optimization problems… determining the optimal space trajectories result in two-point boundary value problems which are typically solved by single- or multiple-shooting methods.” [p. 4055, ¶ below eqn. (24)] “the co-states can be approximated by the first-order Taylor expansion of λ(t) at t0”)
determining a second value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in full-state orbit dynamics using the first value of the costate and the single shooting technique; (see at least [p. 4055, ¶ below eqn. (28)] “different time instants ti near t0. A least-squares residual minimization problem can be formed…the minimum error solution of initial co-states λ(t0), which converges to the trajectory of the SB method, can be obtained numerically.” [sec B. ¶ 1] “state and control trajectories obtained from an approximate method, such as a SB method can be used to initialize co-states of the TPBVP solver of the exact problem.”)
Taheri discloses an optimization method for minimizing time and thrust, but does not explicitly disclose utilizing data generated with computer components to output control to the vehicle.
However, Dargent teaches a memory and processor (see at least [0075-0076])
generating instructions for causing the vehicle to travel along an optimal transfer in full-state orbit dynamics; (see at least [0006] “correcting the optimal control law automatically in a closed loop with simple computations and without reprogramming from the ground.”)
and adjusting a path of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to travel along an optimal transfer in full-state orbit dynamics. (see at least [0073] “control the engines, by using the parameters of the current control law obtained during the sixth step. This control of the engines makes it possible to trigger the motion of the satellite.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the trajectory calculation of Taheri to include the control implementation disclosed in Dargent, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to compute the optimal trajectory according to the chosen criterion of optimality in a minimum time with a minimum fuel consumption, see Dargent [0045].
With respect to claims 2, 6, and 14, Taheri discloses determining the initial guess of the first value of the costate comprises determining the initial guess of the first value of the costate of the vehicle as corresponding to trajectory boundary conditions of the vehicle. (see at least [p. 4055, ¶ below eqn. (21)] “an initial guess for the unknown initial co-states values, λ =
[
λ
r
T
,
λ
v
T
,
λ
m
]
T
” Note: The subscript align with basis that r is the position vector and v is the velocity vector of the spacecraft.)
With respect to claims 3, 7, and 15, Taheri discloses 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 comprises 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. (see at least [p. 4055, ¶ below eqn. (28)] “different time instants ti near t0. A least-squares residual minimization problem can be formed”)
With respect to claims 4, 8, and 16, Taheri discloses generating instructions for causing the vehicle to travel along the optimal transfer in the full-state orbit dynamics comprises generating the instructions for causing the 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 vehicle to follow, wherein the path corresponds to the vehicle using minimum time to reach the final position. (see at least [abstract] “co-state initialization which is a crucial step in solving minimum-time low-thrust trajectory optimization problems” [p. 4054, ¶ below eqn. (15)] “the final position and velocity vectors at the final time have to be equal to the target values.” [sec B. ¶ 1] “state and control trajectories obtained from an approximate method, such as a SB method can be used to initialize co-states of the TPBVP solver of the exact problem.”)
With respect to claims 9 and 17, Taheri discloses determining a time-transfer initial guess for an orbital transfer of the vehicle when the averaged orbit dynamics derives in response to minimizing time transfer of the vehicle. (see at least [p. 4055, ¶ below eqn. (21)] “the co-state differential equations (13)-(15) along with the terminal constraints constitute the TPBVP associated with the minimum-time problem… requires an initial guess for the… final time, tf.”)
With respect to claims 10 and 18, Taheri discloses determining the first value of the costate in the averaged orbit dynamics using the equation of motion, the initial guess, and the single shooting comprises determine the first value of the costate in the averaged orbit dynamics by solving a two-point boundary value problem with the equation of motion and the initial guess as inputs, wherein the two-point boundary value problem is solved with the single shooting technique. (see at least [abstract] “co-state initialization which is a crucial step in solving minimum-time low-thrust trajectory optimization problems… determining the optimal space trajectories result in two-point boundary value problems which are typically solved by single- or multiple-shooting methods.”)
With respect to claims 12 and 20, Taheri discloses determining a control direction of the vehicle by propagating the costate with spacecraft states using an augmented state vector. (see at least [p. 4054, ¶ above eqn. (1)] “The motion dynamics are expressed in the Cartesian inertial coordinate system and the variation of mass is included. Defining the state vector as
x
≡
[
r
T
,
v
T
,
m
]
T
”)
Claims 11 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taheri in view of Dargent as applied to claims 10 and 18 above, and further in view of Kohn et al. (US 2005/0102044 A1), hereinafter Kohn.
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Taheri discloses determining the first value of the costate for the minimum time transfer in the averaged orbit dynamics using the equation of motion, the initial guess, and the single shooting technique comprises determining the first value of the costate in the averaged orbit dynamics using the equation of motion, the initial guess, and the single shooting technique by solving the two-point boundary value problem with the equation of motion (see at least [abstract] “co-state initialization which is a crucial step in solving minimum-time low-thrust trajectory optimization problems… determining the optimal space trajectories result in two-point boundary value problems which are typically solved by single- or multiple-shooting methods.” [p. 4055, ¶ below eqn. (24)] “the co-states can be approximated by the first-order Taylor expansion of λ(t) at t0”)
Taheri discloses an optimization method for minimizing time and thrust, but does not explicitly disclose the initial guess being user-supplied.
However, Kohn teaches a user-supplied initial guess as inputs. (see at least [0136] “determine an initial value for the state vector, y0, the initial point routine, in step 4102, guesses at a value using any supplied hints or heuristics from users” Note: It is understood that this could include the user inputting the guess itself.)
As both pertain to optimization calculations to be used for trajectories, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the initial guess requirement of Taheri to include the user input disclosed in Kohn, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method of input for the required initial guess for solving the minimum time problem, see Taheri [p. 4055, ¶ below eqn. (21)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stroman et al. (US 2019/0107408 A1) discloses determining an energy-optimal path for the vehicle from an initial location to a final location, the vehicle corresponding to a vehicle energy model.
Bolle et al. (US 2013/0046520 A1) discloses determining a trajectory for a transfer of a spacecraft from a starting space body to a target space body with respect to a given central space body.
Wei et al. (Direct Optimization of Low-Thrust Transfers Using Averaging Techniques Based on Fourier Series Expansion) discloses maximum inclination transfer problem for the low-thrust vehicle in arbitrary elliptic Earth orbits using averaging techniques to determine the low-thrust optimal control solutions
Li et al. (CN 111191368 A) discloses optimizing the performance indexes of the preset transfer orbit model containing parameters under different launching time information by a simulated annealing method to obtain optimal launching time information.
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
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669