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 1-19 and 21 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 14, 19 and 20 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claims 2-13, 15-16 and 18 are presented as original claims.
Claim 21 is newly presented.
Claim 17 is newly cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Attitude Stabilization of Spacecraft in Very Low Earth Orbit by Center-Of-Mass Shifting” by Josep Virgili-Llop, et al. (2019). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Virgili-Llop teaches a system comprising:
an object comprising a rotational axis; (Virgili-Llop: § Abs.; use of internal shifting masses, actively shifting the location of the spacecraft center-of-mass) a first mass movably mounted to the object (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 15 [showing masses]) (Virgili-Llop: § 1.0; two shifting masses driven by a Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) based controller moving along the pitch and yaw axes))and configured to adjust a moment of inertia of the object by translating relative to the object along an inertial path (Virgili-Llop: § 6.1; When the spacecraft is in the vicinity of its equilibrium point the masses that shift perpendicular to the relative flow provide the maximum efficacy. As the goal is to keep the spacecraft stable then using only two shifting masses (with mass m1 and m2), respectively moving along the B0 pitch ̂𝒋 and yaw ̂𝒌 axes, maximizes the available torque) having a first component that is perpendicular to the rotational axis; and a second mass movably mounted to the object and configured to:(i) apply to the object, by way of a first translation and a first acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along a torque path having a second component that is perpendicular to both the rotational axis and the first component, a first torque in a first direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 15 [showing masses]) (Virgili-Llop: § 1.0; two shifting masses driven by a Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) based controller moving along the pitch and yaw axes))
PNG
media_image1.png
387
991
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To the extent Virgili-Llop does not explicitly teach or is silent about: above a threshold value, and(ii) apply to the object, by way of a second translation and a second acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along the torque path, a second torque in a second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, below the threshold value, wherein the second mass is separate from the first mass, and wherein the inertial path is different from the torque path; Virgili-Llop does teach:
Using a set of shifting masses arrange normal to each other(Virgili-Llop: Fig. 15)that move to induce torque which can be used to control a spacecraft to control and keep a spacecraft stable (Virgili-Llop: § 6.1; When the spacecraft is in the vicinity of its equilibrium point the masses that shift perpendicular to the relative flow provide the maximum efficacy. As the goal is to keep the spacecraft stable then using only two shifting masses (with mass m1 and m2), respectively moving along the B0 pitch ̂𝒋 and yaw ̂𝒌 axes, maximizes the available torque)wherein a first mass is moved to an extent of a threshold value and thereafter a second mass is moved to the extent of a threshold value wherein the threshold values are determined by the magnitude of the controlling force required (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 16(B); [showing MassZ moving while MassY is stopped at the extent of motion and thus below a calculated threshold value in order to adjust trajectory]
PNG
media_image2.png
423
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: above a threshold value, and(ii) apply to the object, by way of a second translation and a second acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along the torque path, a second torque in a second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, below the threshold value, wherein the second mass is separate from the first mass, and wherein the inertial path is different from the torque path
Because Virgili-Llop’s teaching of cyclically controlling MassZ while MassY is stopped at the extent of motion as shown in Fig. 16(B) is above a threshold value, and(ii) apply to the object, by way of a second translation and a second acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along the torque path, a second torque in a second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, below the threshold value, wherein the second mass is separate from the first mass, and wherein the inertial path is different from the torque path.
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Virgili-Llop further teaches:
wherein application of the first torque in the first direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted above the threshold value causes a first angular displacement that is smaller than a second angular displacement caused by application of the second torque in the second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted below the threshold value such that the object is caused to rotate in the second direction about the rotational axis. (Virgili-Llop: § 6.1; When the spacecraft is in the vicinity of its equilibrium point the masses that shift perpendicular to the relative flow provide the maximum efficacy. As the goal is to keep the spacecraft stable then using only two shifting masses (with mass m1 and m2), respectively moving along the B0 pitch ̂𝒋 and yaw ̂𝒌 axes, maximizes the available torque) (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 16(A)-16(B); [showing object is caused to rotate in the second direction about the rotational axis by application of shifting masses normal to each other])
PNG
media_image3.png
345
843
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Virgili-Llop further teaches:
wherein the inertial path comprises an inertial axis that is substantially perpendicular to the rotational axis, and wherein the torque path comprises a torque axis that is substantially perpendicular to the rotational axis and the inertial axis. (Virgili-Llop: § 6.1; When the spacecraft is in the vicinity of its equilibrium point the masses that shift perpendicular to the relative flow provide the maximum efficacy. As the goal is to keep the spacecraft stable then using only two shifting masses (with mass m1 and m2), respectively moving along the B0 pitch ̂𝒋 and yaw ̂𝒌 axes, maximizes the available torque)
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Virgili-Llop further teaches:
wherein the object comprises a spacecraft configured to operate in substantially gravity-free space or an aircraft. (Virgili-Llop: § Abs.; use of internal shifting masses, actively shifting the location of the spacecraft center-of-mass)
Regarding claim 19, Virgili-Llop teaches a method comprising:
adjusting a moment of inertia of an object (Virgili-Llop: § Abs.; use of internal shifting masses, actively shifting the location of the spacecraft center-of-mass) by translating a first mass relative to the object and along an inertial path, wherein the first mass is movably mounted to the object, (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 15 [showing masses]) (Virgili-Llop: § 1.0; two shifting masses driven by a Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) based controller moving along the pitch and yaw axes)) and wherein the inertial path comprises a first component that is perpendicular to a rotational axis of the object; (Virgili-Llop: § 6.1; When the spacecraft is in the vicinity of its equilibrium point the masses that shift perpendicular to the relative flow provide the maximum efficacy. As the goal is to keep the spacecraft stable then using only two shifting masses (with mass m1 and m2), respectively moving along the B0 pitch ̂𝒋 and yaw ̂𝒌 axes, maximizes the available torque) applying to the object, by way of a first translation and a first acceleration of a second mass relative to the object along a torque path, a first torque in a first direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, above a threshold value wherein the second mass is movably mounted to the object, and wherein the torque path comprises a second component that is perpendicular to both the rotational axis and the first component; (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 15 [showing masses]) (Virgili-Llop: § 1.0; two shifting masses driven by a Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) based controller moving along the pitch and yaw axes))
To the extent Virgili-Llop does not explicitly teach or is silent about: and applying to the object, by way of a second translation and a second acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along the torque path, a second torque in a second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, below the threshold value, wherein the second mass is separate from the first mass, and wherein the inertial path is different from the torque path Virgili-Llop does teach:
Using a set of shifting masses arrange normal to each other(Virgili-Llop: Fig. 15)that move to induce torque which can be used to control a spacecraft to control and keep a spacecraft stable (Virgili-Llop: § 6.1; When the spacecraft is in the vicinity of its equilibrium point the masses that shift perpendicular to the relative flow provide the maximum efficacy. As the goal is to keep the spacecraft stable then using only two shifting masses (with mass m1 and m2), respectively moving along the B0 pitch ̂𝒋 and yaw ̂𝒌 axes, maximizes the available torque)wherein a first mass is moved to an extent of a threshold value and thereafter a second mass is moved to the extent of a threshold value wherein the threshold values are determined by the magnitude of the controlling force required (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 16(B); [showing MassZ moving while MassY is stopped at the extent of motion and thus below a calculated threshold value in order to adjust trajectory]
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: and applying to the object, by way of a second translation and a second acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along the torque path, a second torque in a second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, below the threshold value, wherein the second mass is separate from the first mass, and wherein the inertial path is different from the torque path
Because Virgili-Llop’s teaching of cyclically controlling MassZ while MassY is stopped at the extent of motion as shown in Fig. 16(B) is applying to the object, by way of a second translation and a second acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along the torque path, a second torque in a second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, below the threshold value, wherein the second mass is separate from the first mass, and wherein the inertial path is different from the torque path.
Regarding claim 20, Virgili-Llop teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
adjusting a moment of inertia of an object (Virgili-Llop: § Abs.; use of internal shifting masses, actively shifting the location of the spacecraft center-of-mass) by causing a first mass to translate relative to the object and along an inertial path, wherein the first mass is movably mounted to the object, (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 15 [showing masses]) (Virgili-Llop: § 1.0; two shifting masses driven by a Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) based controller moving along the pitch and yaw axes)) and wherein the inertial path comprises a first component that is perpendicular to a rotational axis of the object; (Virgili-Llop: § 6.1; When the spacecraft is in the vicinity of its equilibrium point the masses that shift perpendicular to the relative flow provide the maximum efficacy. As the goal is to keep the spacecraft stable then using only two shifting masses (with mass m1 and m2), respectively moving along the B0 pitch ̂𝒋 and yaw ̂𝒌 axes, maximizes the available torque) applying to the object, by causing a first translation and a first acceleration of a second mass relative to the object along a torque path, a first torque in a first direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, above a threshold value byboth the rotational axis and the first component; (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 15 [showing masses]) (Virgili-Llop: § 1.0; two shifting masses driven by a Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) based controller moving along the pitch and yaw axes))
To the extent Virgili-Llop does not explicitly teach or is silent about: and applying to the object, by causing a second translation and a second acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along the torque path, a second torque in a second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, below the threshold value, wherein the second mass is separate from the first mass, and wherein the inertial path is different from the torque path; Virgili-Llop does teach:
Using a set of shifting masses arrange normal to each other(Virgili-Llop: Fig. 15)that move to induce torque which can be used to control a spacecraft to control and keep a spacecraft stable (Virgili-Llop: § 6.1; When the spacecraft is in the vicinity of its equilibrium point the masses that shift perpendicular to the relative flow provide the maximum efficacy. As the goal is to keep the spacecraft stable then using only two shifting masses (with mass m1 and m2), respectively moving along the B0 pitch ̂𝒋 and yaw ̂𝒌 axes, maximizes the available torque)wherein a first mass is moved to an extent of a threshold value and thereafter a second mass is moved to the extent of a threshold value wherein the threshold values are determined by the magnitude of the controlling force required (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 16(B); [showing MassZ moving while MassY is stopped at the extent of motion and thus below a calculated threshold value in order to adjust trajectory]
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: object, by causing a second translation and a second acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along the torque path, a second torque in a second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, below the threshold value, wherein the second mass is separate from the first mass, and wherein the inertial path is different from the torque path.
Because Virgili-Llop’s teaching of cyclically controlling MassZ while MassY is stopped at the extent of motion as shown in Fig. 16(B) is applying to the object, by way of a second translation and a second acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along the torque path, a second torque in a second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted, using the first mass, below the threshold value, wherein the second mass is separate from the first mass, and wherein the inertial path is different from the torque path.
Regarding claim 21, Virgili-Llop teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
wherein the first mass comprises a first discrete rigid body, wherein the second mass comprises a second discrete rigid body, and wherein the first discrete rigid body is configured to move independently of the second discrete rigid body. (Virgili-Llop: Fig. 15 [showing two ridged masses mounted to move independently of each other]) (Virgili-Llop: § 1.0; two shifting masses driven by a Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) based controller moving along the pitch and yaw axes)) (Virgili-Llop: § 3.0; shifting masses can be rigid bodies or point masses.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virgili-Llop as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vedant (WO 2020256792 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. But Virgili-Llop does not explicitly teach:
wherein at least one of the inertial path or the torque path comprises an arc that is substantially centered on the rotational axis; however, Vedant teaches:
wherein at least one of the inertial path or the torque path comprises an arc that is substantially centered on the rotational axis. (Vedant: ¶ 135; a deployable panel’ s tip (or a point mass) is rotated in a circular path.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vedant with the teachings of Virgili-Llop because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of maximizing the amount of torque generation by better aligning the mass’s travel vector path with the ideal torque generation path, which would further reduce power consumption for control movements.
Claims 5-8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virgili-Llop as applied to claims 1 and 14 respectively above, and further in view of Opalek (US 20180290770 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent Virgili-Llop is silent or does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: a first actuator configured to cause the first mass to move along the inertial path, wherein the first mass is movably mounted to the object by way of the first actuator; and a second actuator configured to move the second mass along the torque path, wherein the second mass is movably mounted to the object by way of the second actuator; Opalek does teach:
further comprising: a first actuator configured to cause the first mass to move along the inertial path, wherein the first mass is movably mounted to the object by way of the first actuator; and a second actuator configured to move the second mass along the torque path, wherein the second mass is movably mounted to the object by way of the second actuator. (Opalek: ¶ 068; railgun is constructed of at least two parallel metallic rails of known length 305, which are connected to power supplies engineered to drive a magnetically susceptible solid reaction mass or armature 302 of a known mass along a travel path . . . transformative means thereby governing the velocity of the reaction mass).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Opalek with the teachings of Virgili-Llop because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the "need for using and transporting heavy, finite, and expensive fuels for combustion" (Opalek: ¶ 010).
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop in view of Opalek teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 5. Opalek also teaches:
wherein at least one of the first actuator or the second actuator is configured to cause a corresponding mass to move along a corresponding path by generating an electric field configured to exert a force on the corresponding mass by interacting with an electrostatic charge held by the corresponding mass. (Opalek: ¶ 068; railgun is constructed of at least two parallel metallic rails of known length 305, which are connected to power supplies engineered to drive a magnetically susceptible solid reaction mass or armature 302 of a known mass along a travel path 304.)
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop in view of Opalek teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 5. Opalek also teaches:
wherein at least one of the first actuator or the second actuator is configured to cause a corresponding mass to move along a corresponding path by generating a first magnetic field configured to exert a force on the corresponding mass by interacting with a second magnetic field of the corresponding mass. (Opalek: ¶ 068; It is this magnetic field which propels the reaction mass 302 along the conducting rails. In various embodiments of the invention, conducting and non-conducting rail sections can be switched on an off as needed by a guidance system to propel the reaction mass 302 with a known acceleration rate to achieve a desired recoil force.)
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop in view of Opalek teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Opalek also teaches:
wherein the at least one of the first actuator or the second actuator comprises a solenoid, and wherein the corresponding mass is configured to move inside the solenoid. (Opalek: ¶ 063; Rotation of each axle is achieved through a drive mechanism means such as, but not limited to, electric motors 201 and radial solenoids)
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop in view of Opalek teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 5. Opalek also teaches:
wherein the first mass is configured to adjust the moment of inertia between (i) a maximum value by moving to a first position along the inertial path and (ii) a minimum value by moving to a second position along the inertial path, wherein the threshold value is between the minimum value and the maximum value, and wherein the second position is closer to a center of mass of the object than the first position. (Opalek: ¶ 074; When the mass driver fires, the reaction mass moves inward towards the center of the disc assembly. Concurrently, the counterbalancing mechanism maintains dynamic internal torque equilibrium of each disc by moving, or pivoting, the two counterweights about the circumference of the disc. The center of mass of the counterweights is maintained such that their torque is always equal and opposite, along the rails, to the torque of the moving armature)
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent Virgili-Llop is silent or does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: a third mass movably mounted on the object and configured to adjust the moment of inertia by translating relative to the object along the inertial path, wherein, when the first mass moves in a third direction along the inertial path, the third mass is configured to move in a fourth direction along the inertial path that is opposite to the third direction, wherein, when the first mass moves in the fourth direction along the inertial path, the third mass is configured to move in the third direction along the inertial path, and wherein movement of the first mass is configured to exert on the object a first force that is substantially equal and opposite to a second force exerted on the object by movement of the third mass; Opalek does teach:
further comprising: a third mass movably mounted on the object and configured to adjust the moment of inertia by translating relative to the object along the inertial path, wherein, when the first mass moves in a third direction along the inertial path, the third mass is configured to move in a fourth direction along the inertial path that is opposite to the third direction, wherein, when the first mass moves in the fourth direction along the inertial path, the third mass is configured to move in the third direction along the inertial path, and wherein movement of the first mass is configured to exert on the object a first force that is substantially equal and opposite to a second force exerted on the object by movement of the third mass. (Opalek: ¶ 068; railgun is constructed of at least two parallel metallic rails) (Opalek: Fig. 001; []) (Opalek: ¶ 066; The disc assembly is rotatably connected at the center of each disc by the axle assembly 102. FIG. 3, for example, depicts four mass-driver and counter balance assemblies 106 spaced apart equally at ninety-degree angles.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Opalek with the teachings of Virgili-Llop because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the "need for using and transporting heavy, finite, and expensive fuels for combustion" (Opalek: ¶ 010).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virgili-Llop in view of Opalek as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20130257619 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop in view of Opalek teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. To the extent Virgili-Llop is silent or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one of the first actuator or the second actuator is additionally configured to operate as a magnetorquer configured to cause the object to rotate by generating a non-alternating magnetic field configured to interact with an external magnetic field; Yang does teach:
A solenoid-type coil that wherein an electrical current can be controlled as to create a magnetic field in at least two differing field configurations as to control the coil to change a magnetically suspectable tag. (Yang: ¶ 005; a "Dual Axis Magnetic Field EAS Device," Belka et al. disclose a deactivator consisting of a solenoid-type coil that provides a magnetic field in one direction and another coil that provides a magnetic field in a substantially perpendicular direction, so that the EAS markers that pass through the device are positioned generally in the plane defined by the first and second directions. The magnetic fields in the two directions may be applied sequentially or simultaneously.).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested: wherein the at least one of the first actuator or the second actuator is additionally configured to operate as a magnetorquer configured to cause the object to rotate by generating a non-alternating magnetic field configured to interact with an external magnetic field. because controlling a single magnetic coil to achieving differing fields for differing purposes was known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yang with the teachings of Virgili-Llop because “Use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way" is obvious (quoting KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1395).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virgili-Llop in view of Opalek as applied to claims 10 above, and further in view of Phillips et al. (US 20220112934 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop in view of Opalek teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 10. To the extent Virgili-Llop is silent or does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: circuitry configured to perform operations comprising: causing the second actuator to move the second mass at a first constant velocity having a third direction along the torque path; while the second mass moves at the first constant velocity, causing the first actuator to move the first mass to the first position; while the first mass is at the first position, causing the second actuator to apply to the second mass a first force having a fourth direction along the torque path that is opposite to the third direction along the torque path and thereby apply the first torque in the first direction along the rotational axis; causing the second actuator to move the second mass at a second constant velocity having the fourth direction along the torque path; while the second mass moves at the second constant velocity, causing the first actuator to move the first mass to the second position; and while the first mass is at the second position, causing the second actuator to apply to the second mass a second force having the third direction along the torque path and thereby apply the second torque in the second direction along the rotational axis; Phillips does teach:
further comprising: circuitry configured to perform operations comprising: (Phillips: ¶ 077; executed by the processor 220 or other digital processing system) causing the second actuator to move the second mass at a first constant velocity having a third direction along the torque path; while the second mass moves at the first constant velocity, causing the first actuator to move the first mass to the first position; while the first mass is at the first position, causing the second actuator to apply to the second mass a first force having a fourth direction along the torque path that is opposite to the third direction along the torque path and thereby apply the first torque in the first direction along the rotational axis; causing the second actuator to move the second mass at a second constant velocity having the fourth direction along the torque path; while the second mass moves at the second constant velocity, causing the first actuator to move the first mass to the second position; and while the first mass is at the second position, causing the second actuator to apply to the second mass a second force having the third direction along the torque path and thereby apply the second torque in the second direction along the rotational axis. (Phillips: ¶ 011; include a linear actuator configured to translate the reaction mass along a linear direction of a translation axis to produce a reaction force. The apparatus further includes a second reaction mass and a second linear actuator coupled to the second reaction mass. The second linear actuator is configured to: couple to the payload; translate the second reaction mass along a second translation axis in response to a movement error of the payload about a rotational axis of the payload; . . . the second translation axis is parallel to the translation axis of the actuator and the rotational axis is perpendicular to the translation axes and a line intersecting the translation axes . . . . The rotation of the second reaction mass along the second axis of rotation can be varied in relation to the rotation of the reaction mass to produce a rotational reaction torque that reduces the movement error of the payload about the rotational axis.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Phillips with the teachings of Virgili-Llop because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving “position[ing] relative to the ground or relative to another target such as a processing target [with] drones, UAVs, aircraft, spacecraft, etc." (Phillips: ¶ 064).
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop in view of Opalek teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 10. To the extent Virgili-Llop is silent or does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: circuitry configured to perform operations comprising: causing the second actuator to change a direction of a force applied to the second mass from a third direction along the torque path to a fourth direction along the torque path that is opposite to the third direction; while the direction of the force applied to the second mass changes from the third direction to the fourth direction, causing the first actuator to move the first mass to the first position; while the first mass is at the first position, causing the second actuator to apply to the second mass a first force having the fourth direction along the torque path and thereby apply the first torque in the first direction along the rotational axis; causing the second actuator to change the direction of the force applied to the second mass from the fourth direction to the third direction; while the direction of the force applied to the second mass changes from the fourth direction to the third direction, causing the first actuator to move the first mass to the second position; and while the first mass is at the second position, causing the second actuator to apply to the second mass a second force having the third direction along the torque path and thereby apply the second torque in the second direction along the rotational axis; however, Phillips does teach:
further comprising: circuitry configured to perform operations comprising: (Phillips: ¶ 077; executed by the processor 220 or other digital processing system) causing the second actuator to change a direction of a force applied to the second mass from a third direction along the torque path to a fourth direction along the torque path that is opposite to the third direction; while the direction of the force applied to the second mass changes from the third direction to the fourth direction, causing the first actuator to move the first mass to the first position; while the first mass is at the first position, causing the second actuator to apply to the second mass a first force having the fourth direction along the torque path and thereby apply the first torque in the first direction along the rotational axis; causing the second actuator to change the direction of the force applied to the second mass from the fourth direction to the third direction; while the direction of the force applied to the second mass changes from the fourth direction to the third direction, causing the first actuator to move the first mass to the second position; and while the first mass is at the second position, causing the second actuator to apply to the second mass a second force having the third direction along the torque path and thereby apply the second torque in the second direction along the rotational axis. (Phillips: ¶ 011; include a linear actuator configured to translate the reaction mass along a linear direction of a translation axis to produce a reaction force. The apparatus further includes a second reaction mass and a second linear actuator coupled to the second reaction mass. The second linear actuator is configured to: couple to the payload; translate the second reaction mass along a second translation axis in response to a movement error of the payload about a rotational axis of the payload; . . . the second translation axis is parallel to the translation axis of the actuator and the rotational axis is perpendicular to the translation axes and a line intersecting the translation axes . . . . The rotation of the second reaction mass along the second axis of rotation can be varied in relation to the rotation of the reaction mass to produce a rotational reaction torque that reduces the movement error of the payload about the rotational axis.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Phillips with the teachings of Virgili-Llop because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving “position[ing] relative to the ground or relative to another target such as a processing target [with] drones, UAVs, aircraft, spacecraft, etc." (Phillips: ¶ 064).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virgili-Llop as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zondervan et al. (US 20170297748 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent Virgili-Llop is silent or does not teach:
further comprising: a fourth mass movably mounted on the object and configured to: (i) apply to the object a third torque in the first direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted above the threshold value and (ii) apply to the object a fourth torque in the second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted below the threshold value, by translating relative to the object along a second torque path having a third component that is perpendicular to the rotational axis and the first component and parallel to the torque path.; Zondervan teaches:
further comprising: a fourth mass movably mounted on the object and configured to: (Zondervan: ¶ 043; Vehicle 500 is a 2 kg rocket-propelled vehicle in this embodiments that uses four external movable masses 510 for thrust misalignment mitigation and attitude control . . . system is capable of handling up to 1.7° of thrust misalignment) (i) apply to the object a third torque in the first direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted above the threshold value and (ii) apply to the object a fourth torque in the second direction along the rotational axis while the moment of inertia is adjusted below the threshold value, by translating relative to the object along a second torque path having a third component that is perpendicular to the rotational axis and the first component and parallel to the torque path. (Zondervan: ¶ 041; considered the case of a thrust misalignment (m.sub.B is initially not moving relative to vehicle 400 in this case). To nullify the torque due to this thrust misalignment, m.sub.B is moved so that the center-of-mass intersects the line-of-action of the thrust, as shown in the left image. The location and path of m.sub.B shown in FIG. 4 is for purposes of illustration only. The location and path of the movable mass can be anywhere in some embodiments (i.e., inside, outside, and/or inside and outside of the vehicle), provided it is attached or otherwise affixed (e.g., via magnetic fields) to the vehicle and changes the center-of-mass location of the vehicle. The quantity of mass that is moved, the path over which the mass moves, and the speed and acceleration with which the mass is moved depends on the requirements of the ACS and the desired attitude correction.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zondervan with the teachings of Virgili-Llop because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improved scalability due to fluid mass control (Zondervan: ¶ 042).
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent Virgili-Llop is silent or does not teach:
wherein the first mass is configured to rotate about a first axis associated with the inertial path, wherein an angular velocity of the first mass is adjustable to control an angular position of the object with respect to the first axis, wherein the second mass is configured to rotate about a second axis associated with the torque path, and wherein an angular velocity of the second mass is adjustable to control the angular position of the object with respect to the second axis; Zondervan teaches:
wherein the first mass is configured to rotate about a first axis associated with the inertial path, wherein an angular velocity of the first mass is adjustable to control an angular position of the object with respect to the first axis, wherein the second mass is configured to rotate about a second axis associated with the torque path, and wherein an angular velocity of the second mass is adjustable to control the angular position of the object with respect to the second axis. (Zondervan: ¶ 060; desired pitch/yaw and pitch/yaw rate are determined at 1110 and the vehicle's pitch/yaw and pitch/yaw rate are measured at 1115. The system then compares the desired pitch/yaw and pitch/yaw rate to the measured pitch/yaw) (Zondervan: ¶ 063; forces on the vehicle, how far each movable mass is moved, and which movable masses are moved, will control both the type of rotation that the vehicle experiences and the amount of rotation. Multiple types of control may be applied at the same time in some embodiments. It should be noted that one or more of the same movable masses may have to be moved to a different position to perform simultaneous control of pitch and yaw than would be needed to control only one of these rotations. The system accounts for this during its calculations.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zondervan with the teachings of Virgili-Llop because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improved scalability due to fluid mass control (Zondervan: ¶ 042).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virgili-Llop in view of Zondervan as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Opalek (US 20180290770 A1). As regards the individual claim:
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, Virgili-Llop in view of Zondervan teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 14. To the extent Virgili-Llop is silent or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the torque path and the second torque path are substantially parallel, wherein, when the second mass moves in a third direction along the torque path, the fourth mass is configured to move in a fourth direction along the second torque path that is opposite to the third direction, and wherein, when the second mass moves in the fourth direction along the torque path, the fourth mass is configured to move in the third direction along the second torque path; however, Opalek does teach:
wherein the torque path and the second torque path are substantially parallel, wherein, when the second mass moves in a third direction along the torque path, (Opalek: ¶ 068; railgun is constructed of at least two parallel metallic rails) (Opalek: Fig. 001; []) the fourth mass is configured to move in a fourth direction along the second torque path that is opposite to the third direction, and wherein, when the second mass moves in the fourth direction along the torque path, the fourth mass is configured to move in the third direction along the second torque path. (Opalek: ¶ 066; The disc assembly is rotatably connected at the center of each disc by the axle assembly 102. FIG. 3, for example, depicts four mass-driver and counter balance assemblies 106 spaced apart equally at ninety-degree angles.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Opalek with the teachings of Virgili-Llop because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the "need for using and transporting heavy, finite, and expensive fuels for combustion" (Opalek: ¶ 010).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed Mar. 17, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s confirmation that inventor’s name is a correctly recorded mononym is memorialized for the record.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 and 21 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. Applicant argues that
for at least the reasons discussed in the February 24, 2026, interview, the combination of Vedant and Zondervan fails to teach the limitations of amended claim 1. Specifically, the combination of Vedant and Zondervan fails to teach that, "while the moment of inertia [of the object] is adjusted" using the "first mass ... by translating [the first mass] relative to the object along an inertial path," a second mass that is "separate from the first mass" is used to apply a torque to the object by way of a [] "translation" and an "acceleration of the second mass relative to the object along a torque path" that is different from the inertial path, as recited in amended claim 1. (Applicant’s Arguments filed Mar. 17, 2026, pg. PP).
However, new prior art “Attitude Stabilization of Spacecraft in Very Low Earth Orbit by Center-Of-Mass Shifting” by Josep Virgili-Llop has been applied to claims 1-3, 18-21. Virgili-Llop teaches a method of controlling a satellite through the use of multiple sliding masses which are controlled in a manner whereby one mass cycles to the extent of travel and then a second mass begins a travel process such that “the masses that shift perpendicular to the relative flow provide the maximum efficacy . . . maximize[] the available torque.” Virgili-Llop: § 6.1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Casteras et al. (US 20150027244 A1) which discloses “an inertial actuation magnetohydrodynamic wheel comprising a torus-shaped fluid ring filled with a conductive liquid, at least one effective area for setting the liquid into motion, and at least one magnetohydrodynamic pump.” Also made of record is Liang He, et al., A novel three-axis attitude stabilization method using in-plane internal mass-shifting” and Virgili-Llop, “Using Shifting Masses to Reject Aerodynamic Perturbations and to Maintain a Stable Attitude in Very Low Earth Orbit” which both teach sliding mass satellite altitude control.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights