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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
After consultation with primary examiner, regarding amendments of “a first releasable sub-stack strut extending along the multiple stacked satellites of the first satellite sub-stack;
a second releasable sub-stack strut extending along the multiple stacked satellites of the second satellite sub-stack; and
a releasable full stack strut extending along both the multiple stacked satellites of the first satellite sub-stack and the multiple stacked satellites of the second satellite sub-stack.”
The term “releasable” is interpreted “as capable of being released”. Thus, the strut is “capable” or release, possibly through disassembly of the satellites. The limitation does not detail the release of the strut in response to a positive action or command. The limitation of “a first releasable sub-stack strut extending along the multiple stacked satellites” does not place the strut external to the stack of satellites.
Examiner recommends adding further detail that the struts are external to the satellite/payload.
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, 2, 4-6, 11-14, 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panetti et al (US 20210221540) in view of Thompson et al (US 11787572) in view of King et al (US 5199672).
In regards to claim 1, Panetti discloses a stacked satellite dispensing system, comprising:
a first satellite sub-stack having multiple stacked satellites (Fig. 3 top stack, seen in figure below);
a second satellite sub-stack having multiple stacked satellites, the first satellite sub-stack stacked on top of the second satellite sub-stack (as seen in Fig. 3, stacked devices of Fig. 1 and in figure below);
a first releasable sub-stack strut extending along the multiple stacked satellites of the first satellite sub-stack (seen in Fig. 2, Fig. 7 ref. 2 truss extending along stack, truss capable of release);
a second releasable sub-stack strut extending along the multiple stacked satellites of the second satellite sub-stack (ref. 2, mirrored for second sub-stack, truss capable of release); and
Panetti does not expressly disclose: a releasable full stack strut extending along both the multiple stacked satellites of the first satellite sub-stack and the multiple stacked satellites of the second satellite sub-stack.
Thompson teaches a strut extending long a full stack of satellites (Fig. 2 ref. 204, seen also in Fig. 9).
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, Panetti with Thompson by providing a releasable full stack strut extending along both the multiple stacked satellites of the first satellite sub-stack and the multiple stacked satellites of the second satellite sub-stack in order to add strength to keep the stack align during launch and transport.
Panetti does not expressly disclose: the first and second satellite sub-stacks having multiple stacked satellites.
King teaches loading multiple smaller satellites in a single space on a satellite dispenser delivery system (as seen in Fig. 3B, abstract “The satellites are transported into orbit on one or more frame structures referred to as "pallets". When more than one pallet is used, they are placed on top of each other in a "stack"”).
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, Panetti with King by providing the first and second satellite sub-stacks have multiple stacked satellites oriented in each space in order to deliver a greater payload into orbit.
In regards to claim 2, Panetti as combined discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a base, wherein the second satellite sub-stack is supported on the base (Panretti Fig. 1 ref. 5 payload attachment fitting), the first satellite sub-stack is stacked on top of the second satellite sub-stack (Panretti as seen in Fig. 1), and the second satellite sub-stack strut and the full stack strut are attached to the base (Panetti ref. 2 attached to ref. 5, Thompson ref. 204 attached to base in Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
703
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Panetti as combined discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a sub-stack strut bracket attached to or embedded between the first sub-stack and the second sub-stack (as seen in Fig. 1 ref. 8 bracket for attaching upper and lower sub-stack and in figure below), and wherein a bottom end of the first sub-stack strut is adjoined to or inserted into the sub-stack strut bracket (Panetti as suggested in Fig. 4, ref. 2, adjoined into bracket ref. 8, [0030] “The releasable interfaces between stacked satellites and between the lower satellite(s) and the PAF are identical”).
In regards to claim 5, Panetti as combined discloses the system of claim 4, further comprising a first sub-stack coupling (Panetti seen in Fig. 4 ref. 10, coupling composed of joined brackets, ref. 8), and wherein a top end of the first sub-stack strut is attached to the first sub-stack coupling (Panetti as seen in Fig. 4 ref. 10 bracket attaching upper and lower sub-stack, these interfaces are mirrored for each sub-stack/satellite).
In regards to claim 6, Panetti as combined discloses the system of claim 4, further comprising a second sub-stack coupling (Panetti seen in Fig. 4 ref. 10, coupling composed of joined brackets, ref. 8), and wherein a top end of the second sub-stack strut is attached to the second sub-stack coupling (Panetti as seen in Fig. 4 ref. 10 coupling attaching upper and lower sub-stack, these interfaces are mirrored for each sub-stack/satellite).
In regards to claim 11, Panetti as combined discloses he system of claim 1, wherein one or both of: the first sub-stack strut traverses an external sidewall of the multiple stacked satellites of the first sub-stack (Panetti as seen in Fig. 1, 4 of Panetti, ref. 2 traverses an external sidewall, internally, travels across the edge of external wall); and the second sub-stack strut traverses an external sidewall of the multiple stacked satellites of the second sub-stack.
In regards to claim 12, Panetti as combined discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the full stack strut traverses an external sidewall of the multiple stacked satellites of both the first sub-stack and the second sub-stack (as seen in Fig. 8 of Thompson for ref. 216).
In regards to claim 13, Panetti discloses a method of assembling a full stack of satellites that includes a first sub-stack of multiple satellites (Fig. 1 displays first sub-stack, seen in figure above) and a second sub-stack of multiple satellites (Fig. 2 displays first and second sub-stack, stacked, seen in figure above), comprising:
Panetti does not expressly disclose: stacking multiple satellites in a first sub-stack of satellites; stacking multiple satellites in a second sub-stack of satellites;
King teaches housing multiple smaller satellites in a given space on a satellite dispenser delivery system (as seen in Fig. 3B, abstract “The satellites are transported into orbit on one or more frame structures referred to as "pallets". When more than one pallet is used, they are placed on top of each other in a "stack"”).
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, Panetti with King by providing the full stack of satellites includes a first sub-stack of multiple satellites, and a second sub-stack of multiple satellites, and stacking multiple satellites in a first sub-stack of satellites and stacking multiple satellites in a second sub-stack of satellites in order to deliver a greater payload into orbit.
Panetti as combined further discloses:
positioning the second sub-stack of satellites on a base (Panetti as seen in Fig. 1 and 2);
stacking the first sub-stack of satellites on the second sub-stack of satellites (Panetti as seen in Fig. 3 and 2);
Panetti as combined dose not expressly disclose: extending a first sub-stack strut to traverse an external side wall of the multiple stacked satellites of the first sub-stack of satellites; extending a second sub-stack strut to traverse an external side wall of the multiple stacked satellites of the second sub-stack of satellites; and
Thompson teaches a strut extending long a full stack of satellites (Fig. 2 ref. 204, seen also in Fig. 9).
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, Panetti with Thompson by providing extending a first sub-stack strut to traverse an external side wall of the multiple stacked satellites of the first sub-stack of satellites and extending a second sub-stack strut to traverse an external side wall of the multiple stacked satellites of the second sub-stack of satellites in order to add strength to keep the stack align during launch and transport.
Panetti as combined dose not expressly disclose: extending a full stack strut secured to the base to traverse the external side walls of the multiple stacked satellites of both the first sub-stack and second sub-stack.
Thompson teaches a strut extending long a full stack of satellites (Fig. 2 ref. 204, seen also in Fig. 9).
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, Panetti with Thompson by providing extending a full stack strut secured to the base to traverse the external side walls of the multiple stacked satellites of both the first sub-stack and second sub-stack in order to add strength to keep the stack align during launch and transport.
In regard to claim 14, Panetti as combined discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the second sub-stack strut is secured to the base (Panetti seen in Fig. 1, ref. 2 secured to base ref. 5), and further comprising extending the second sub-stack strut secured to the base to traverse the external side wall of the multiple stacked satellites the second sub-stack (Panetti seen in Fig. 1, ref. 2 extending horizontally and internally traversing the external side wall of the second sub-stack of satellites).
In regards to claim 16, Panetti as combined discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising attaching a sub-stack strut bracket to or embedding a sub-stack strut bracket between the first sub-stack and the second sub-stack (Panetti seen in Fig. 4 at ref. 10), and
adjoining a bottom end of the first sub-stack strut to the sub-stack strut bracket (Panetti as seen in Fig. 4 strut, not referenced, adjoining the bracket at ref. 10) or inserting the bottom end of the first sub-stack strut in the sub-stack strut bracket.
In regards to claim 17, Panetti as combined discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising positioning a first sub-stack coupling to a top end of the first sub-stack of satellites (Panetti as seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 ref. 8, each sub stack has coupling at top surface, at top end of first sub-stack), and adjoining the first sub-stack strut to the first sub-stack coupling (Panetti ref. 2 extends to and adjoins ref. 10).
In regards to claim 18, Panetti as combined discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising positioning a second sub-stack coupling to a top end of the second sub-stack of satellites (Panetti as seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 ref. 8, each sub stack has coupling at top surface, at top end of second sub-stack), and adjoining the second sub-stack strut to the second sub-stack coupling (Panetti ref. 2 extends to and adjoins ref. 8 seen in Fig. 4).
Claim 3, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panetti, Thompson, King as applied to claim 2, 14 above, and further in view of Coppa (US 4878286).
In regards to claim 3, Panetti as combined discloses the system of claim 2, further comprising a base strut bracket attached to or embedded in the base (Panetti ref. 8 Fig. 1),
Panetti does not expressly disclose: wherein a bottom end of the second sub-stack strut and a bottom end of the full stack strut are adjoined to or inserted into the base strut bracket.
Coppa teaches a bracket for joining at least a first and second strut to complete a support structure (Panetti as seen in Fig. 2 ref. 32 and in Fig. 5, seen at connection between struts).
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, Panetti with Coppa by providing that the bottom end of the second sub-stack strut and a bottom end of the full stack strut are adjoined to or inserted into the base strut bracket in order to provide a stronger connection.
In regards to 15, Panetti as combined discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising attaching a base strut bracket (Panetti ref. 8) to or embedding the base strut bracket in the base (Panetti Fig 1 ref. 8 embedded in base ref. 5 by way of ref. 6 interfaces),
Panetti does not expressly disclose: adjoining a bottom end of the second sub-stack strut and a bottom end of the full stack strut or embedding the bottom end of the second sub-stack strut and the bottom end of the full stack strut in the base.
Coppa teaches a bracket for joining at least a first and second strut to complete a support structure (as seen in Fig. 2 ref. 32 and in Fig. 5, seen at connection between struts).
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, Panetti with Coppa by providing the means for adjoining a bottom end of the second sub-stack strut and a bottom end of the full stack strut or embedding the bottom end of the second sub-stack strut and the bottom end of the full stack strut in the base in order to provide a stronger connection.
Claim 7, 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panetti, Thompson, King as applied to claim 1, 4 above, and further in view of Preiswerk (US 5094046).
In regards to claim 7, Panetti as combined discloses the system of claim 4, further comprising a first sub-stack coupling (Panetti Fig. 4 ref. 10 formed from joining of refs. 8, Fig. 2),
Panetti does not expressly disclose: wherein a top end of the first sub-stack strut is attached to the first sub-stack coupling by an adhesive or weld, or the top end of the first sub-stack and the first sub-stack coupling are molded together.
Preiswerk teaches using adhesive in connecting a coupling with a strut (C4:1 “To form a batten frame…Batten members 4 are bonded in those blind bores by a suitable adhesive”).
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, Panetti with Preiswerk by providing a top end of the first sub-stack strut is attached to the first sub-stack coupling by an adhesive in order to provide a secure connection while saving weight.
In regards to claim 8, Panetti as combined discloses the system of claim 4, further comprising a second sub-stack coupling (Panetti Fig. 4 ref. 10 formed from joining of refs. 8),
Panetti does not expressly disclose: wherein a top end of the second sub-stack strut is attached to the second sub-stack coupling by an adhesive or weld, or the top end of the second sub-stack and the second sub-stack coupling are molded together.
Preiswerk teaches using adhesive in connecting a coupling with a strut (C4:1 “To form a batten frame…Batten members 4 are bonded in those blind bores by a suitable adhesive”).
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, Panetti with Preiswerk by providing a top end of the second sub-stack strut is attached to the second sub-stack coupling by an adhesive in order to provide a secure connection while saving weight.
Claim 9, 10, 19, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panetti, Thompson, King as applied to claim 1, 13 above, and further in view of Jones et al (US 5411226).
In regards to claim 9, Panetti as combined discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose:
the first sub-stack strut extends diagonally along the multiple stacked satellites of the first satellite sub-stack and stabilizes the first sub-stack along an x-axis, y- axis, and z-axis, and the second stub-stack strut extends diagonally along the multiple stacked satellites of the second satellite sub-stack and stabilized the second sub-stack along the x- axis, v-axis, and z-axis.
Jones teaches a satellite sub-stack, first and second sub-stacks seen in Fig. 6 ref. 30 and ref. 32, reinforced with a diagonal sub-stack strut, Fig. 7b ref. 794 oriented diagonally.
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, Panetti with Jones by providing the first sub-stack strut extends diagonally along the multiple stacked satellites of the first satellite sub-stack and stabilizes the first sub-stack along an x-axis, y- axis, and z-axis in order to provide additional strength to the stack during launch and transport.
In regards to claim 10, Panetti as combined discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the full stack strut extends diagonally along the multiple stacked satellites of the first sub-stack and the multiple stacked satellites of the second sub-stack and stabilizes the first sub-stack and the second sub-stack along an x-axis, v-axis, and z-axis.
Jones teaches a satellite sub-stack, first and second sub-stacks seen in Fig. 6 ref. 30 and ref. 32, reinforced with a diagonal sub-stack strut, Fig. 7b ref. 794 oriented diagonally.
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, Panetti with Jones by providing the full stack strut extends diagonally along the multiple stacked satellites of the first sub-stack and the multiple stacked satellites of the second sub-stack and stabilizes the first sub-stack and the second sub-stack along an x-axis, v-axis, and z-axis in order to provide additional strength to the stack during launch and transport.
In regards to claim 19, Panetti as combined discloses the method of claim 13, but does not expressly disclose: diagonally extending the first sub-stack strut to traverse the external side wall of the multiple stacked satellites of the first sub-stack and stabilizing the first sub- stack along an x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis with the diagonally extended first sub-stack strut, and diagonally extending the second sub-stack strut to traverse the external side wall of the multiple stacked satellites of the second sub-stack and stabilizing the second sub-stack along the x-axis, v-axis, and z-axis with the diagonally extended second sub- stack strut.
Jones teaches a satellite sub-stack, first and second sub-stacks seen in Fig. 6 ref. 30 and ref. 32, reinforced with a diagonal sub-stack strut, Fig. 7b ref. 794 oriented diagonally.
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, Panetti with Jones by providing diagonally extending the first sub-stack strut to traverse the external side wall of the multiple stacked satellites of the first sub-stack and stabilizing the first sub- stack along an x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis with the diagonally extended first sub-stack strut to provide additional strength to the stack during launch and transport.
In regards to claim 20, Panetti as combined discloses the method of claim 13, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising diagonally extending the full stack strut to traverse the external side walls of the multiple stacked satellites of both the first sub-stack and the second sub-stack
Jones teaches a satellite sub-stack, first and second sub-stacks seen in Fig. 6 ref. 30 and ref. 32, reinforced with a diagonal sub-stack strut, Fig. 7b ref. 794 oriented diagonally.
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, Panetti with Jones by providing comprising diagonally extending the full stack strut to traverse the external side walls of the multiple stacked satellites of both the first sub-stack and the second sub-stack
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 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