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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on 3/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The title for the third non-patent literature document is incorrect.
Examiner requests that applicant submit an additional Information Disclosure Statement with the document title listed as “Multi-Event Jettison Guidance Approaches for Drag-Modulation Aerocapture”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without an additional element which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 1-18, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 1-18 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories (e.g., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Claims 1-18 are directed to a method.
Claims 1-18 are directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 1-18 are directed to a method for determining a bank angle and an updated angle of attack which achieve a desired state for a spacecraft when the spacecraft exits the atmosphere. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass an engineer using pencil and paper to calculate a bank angle and angle of attack for a spacecraft. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claims 1-18 do not include any step 2A, prong two, additional elements.
Claims 1-18 do not include any step 2B additional elements. Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 19, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claim 19 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories. Claim 19 is directed to a system (a controller).
Claim 19 is directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claim 19 is directed to a system for determining a bank angle and an updated angle of attack which achieve a desired state for a spacecraft when the spacecraft exits the atmosphere. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses an engineer using pencil and paper to calculate a bank angle and angle of attack for a spacecraft. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claim 19 does not include any step 2A, prong two, additional elements.
Claim 19 includes the step 2B additional element of a controller. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the controller is anything other than a conventional controller. Calculating a bank angle and an updated angle of attack is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed using a generic controller. Controllers are widely prevalent and in common use in spacecraft. Controllers are not significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well-understood, routine and conventional features previously known to the spacecraft industry. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “Software embodied on a non-transitory, computer-readable medium” is software per se. Examiner suggests replacing “Software embodied on a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, the software comprising” with “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising”.
Claim 20 is directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claim 20 is directed to software for determining a bank angle and an updated angle of attack which achieve a desired state for a spacecraft when the spacecraft exits the atmosphere. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses an engineer using pencil and paper to calculate a bank angle and angle of attack for a spacecraft. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claim 20 does not include any step 2A, prong two, additional elements.
Claim 20 includes the step 2B additional elements of a non-transitory, computer-readable medium and a computing system. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the medium and computing system are anything other than conventional media and computing systems. Calculating a bank angle and an updated angle of attack is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed using generic media and computing systems. Media and computing systems are widely prevalent and in common use in spacecraft. Media and computing systems are not significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well-understood, routine and conventional features previously known to the spacecraft industry. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner suggests amending the independent claims to positively recite a control function of the spacecraft in order to provide a revised step 2A, prong two, additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. For instance, the independent claims could be amended to include “inserting the spacecraft into the desired orbit around the astronomical body using the determined bank angle and the determined updated angle of attack as the control input for the spacecraft as the spacecraft travels through the atmosphere of the astronomical body”.
See, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, which is available on the USPTO Website.
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 1-20 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 claims 1, 19 and 20, the term “substantially achieves the desired state for the spacecraft when the spacecraft exits the atmosphere” is vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-18 depend on claim 1.
Examiner suggests replacing “substantially achieves the desired state for the spacecraft when the spacecraft exits the atmosphere” with “achieves a desired velocity for the spacecraft when the spacecraft exits the atmosphere of the astronomical body”.
Conclusion
Ridderhof et al., Stochastic Atmosphere Modeling for Risk Adverse Aerocapture Guidance, 2020 IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 7-14, 2020, pp. 1-7, is the closest prior art to the applicant’s invention. Ridderhof discloses a system for providing aerocapture guidance inside an atmosphere with a density randomly perturbed according to a Gaussian process model (Abstract). By using feedback control, an aerocapture guidance system shapes the distribution of atmosphere exit conditions (1. INTRODUCTION). The system solves for an optimal switching time to switch from full lift up to full lift down (2. PROBLEM FORMULATION). The system ensures that the space craft leaves the planet atmosphere at an exit velocity which achieves the apoapsis and periapsis required to successfully transition to an orbital trajectory around a planet. An aerocapture maneuver is designed to minimize the fuel required to switch the spacecraft into the orbital trajectory (4. AEROCAPTURE MISSION DESIGN).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al., Convex Programming Approach to Real-time Trajectory Optimization for Mars Aerocapture, 2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 7-14, 2015, pp. 1-7, discloses utilizing an Adaptable Deployable Entry Placement Technology (ADEPT) aeroshell as a controllable Guidance and Control (G&C) effector through active bank angle and angle of attack modulation and convex optimization-based control methods for planetary entry maneuvers (Abstract).
Nixon et al., Aerocapture Design Study for a Titan Polar Orbiter, 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 5-12, 2016, pp. 1-16, discloses using active aerocapture to reduce the propellant mass required for inserting a small scientific satellite into Titan polar orbit (Abstract).
Austin et al., SmallSat Aerocapture to Enable a New Paradigm of Planetary Missions, 2019 IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 2-9, 2019, pp. 1-20, discloses aerocapture using the drag of a single pass of a spacecraft through the atmosphere of a planet to capture the spacecraft into orbit around the planet. Using drag modulation flight control, the spacecraft adjusts its drag area during atmospheric flight through a single-stage jettison of a drag skirt, allowing the spacecraft to target a particular science orbit in the presence of atmospheric uncertainties (Abstract).
Tracy et al., CPEG: A Convex Predictor-corrector Entry Guidance Algorithm, 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 5-12, 2022, pp. 1-10, discloses a Convex Predictor-corrector Entry Guidance (CPEG) algorithm for a spacecraft. The CPEG algorithm combines trajectory optimization with the predictor-corrector guidance framework by solving a constrained optimization problem during a correction step (1. INTRODUCTION).
Lu et al., Single-Event Lift Modulation Aerocapture for Small, Low-Cost Interplanetary Missions, 2023 IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 4-11, 2023, pp. 1-9, discloses the use of single-event lift modulation aerocapture maneuvers to achieve efficient orbit insertion at planetary destinations for small spacecraft. Guidance uses a numerical predictor-corrector algorithm derived from optimal control theory (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights