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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 03/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/17/2026. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 appears to contain a typographical error in line 10 where it recites: “the plurality of small satellites configured to rotate…”. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “the plurality of small satellites are configured to rotate…”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the plurality of small satellites are operated autonomously”. Examiner notes that this language infers that the satellites “are” operated by some other element, and recommends amending to “the plurality of small satellites are configured to operate autonomously.”
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 and 10 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.
Claim 4 recites “any other telescopes on the robotic space station” in line 2. This is indefinite because it is unclear if these “other” telescopes comprise the “one or more telescopes” of claim 1, or if there are additional “other” telescopes on the space station. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “a coupled small satellite”, despite previously introducing “a plurality of small satellites” in Claim 1. It is unclear if this recitation in Claim 10 intends to reference the previous recitation of Claim 1, or intends to introduce a new, additional “coupled small satellite.” For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as “each of the plurality of small satellites.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 3, 5-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (“Modular self-reconfigurable spacecraft”), provided by Applicant in IDS dated 07/15/2025, in view of Aslam et al. (US 11971300 B1), hereafter Aslam.
Regarding Claim 1, Hu discloses a robotic space station system (annotated Fig. 16 below) , the robotic space station system comprising:
one or more interconnecting modules (annotated Fig. 16 below);
a plurality of small satellites (annotated Fig. 16 below), each small satellite further comprising:
one or more docking adapters (standardized interfaces, annotated Fig. 16 below);
wherein:
each of the plurality of small satellites is rotatably coupled to at least one of the one or more interconnecting modules via the one or more docking adapters along a central axis (rotatably coupled via standardized interfaces, see annotated Fig. 16 below);and
the plurality of small satellites configured to rotate independently about the central axis (via individual three degree of freedom manipulator arms, see annotated Fig. 16 below and para 3.1.7.).
While Hu discloses the small satellites can carry payloads “according to the mission requirements” (para. 3.1.7), Hu does not specifically disclose that the small satellites have one or more telescopes.
Aslam teaches a similar small satellite comprising one or more telescopes (101, Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the plurality of small satellites of Hu with one or more telescopes as taught by Aslam, with a reasonable expectation of success, for use for planetary science and earth science missions (Aslam, Col. 8, lines 16-17).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Hu teaches the robotic space station system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of small satellites are operated autonomously (Hu, para. 3.1.7, “…self-configurable spacecraft…”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Hu teaches the robotic space station system of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more telescopes has an optical axis normal to the central axis of the robotic space station system (Aslam, Fig. 1A, axis bound by R1 is normal to a flat side of the satellite, which would be normal to the central axis of Hu as modified by Aslam).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Hu teaches the robotic space station system of claim 1, wherein the robotic space station system can reconfigure autonomously (Hu, para. 3.1.7, “…self-configurable spacecraft…”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Hu teaches the robotic space station system of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more interconnecting modules further comprises:
one or more rotatable couplings (three degree of freedom manipulator arm, annotated Fig. 16 above), the one or more rotatable couplings configured to urge each of the small satellites that are coupled to rotate about the central axis of the robotic space station system (examiner notes that a three degree of freedom manipulator arm is capable of this function).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Hu teaches the robotic space station system of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more docking adapters further comprises: one or more rotatable couplings (three degree of freedom manipulator arm, annotated Fig. 16 above), the one or more rotatable couplings configured to urge a coupled small satellite to rotate about the central axis of the robotic space station system (examiner notes that a three degree of freedom manipulator arm is capable of this function).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hu as applied above, in further view of Loenard (US 20180141683 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Hu teaches the robotic space station system of claim 1.
Modified Hu is silent about wherein the plurality of small satellites are disposed in a truss structure.
Leonard teaches a truss structure for small satellites (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the plurality of small satellites of modified Hu with a truss structure as taught by Leonard, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to add a support frame that also adds fuel capacity (Leonard, para. [0001]).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hu as applied above, in further view of Ducellier et al. (US 20210263293 A1), hereafter Ducellier.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Hu teaches the robotic space station system of claim 1.
Modified Hu is silent about wherein the one or more telescopes on each small satellite point in a different direction than any other telescopes on the robotic space station system.
Ducellier teaches the concept of pointing a plurality of telescopes on one system in different directions (para. [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to point the one or more telescopes on each small satellite of modified Hu in different directions as taught by Ducellier, in order to reduce the overall size and mass of the telescope required by the satellite (Ducellier, para. [0007]) and offer a wider range of viewing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record, individually or in combination, do not disclose or render obvious the combined limitations of claims 7-8. The closest prior arts of record are Hu et al. (“Modular self-reconfigurable spacecraft”), provided by Applicant in IDS dated 07/15/2025, in view of Aslam et al. (US 11971300 B1), hereafter Aslam, as outlined in the prior art rejection above.
However the prior art of record does not appear to teach the combined limitations of claim 7, specifically a first half of the plurality of small satellites being configured to rotate in one direction along the central axis, and a second half of the plurality of small satellites being configured to rotate in an opposite direction along the center axis, thereby cancelling out a net angular momentum of the space station system. While Hu’s small satellites may have the capability to rotate in different directions, it would not have been obvious to rotate them in the claimed manner with the telescopes attached, and it would not be obvious to combine or modify the prior arts of record to teach the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights