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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the ADCS system is configured to change the orientation of the satellite with respect to the sun between a first position in which the radiative surface points away from the sun and a second position in which the radiative surface is exposed to the sun” in claim 1 which corresponds with ¶10 (which repeats the language from the claim), ¶54, and ¶77-¶79.
“the ADCS system is configured to: change the orientation of the satellite by rotating the satellite around an axis of rotation (Z), wherein a vector normal to the radiative surface extends away from the satellite body in a first direction (Y) substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation (Z); and maintain the satellite in the second position to control a satellite temperature by absorption of incident heat from solar radiation received via the radiative surface.” in claim 1, which corresponds with ¶54 and ¶77-¶79.
“wherein the ADCS system is configured to change the orientation of the satellite in response to a signal from the one or more temperature sensor(s)” in claim 5, which corresponds with ¶14 (which repeats the language from the claim) and ¶79 with the relevant parts reading: “The ADCS controller 341 is further configured to receive information from or more sensors 347. The one or more sensors 347 are configured to measure various quantities during the flight of the satellite, such as sun-sensor, star tracker 170, temperature sensors and/or magnetometer for measuring local magnetic field... The ADCS unit 302 is configured to change the orientation of the satellite with respect to the sun between the first position in which the radiative surface points away from the sun and the second position in which the radiative surface is exposed to the sun for controlling thermal radiation heat transfer of the satellite.”
“wherein the ADCS system is configured to maintain the satellite in the second position for at least 5 minutes, at least 10 minutes, or at least 15 minutes” in claim 7, which corresponds with ¶16 and ¶32 (which repeat the language from the claim), ¶65 which reads “According to an example, the satellite is maintained in the second position for a total of at least 5 minutes, optionally at least 10 minutes, optionally at least 15 minutes to increase the satellite's temperature by several degrees °C”
“wherein the ADCS system is configured to maintain the satellite in the second position until a temperature set point has been reached” in claim 8, which corresponds with ¶17 and ¶33 (which repeat the language from the claim), ¶65 with the relevant parts reading “Instead of using a fixed duration, it is also possible to use a temperature set point. In one example, the temperature set point is determined by the upper temperature limit of the battery and/or other components of the satellite. For example, if the battery temperature reaches an upper temperature limit, for example 18 °C, the satellite is no longer maintained in the second position.”
“wherein the ADCS system is configured to control the orientation of the satellite to alternate between the first and second position to selectively provide for heating and cooling of the satellite” in claim 16, which corresponds with ¶25 (which repeats the language from the claim) and ¶65 with the relevant parts reading “Accordingly, by controlling the orientation of the satellite to alternate between the first and second position, the radiative surface selectively provides for heating and cooling of the satellite.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 10-13, 18, 23, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Regarding claim 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “in the second position, an angle between the first direction (Y) and solar radiation incident on the radiative surface is 90° or less...”, and the claim also recites “less than 60°, less than 30°, or less than 10°” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “maintain the satellite in the second position for at least 5 minutes...”, and the claim also recites “at least 10 minutes, or at least 15 minutes” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “wherein the radiative surface has a solar absorptivity between 10% and 60%...”, and the claim also recites “or between 20% and 50%, or between 30% and 40%” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 11, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “wherein the radiative surface provides an infrared 'IR' emissivity of at least 0.85...”, and the claim also recites “or at least 0.9 and a solar absorptivity of at least 0.3, or at least 0.35” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 12, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “wherein the radiative surface covers an area of at least 0.05 m2...”, and the claim also recites “or at least 0.1 or at least 0.15 m2” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the radiative surface comprises part of a radiator panel forming part of an existing structure of the satellite body” is indefinite because it is unclear how a part of a radiator panel can form a structure that already exists? Does applicant mean the radiator panel replaces part of another structure of the satellite body? It appears that applicant may be attempting to address a solution to thermal management performed in the prior art, but referencing the prior art in such a way is confusing and bring into doubt the scope of the claim. This limitation can not be interpreted as written.
Regarding claim 18, the terms “microsatellite” and “small satellite” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “microsatellite” and “small satellite” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This a being interpreted as requiring a satellite for the purpose of examination.
Regarding claim 23, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “maintaining the satellite in the second position for at least 5 minutes ...”, and the claim also recites “at least 10 minutes, or at least 15 minutes, or maintaining the satellite in the second position until a temperature set point is reached” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “wherein the method replaces a redundant line of a thermal control system” is indefinite because it is unclear how a method can replace a redundant line of a thermal control system. It appears that applicant may be attempting to address a solution to thermal management performed in the prior art, but referencing the prior art in such a way is confusing and bring into doubt the scope of the claim. This limitation can not be interpreted as written.
Regarding claim 30, the limitation “wherein the method replaces a redundant line of a thermal control system” is indefinite because it is unclear how a method can replace a redundant line of a thermal control system. It appears that applicant may be attempting to address a solution to thermal management performed in the prior art, but referencing the prior art in such a way is confusing and bring into doubt the scope of the claim. This limitation can not be interpreted as written.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-21, 27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 9745083 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Smith (US 9745083 B2) discloses a method of controlling thermal radiation heat transfer of a synthetic aperture radar 'SAR' satellite, wherein the satellite (Smith, figure 3, item 300) comprises a satellite body (Smith, figure 3, item 380) including at least one radiative surface configured to emit satellite heat to space (Smith, figure 3, items 391-394), a SAR antenna attached to the satellite body (Smith, figure 3, items 350, 360, and 380-1; antenna can be used as synthetic aperture radar antenna), and an attitude determination and control 'ADCS' system for controlling an orientation of the satellite travelling in orbit around Earth (Smith, col 1 lines 47-50), wherein the method performed by the ADCS system comprises:
changing the orientation of the satellite with respect to the sun between a first position in which the radiative surface points away from the sun and a second position in which the radiative surface is exposed to the sun (Smith, col 8 lines 15-20, satellite rotated so that a radiator is changed from being in shadow to face the sun);
wherein changing the orientation of the satellite includes rotating the satellite around an axis of rotation (Smith, claim 1, satellite rotated around an axis of symmetry of the beam pattern), wherein a vector normal to the radiative surface extends away from the satellite body in a first direction (Y) substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation (Smith, claim 1, the normal to a surface of each radiator surface is substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation).
Regarding claim 21, Smith discloses the method according to claim 20, the axis of rotation (Z) extending substantially perpendicular to a travel direction of the satellite (Smith, figure 4, item 370).
Regarding claim 27, Smith discloses the method according to claims 20, wherein the method replaces a redundant line of a thermal control system (indefinite, see the rejection of under 35 USC 112(b)), wherein the method is performed between imaging missions (Smith, col 4 lines 57-61 and col 8 lines 44-49; claim 13) and wherein the method is performed at a predetermined position in the orbit, a predetermined point in time and/or in response to a measured temperature (Smith, claim 10).
Regarding claim 30, Smith (US 9745083 B2) discloses a method of controlling thermal radiation heat transfer of a synthetic aperture radar 'SAR' satellite (Smith, figure 3, item 300), wherein the satellite comprises a satellite body (Smith, figure 3, item 380) including at least one radiative surface configured to emit satellite heat to space (Smith, figure 3, items 391-394), a SAR antenna attached to the satellite body (Smith, figure 3, items 350, 360, and 380-1; antenna can be used as synthetic aperture radar antenna), and an attitude determination and control 'ADCS' system for controlling an orientation of the satellite travelling in orbit around Earth (Smith, col 1 lines 47-50), wherein the method performed by the ADCS system comprises:
changing the orientation of the satellite with respect to the sun between a first position in which the radiative surface points away from the sun and a second position in which the radiative surface is exposed to the sun (Smith, col 8 lines 15-20, satellite rotated so that a radiator is changed from being in shadow to face the sun); and
maintaining the satellite in the second position to control a satellite temperature by absorption of incident heat from solar radiation received via the radiative surface (Smith col 8 lines 11-14);
wherein the method replaces a redundant line of a thermal control system (indefinite, see the rejection of under 35 USC 112(b)).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9, 12-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 9745083 B2) in view of Judd (US 20150367966 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith (US 9745083 B2) discloses a synthetic aperture radar 'SAR' satellite (Smith, figure 3, item 300) comprising:
a satellite body (Smith, figure 3, item 380) including at least one radiative surface configured to emit satellite heat to space (Smith, figure 3, items 391-394);
a SAR antenna attached to the satellite body (Smith, figure 3, items 350, 360, and 380-1; antenna can be used as synthetic aperture radar antenna); and
an attitude determination and control 'ADCS' system for controlling an orientation of the satellite travelling in orbit around Earth (Smith, col 1 lines 47-50, reaction wheels), wherein the ADCS system is configured to change the orientation of the satellite with respect to the sun between a first position in which the radiative surface points away from the sun and a second position in which the radiative surface is exposed to the sun (Smith, col 8 lines 15-20, satellite rotated so that a radiator is changed from being in shadow to face the sun); wherein the ADCS system is configured to:
change the orientation of the satellite by rotating the satellite around an axis of rotation (Z) (Smith, claim 1, satellite rotated around an axis of symmetry of the beam pattern), wherein a vector normal to the radiative surface extends away from the satellite body in a first direction (Y) substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation (Z) (Smith, claim 1, the normal to a surface of each radiator surface is substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation); and
maintain the satellite in the second position to control a satellite temperature by absorption of incident heat from solar radiation received via the radiative surface (Smith col 8 lines 11-14), however
Smith fails to explicitly teach a sun sensor, star sensor, magnetometer, or other similar sensor for determining satellite attitude as required in the limitations which invoke 35 USC 112(f).
Judd (US 20150367966 A1) teaches an ADCS system which is configured to change the orientation of the satellite with respect to the sun between a first position in which the radiative surface points away from the sun and a second position in which the radiative surface is exposed to the sun (Judd, abstract and ¶23, ADCS uses sun sensor & star sensor/magnetometer as sensor inputs, calculates changes in orientation, and perform orientation changes via reaction wheels in response).
Smith and Judd are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft attitude control. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith with the ADCS including attitude sensors used for controlling the attitude control systems of Judd with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect and control spacecraft attitude.
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, wherein the axis of rotation (Z) extends substantially perpendicular to a travel direction of the satellite (Smith, figures 3-5, axis of rotation is perpendicular to direction of travel) and wherein, in the second position, an angle between the first direction (Y) and solar radiation incident on the radiative surface is 90° or less, less than 60°, less than 30°, or less than 10° (Smith, figures 5-6, item 610, angle of incidence changes by 90 degrees, and thus the surface will have an angle of incidence of 90 degrees or less when rotated).
Regarding claim 7 (as best understood), Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, except:
wherein the ADCS system is configured to maintain the satellite in the second position for at least 5 minutes, at least 10 minutes, or at least 15 minutes.
However, Smith also teaches maintaining the satellite in the second position for a time period (Smith, col 9 lines 14-18, satellite rotated one or more times an orbit; note that a low earth orbit has a period of at least 90 minutes with higher orbits having larger orbital periods).
Accordingly it would also have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the satellite in a second position for at least 5 minutes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to distribute thermal stress/wear across the satellite and to control overall satellite temperature (Smith, col 8 lines 3-20).
Regarding claim 8, Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, wherein the ADCS system is configured to maintain the satellite in the second position until a temperature set point has been reached (Smith, claim 10).
Regarding claim 9, Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, wherein the ADCS system is configured to maintain the satellite in the first position to control the satellite temperature by emission of satellite heat to space via the radiative surface (Smith col 8 lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 12 (as best understood), Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, except:
wherein the radiative surface covers an area of at least 0.05 m2, or at least 0.1 or at least 0.15 m2
However, the radiator surfaces of Smith have inherent area.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the radiative surface cover an area of at least 0.05 m2 in order to allow the radiator to radiate a minimum amount of heat/energy away from the satellite, 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, wherein the radiative surface comprises part of a radiator panel forming part of an existing structure of the satellite body (Smith, figure 3, items 391-394).
Regarding claim 15, Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, wherein the satellite further comprises one or more solar panel(s) attached to the satellite body (Smith, figure 3, items 310 and 320),
wherein a surface normal to a solar surface of the solar panel(s) extends away from the satellite body in a direction substantially opposite to the first direction (Y) (Smith, figure 3, item 340, hinge and associated mechanism shown to rotate the solar panels such that they can be oriented in a direction aligned with or opposite to the radiator surface).
Regarding claim 16, Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, wherein the ADCS system is configured to control the orientation of the satellite to alternate between the first and second position to selectively provide for heating and cooling of the satellite (Smith, col 8 lines 15-20, satellite rotated so that a radiator is changed from being in shadow to face the sun).
Regarding claim 17, Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, further comprising a SAR antenna attached to the satellite body, wherein the SAR antenna faces towards Earth in the first and second position (Smith, figures 3-5, items 370 and 400).
Regarding claim 18 (as best understood), Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, wherein the satellite is a microsatellite, or a small satellite (Smith, figure 3, satellite).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 9745083 B2) in view of Judd (US 20150367966 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gelon (US 6073888 A).
Regarding claim 5, Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, except:
further comprising one or more temperature sensor(s) for determining a satellite temperature and/or a temperature of one or more components of the satellite, wherein the ADCS system is configured to change the orientation of the satellite in response to a signal from the one or more temperature sensor(s).
Gelon (US 6073888 A) teaches one or more temperature sensor(s) for determining a satellite temperature and/or a temperature of one or more components of the satellite (Gelon, figure 3, items 54, 56, 58, and 60).
Smith also teaches wherein the ADCS system is configured to change the orientation of the satellite in response to a temperature (Smith, claim 10).
Smith and Gelon are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of satellite temperature management. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ADCS of Smith with the temperature sensor of Gelon with a reasonable expectation of success in order to monitor the satellite temperature.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 9745083 B2) in view of Judd (US 20150367966 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hemminger (NPL titled “Solar Absorptance and Thermal Emittance of Some Common Spacecraft Thermal Coatings” by John H. Hemminger).
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, wherein the radiative surface has a solar absorptivity (Smith, radiative surface have a solar absorptivity), except:
wherein the radiative surface has a solar absorptivity between 10% and 60%, or between 20% and 50%, or between 30% and 40%.
Hemminger (NPL titled “Solar Absorptance and Thermal Emittance of Some Common Spacecraft Thermal Coatings” by John H. Hemminger) teaches a surface having a solar absorptivity between 10% and 60%, or between 20% and 50%, or between 30% and 40% (Hemminger, page 8, GSFC White Paint NS-37, as of 0.36).
Smith and Hemminger are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft thermal design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the radiative surface of Smith with the GSFC White Paint NS-37 of Hemminger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide IR high emissivity for rejecting thermal energy at normal operating temperatures and moderate absorptivity for rejecting solar energy.
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, wherein the radiative surface provides an infrared 'IR' emissivity and a solar absorptivity (Smith, radiative surface have an inherent IR emissivity and solar absorptivity), except:
wherein the radiative surface provides an infrared 'IR' emissivity of at least 0.85, or at least 0.9 and a solar absorptivity of at least 0.3, or at least 0.35.
Hemminger (NPL titled “Solar Absorptance and Thermal Emittance of Some Common Spacecraft Thermal Coatings” by John H. Hemminger) teaches a surface having an infrared 'IR' emissivity of at least 0.85, or at least 0.9 and a solar absorptivity of at least 0.3, or at least 0.35 (Hemminger, page 8 GSFC White Paint NS-37, as of 0.36 and en of 0.91).
Smith and Hemminger are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft thermal design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the radiative surface of Smith with the GSFC White Paint NS-37 of Hemminger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide IR high emissivity for rejecting thermal energy at normal operating temperatures and moderate absorptivity for rejecting solar energy.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 9745083 B2) in view of Judd (US 20150367966 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Babilo (US 20190152626 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Smith as modified by Judd teaches the satellite according to claim 1, except:
wherein the radiative surface comprises an adhesive tape comprising a polyvinyl fluoride film.
Babilo (US 20190152626 A1) teaches a radiative surface (Babilo, figure 1, item 22) comprising an adhesive tape comprising a polyvinyl fluoride film (Babilo, figure 2a-b, item 46a-b, ¶60, adhesive tape including a release liner made optionally of polyvinyl fluoride film).
Smith and Babilo are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft thermal control. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the radiative surface of Smith with the adhesive tape comprising a polyvinyl fluoride film of Babilo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an easy to apply coating for thermal control (Babilo, ¶8).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 9745083 B2).
Regarding claim 23, Smith discloses the method according to claim 20, further including:
maintaining the satellite in the first position to control the satellite temperature by emission of satellite heat to space via the radiative surface (Smith col 8 lines 11-14); and
alternating the orientation of the satellite between the first and second position to selectively provide for heating and cooling of the satellite (Smith, col 8 lines 3-20), except:
Smith also teaches maintaining the satellite in the second position for a time period (Smith, col 9 lines 14-18, satellite rotated one or more times an orbit; note that a low earth orbit has a period of at least 90 minutes with higher orbits having larger orbital periods).
Accordingly it would also have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the satellite in a second position for at least 5 minutes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to distribute thermal stress/wear across the satellite and to control overall satellite temperature (Smith, col 8 lines 3-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3473602 A teaches an emissivity ranging between approximately .9 and .1 dependent on temperature and an associated reflectivity
US 7357356 B1 teaches sensor array used to control reaction wheels
US 20250038425 A1 teaches regulating temperature by changing attitude (see ¶70).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights