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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12234039 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they teach the same core features and are not obvious variants of each other. The immediate invention further does not seem to add meaningful structural/architectural limitations beyond the parents orbital window concepts.
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Claim 27 recites the limitation " the multi-use space vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 and 31 recites the limitation " the refueling operations”. Claim 27 only recites a refueling operation.
Although the Examiner does not reject the claims 27-31 over 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or (b), the Examiner wishes to point out the excessive use of functional language in the claims. Claim 27 calls for a system for operating a space vehicle having only a propulsion system, a propellant resource, and an operator to initiate operations. The propulsion system only needs to be capable of performing the actions claimed, the propellant resource only needs to be present and able to be refueled, and the operator can be either remote or onboard and either a pilot or a computer which can do the functions of the claim. This creates an exceedingly broad claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holder et al. (US 20200198809) and In view of Gryniewski et al. (US 20080237400).
27. Holder discloses (New) A system for operating a space vehicle (SSTO space vehicle 100), the system comprising: a propulsion system (111) configured to i) launch the space vehicle from a launch site to a target orbit (with main rocket engines 120a-c), and ii) maneuver the space vehicle from the target orbit to a repeating ground track orbit (OMS engines 122a-b for in-space directional control and reorientation – capable of orbital maneuvers as claimed); and an operator (controller 140 capable of issuing operational outputs to the vehicle to enact maneuvers and other operations as claimed here: i) initiate deorbiting from the repeating ground track orbit, and ii) facilitate landing of the multi-use space vehicle at the launch site.
Gryniewski teaches what Holder does not teach a propellant resource 12, 15, 13 and fluid transfer system 41 to facilitate a refueling operation while the space vehicle is in the repeating ground track orbit, wherein the refueling operation includes a rendezvous operation with an orbiting vehicle launched from Earth (as Gryniewski teaches launching spacecraft 12 launching from earth and refueling operations using 41)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the refueling propellant resource in Gryniewski in the invention of Holder in order to incorporate the refueling capability to extend operations and on-orbit mission capability.
28. Holder teaches orbital maneuvers (New) The system of claim 27, wherein the propulsion system OMS engines 122a-b are configured to perform two thrust operations to transition from the target orbit to the repeating ground track orbit.
29-30. Holder teaches (New) The system of claim 27, wherein the repeating ground track orbit (as is capable by the operations of the controller 140) allows the space vehicle to overfly the launch site once per day or would also be capable of providing multiple opportunities for the refueling operations within a 24-hour period (by adjusting the maneuvers and operation of OMS engines 122a-b).
31. the combination of Holder and Gryniewski teach the capability to maneuver into a RGT orbit using controller 140 and refueling operations of Gryniewski as claimed above capable of being performed in any desired window of operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the refueling propellant resource in Gryniewski in the invention of Holder in order to incorporate the refueling capability to extend operations and on-orbit mission capability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art includes launching spacecraft orbiting changing orbit and deorbiting, for example space shuttle operations, as well as the use of ground track orbits.
The closest prior art does not teach using ground track orbits, repeating over the same launch/landing site at a defined inclination, performing propellant transfer operations during a predetermined window, deciding timing to deorbit, and land back at the launch site.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M BENEDIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7824. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00.
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 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.
/JUSTIN M. BENEDIK/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JUSTIN M BENEDIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642