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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendments/remarks dated 11/13/2025 has been received, entered, and fully considered. Claims 1-2 are amended. Claims 3-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are currently under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 15-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I (claims 1-7 and 8-14) and Invention II (claims 15-20) are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product as claimed (claims 1-14 with independent claims 1 and 8) can be used in a materially different process (claims 15-20 written as a computer program product configured to conduct management of the spacecraft through a process) of using that product that does not involve:
receiving ground station-initiated identification data for one or more new components, payloads, or modules through a radio frequency(RF)communications pathway;
validating the identity of the component, payload, or module;
designating one or more of the new components, payloads, or modules as acceptable docking candidates;
initiating radio communications with each of the one or more designated components, payloads, or modules;
transmitting state information for one or more available docking locations corresponding to each of the one or more designated components ,payloads, or modules;
initiating tracking and navigation activities for each of the one or more designated components, payloads, or modules using one or more sensors; and
navigating the one or more designated components, payloads, or modules to each of their respective available docking locations.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation in claim 14 do not seem to be supported in the original disclosure. The only recitation of the ‘transfer vehicle’ in the specification exists in para. [0011] of the specification as filed. It only recites “…A payload that has been launched into space is navigated towards the spacecraft using a transfer vehicle…’, this recitation does not support the claimed spacecraft being equipped with a transfer vehicle as claimed in claim 14. Therefore, the limitation is considered new matter.
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 1-14 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.
Re claim 1 and 8, from the recitation in the preamble of claims 1 and 8, it is not clear how the claimed ‘spacecraft’ can be free-flying and ‘orbit-independent’ without propulsion system and orbit or station keeping mechanism to operate the spacecraft. It is not clear how the spacecraft would work or operate being free-flying without attitude and guidance control for a desired operation. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
In claim 1, It is not clear what “other resources” in line 5 and line 12 mean. It is not clear what other resources are being referred and the claim is considered vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the docking device connections" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the plurality of truss or platform docking devices" in lines 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the plurality of truss or platform docking devices" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 3 line 6 it is not clear if the limitation after the phrase ”maybe” is part of the claim is since the claims terms following the word seem conditional and not definite. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the docking device connections" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the spacecraft system" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
In claim 8, It is not clear what “other resources” in line 5 and line 11 mean. It is not clear what other resources are being referred and the claim is considered vague and indefinite.
In claim 10 line 7 it is not clear if the limitation after the phrase ”maybe” is part of the claim is since the claims terms following the word seem conditional and not definite. Appropriate correction required.
In claim 14, It is not clear to the examiner how the claimed spacecraft would have a transfer vehicle. Is it a part of the spacecraft in space or not. Appropriate correction/clarification as per the original disclosure is required.
All the dependent claims are rejected under the same rational as the rejection of their respective parent claims due to their solely dependency from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 110182388) (see attached English Translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a free-flying, orbit-independent spacecraft (Fig. 1) comprising:
one or more trusses or platforms (1, Fig. 1) configured to host a plurality of components, payloads, and modules at various docking locations (Fig. 1), each truss or platform having one or more internal physical conduits (para. [0030]-[0031], 7, Fig. 1) that are configured to provide power distribution infrastructure, data communications links, and connections to other resources available on the spacecraft to the plurality of components, payloads, and modules (2, 3, 5,6, 8,9, etc. Fig. 1);
a plurality of docking devices (16, Fig.2) present at the various docking locations on the one or more spacecraft trusses or platforms that connect to the one or more internal physical conduits and provide standard attachment and resource interfaces and are configured to attach and detach a plurality of components, payloads, and modules (2, 3, 5,6, 8,9, etc. Fig. 1) , and to provide fuel, power, external and on-platform data communications, sensor readings, thermal management, and other resources to the plurality of components, payloads, and modules via the docking device connections (Fig. 2) to the one or more internal physical conduits of the one or more spacecraft trusses or platforms, wherein the plurality of components, payloads, and modules each have a corresponding docking device configured to attach to and detach from one or more of the plurality of truss or platform docking devices (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Chen discloses a free-flying, orbit-independent spacecraft (Fig. 1) wherein one or more of the plurality of components, payloads, and modules comprise mission-critical components, payloads, and modules(2,3,5,6, 8,9, etc. Fig. 1), including one or more of computers, sensors, batteries (3, Fig. 1), thermal management and control, actuators, mechanisms, solar panel arrays (2, Fig. 1), sun sensors, radio/optical communications, data communications, gimbaled and fixed antenna payloads, phased array antennas, radar payloads, collapsible booms, scientific research, navigation, propellant tanks, and propulsion systems, that may be docked to one or more of the plurality of docking devices located on the one or more spacecraft trusses or platforms (Fig. 1). In para. [0004] ,[0005], [0020] Chen also discloses building “massive spacecraft systems such as large integrated reconnaissance systems, integrated communication systems, and unattended large space platform systems can be launched into space in batches and in stages, and then combined to form a complete system”(para. [0005]). This clearly disclose some part of the spacecraft components are assembled prior to launch of the spacecraft.
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Chen discloses a free-flying, orbit-independent spacecraft (Fig. 1) wherein the plurality of components, payloads, and modules (2,3,5,6, 8,9, etc. Fig. 1) are configured to receive communications and instructions for navigation and docking from the spacecraft system, and one or more of the plurality of components, payloads, and modules is launched into outer space and configured to navigate to and rendezvous and dock with the spacecraft (‘….enabling on-orbit expansion through spacecraft in orbit…’, para. [0005])
Regarding Claim 8, Chen discloses free-flying, orbit-independent modular spacecraft system (Fig. 1) comprising: one or more trusses or platforms (1, Fig. 1) configured to host a plurality of modular components, payloads, and modules at various docking locations (5,6, 8,9, etc. Fig. 1), each truss or platform having one or more internal physical conduits (para. [0030]-[0031], 7, Fig. 1) that are configured to provide power distribution infrastructure, data communications links, and connections to other resources available on the spacecraft to the plurality of modular components, payloads, and modules (Fig. 1);
a plurality of truss or platform docking devices(16, Fig.2) present at the various docking locations on the one or more spacecraft trusses or platforms that connect to the one or more internal physical conduits and provide standard attachment and resource interfaces and are configured to attach and detach a plurality of modular components, payloads, and modules, and to provide fuel, power, external and on-platform data communications, sensor readings, thermal management and other resources to the plurality of modular components, payloads, and modules via truss or platform docking device connections to the one or more internal physical conduits of the one or more spacecraft trusses or platforms (Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of modular components, payloads, and modules (5,6, 8,9, etc. Fig. 1) each have a corresponding docking device configured to attach to and detach from one or more of the plurality of truss or platform docking devices (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 110182388) in view of Kong et al. (US 6,299,107).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Chen discloses a free-flying, orbit-independent spacecraft (Fig. 1) with plurality of truss or platform docking devices(16, Fig.2) and the corresponding component, payload, and module docking devices(2,3,5,6, 8,9, etc. Fig. 1).
Chen is silent, but Kong in the same filed of endeavor teaches a docking devices and the corresponding component (12, Fig. 2) (between an active craft 10 and a passive craft (20, fig. 1) include one or more of contact sensors, pre-marked fiducials, locking mechanisms (Fig. 7A, 7B. ‘…preload wedges of the passive craft's docking assembly in the unlocked and locked positions.’), and actuators (15a, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking devices disclosed in Chen with the above components as taught in Kong with a reasonable expectation of success because it help secure and actuate the docking device connecting the components, payloads, and modules to the spacecraft.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 110182388) in view of Rohweller et al. (US10,131,452).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Chen discloses a free-flying, orbit-independent spacecraft (Fig. 1) with electromechanically sensitive wherein one or more of the plurality of components, payloads, and modules (2,3,5,6, 8,9, etc. Fig. 1).
Chen is silent, but Rohweller in the same filed of endeavor teaches a one or more collapsible booms (16, Fig. 4-5) that extend to hold electromagnetically sensitive components, payloads, or modules away from the spacecraft during operation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacecraft disclosed in Chen with the one or more collapsable/telescoping boom taught in Rohweller with a reasonable expectation of success because it help to support and increase the physical separation of the component/payload/module from the spacecraft.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 110182388).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, broadly interpreted and as best understood, Chen discloses solar panel arrays (2, Fig. 1) with one or more of the plurality of components, payloads, and modules(2,3,5,6, 8,9, etc. Fig. 1) docked to one or more of the plurality of docking devices located on the one or more spacecraft trusses or platforms prior to launch of the spacecraft (Fig. 1). Chen also discloses building “massive spacecraft systems such as large integrated reconnaissance systems, integrated communication systems, and unattended large space platform systems can be launched into space in batches and in stages, and then combined to form a complete system”(para. [0005]). This clearly disclose some part of the spacecraft components are assembled prior to launch of the spacecraft and launched to space.
Chen discloses the claimed invention except the one or more of the plurality of components, payloads, and modules docked to one or more of the plurality of docking devices located on the one or more spacecraft trusses or platforms prior to launch of the spacecraft obstruct one or more of the plurality of docking devices that are not docked to the solar panel arrays during launch, and reveal the previously blocked docking devices once the solar panel arrays are fully deployed and extended away from the spacecraft. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the one or more of the plurality of components, payloads, and modules in relation to the docking device and solar panel arrays before and after launch as claimed, since applicant has not disclosed that having that arrangement solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with arrangement of the one or more of the plurality of components, payloads, and modules in relation to the docking device and solar panel arrays disclosed in Chen.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 110182388) in view of Faber (US 2022/0371751).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Chen discloses a free-flying, orbit-independent spacecraft (Fig. 1). Chen is silent, but Faber in the same filed of endeavor teaches a spacecraft is equipped with a transfer vehicle (176). configured to navigate one or more of the plurality of components, payloads, and modules between post-launch deployment and the spacecraft (para. 0036], [0039], [0041], Fig.1, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacecraft disclosed in Chen with the transfer vehicle as taught in Faber with a reasonable expectation of success because it help transfer the components, payloads, and modules to the spacecraft and away from the spacecraft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Conclusion
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 ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642