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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the references as applied in the current rejection.
Concerning the amended limitation of “a separate load bearing structure attached to and conforming to the convex side of the reflector”, newly found reference Kaminskas is looked to for teaching a supporting structure for a nested reflector.
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.
Claim 1-11, 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley (US 5350137) in view of Kaminskas (US 4811034).
In regards to claim 1, Henley discloses an apparatus comprising:
multiple satellites (abstract discloses “a plurality of host spacecraft”, one of separate spacecraft seen in Fig. 4 of Henley),
the satellites each forming a dish shape having a diameter and a cross-sectional area (Fig. 4, ref. 12, abstract “paraboloid spacecraft structure is shaped as the shell of a paraboloid of revolution”);
each satellite including a single reflector antenna having a convex side and a concave side (as seen in Fig. 4 of Henley for ref. 12), and
Henley does not expressly disclose: a separate load bearing structure attached to and conforming to the convex side of the reflector,
Kaminskas teaches a load bearing structure for a nesting dish shaped satellite reflector (as seen in Figs. 15-17, and seen in Fig. 15 below), the load bearing structure of separate form from the dish
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Henley with Kaminskas by providing a separate load bearing structure attached to and conforming to the convex side of the reflector in order to increase the strength of the reflector.
Henley as combined further discloses:
each reflector configured to occupy the majority of the satellite cross-sectional area (Henley as seen at least in Fig. 4, the cross-sectional area taken through ref. 12);
the satellites configured to stack together in a substantially overlapped manner to form a stacked configuration (Henley, stack of satellites seen in Fig. 3); and
the satellites configured to be disposed within a payload fairing in the stacked configuration (Henley C5:7 discloses the stack of satellites within a payload fairing of a launch vehicle “A plurality of spacecraft 10 are then nested and stacked together atop the space transportation vehicle 28 to provide a stack of self supporting and protecting spacecraft 10”);
wherein the separate load bearing structures pass load within the stacked configuration (Henley as combined, Henley, abstract, discloses “The multiple application spacecraft may be employed with a single host spacecraft or a plurality of host spacecraft, or a plurality of such multiple application paraboloid spacecraft may be nested together in a self supporting/protecting stack for launch”, Kaminskas suggests supported structures coupled in nested configuration).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the antennas occupy at least 80% of the cross-sectional area of the satellites (as seen in Fig. 4 of Henley, ref. 12 occupies substantially the entire cross-sectional area).
In regards to claim 3, Henley discloses ate apparatus of claim 2 wherein the stacked configuration is configured to have a footprint matching the payload fairing footprint (Henely Figs. 1 and 2 shows similar shape satellite within launch vehicle fairing), such that the stacked configuration footprint occupies the majority of the payload fairing footprint (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2 of Henley).
In regards to claim 4, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 3 but does not expressly disclose: wherein the satellites occupy at least 80% of across-sectional area of the payload fairing. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the reasonable expectation of success, to provide the satellites of Henley occupy at least 80% of a cross-sectional area of the payload fairing to provide space for further devices within the fairing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 5, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the stacked configuration is configured to have a footprint matching the payload fairing footprint, such that the stacked configuration footprint occupies the majority of the payload fairing footprint (as suggested in Figs. 1 and 2 of Henley, footprint seen as size or shape).
In regards to claim 6, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 4 but does not expressly disclose: wherein the satellites occupy at least 95% of across-sectional area of the payload fairing. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the reasonable expectation of success, to provide the satellites occupy at least 95% of a cross-sectional area of the payload fairing to provide space for further devices within the fairing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 7, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the stacked configuration includes at least 10 satellites (Henley C5:7 “A plurality of spacecraft 10 are then nested and stacked together atop the space transportation vehicle 28”).
In regards to claim 8, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein each satellite other than end satellites is configured to stack with its
In regards to claim 9, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 8 further comprising a cradle configured to hold the stacked configuration, the cradle having a surface shaped and sized to correspond to either a concave side of an end satellite or a convex side of an end satellite (as seen in Fig. 3 of Henley, ref. 28, also Figs. 1 and 2 for accepting matching shape).
In regards to claim 10, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein the stacked configuration having a number of satellites has substantially a height of a single satellite, plus a thickness of a single satellite times the number of satellites within the stack (Henley, the stack of Fig. 3 may be the height of a single satellite, plus the thickness of a satellite, which will fit within the fairing).
In regards to claim 11, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 8 wherein the satellites have a roughly circular footprint (as suggested in Fig. 4 of Henley, ref. 12, dish is of circular shape).
In regards to claim 13, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 8 but does not expressly disclose: wherein the thickness of a satellite is about half of a height of a satellite or less. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, the satellite of Henley to provide the thickness of a satellite is about half of the height of a satellite or less in order to accommodate devices within the satellite or to orient the satellite stack within the launch vehicle, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. /n re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 14, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the stacked configuration having a number of satellites has substantially a height of a single satellite, plus a thickness of a single satellite times the number of satellites within the stack (Henley, the stack of Fig. 3 may be the height of a single satellite, plus the thickness of a satellite, which will fit within the fairing).
In regards to claim 15, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the satellites have a roughly circular footprint (as suggested in Fig. 4 of Henley, ref. 12, dish is of circular shape).
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley, Kaminskas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caplin et al (US 8511617).
In regards to claim 17, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose: wherein each satellite further comprises a thin, flat bus integrated within the cross-section of the antenna and under the antenna.
Caplin teaches a thin, flat bus within a cross-sectional area of satellite (C7:45 “The bus subsystem is located substantially within interior cavity 508”, “The bus subsystem may include support structure 520” seen in Fig. 5 as thin, flat).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Henley with Caplin by providing each satellite comprises a thin, flat bus integrated within the cross-section of the antenna and under the antenna in order to fit within the space of the structure without interfering with other devices or structures.
Claim 18, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley, Kaminskas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Field et al (US 20160318635).
In regards to claim 18, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose: further comprising a hold down element configured to hold the stacked configuration in a vertically compressed stack.
Field teaches a hold down elements for stacked satellites (Fig. 4 comprising ref. 70).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Henley with Field by providing a hold down element to hold the stacked configuration in a vertically compressed stack in order to secure the stacked satellites in an aligned orientation during launch and transport.
In regards to claim 19, Stuart as combined discloses the apparatus of claim 18 wherein the hold down element comprises tension cables (Field ref. 70 disclosed as tension cables [0027]).
Claim 12, 16, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henley, Kaminskas as applied to claim 6, 11 above, and further in view of Henderson et al (US 20200028274).
In regards to claim 12, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 11 but does not expressly disclose: wherein the satellites have a regular polygon footprint where the polygon has at least 6 sides.
Henderson teaches satellite reflector having a forming a polygon shape, as seen in Fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Henley with Henderson by providing the satellites have a regular polygon footprint where the polygon has at least 6 sides in order to provide a compact form.
In regards to claim 16, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 15 but does not expressly disclose: wherein the satellites have a regular polygon footprint where the polygon has at least 6 sides.
Henderson teaches satellite reflector having a forming a polygon shape, as seen in Fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Henley with Henderson by providing the satellites have a regular polygon footprint where the polygon has at least 6 sides in order to provide a compact form.
In regards to claim 20, Henley discloses the apparatus of claim 1 but while henley discloses a fixed reflector, ref. 12, Henley does not expressly disclose: wherein each satellite further comprises: a feed array: and a deployable sub-reflector; wherein the deployable sub-reflector is located at a center of the fixed reflector; and wherein the fixed reflector illuminates the deployable sub-reflector.
Henderson teaches a fixed reflector for use with a spacecraft which illuminates a sub-reflector, comprising a feed array, ref. 16, a sub-reflector located at the center of the fixed reflector, ref. 14. The sub reflector deployed is deployable in orbit with the spacecraft and via spring ref. 34.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Henley with Henderson by providing each satellite further comprises: a feed array: a deployable sub-reflector; wherein the deployable sub-reflector is located at a center of the fixed reflector; and wherein the fixed reflector illuminates the deployable sub-reflector in order to allow greater signal strength received at the spacecraft as is well known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MEDHAT BADAWI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights