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 .
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.
Claim 10, 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12319443. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims, 10, 12 recite a system having:
a launch vehicle having a launch axis;
a plurality of satellite stacks inside the launch vehicle, each satellite stack of the plurality of satellite stacks including a first satellite and a second satellite,
wherein the second satellite of each stack is connected only to the first satellite of the stack via cylindrical core structures that are aligned along an axis different than the launch axis.
Claim 12 recites: the axis is perpendicular to the launch axis.
Claim 11 of US 12319443 recites:
a launch vehicle having a launch axis,
a plurality of satellite stacks inside the launch vehicle, each satellite stack including a proximal satellite and a distal satellite,
each satellite, of the plurality of satellites satellite stacks, has an internal cylindrical core structure, and the internal cylindrical core structures of the proximal satellite and the distal satellite of each satellite stack are aligned along a common core axis perpendicular to the launch axis, and
the distal satellite of each stack is connected only to the proximal satellite of the stack, and loads transfer from the distal satellite to the launch vehicle through the internal cylindrical core structure of the proximal satellite of the satellite stack.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Turner et al (US 10538347).
In regards to claim 15, Turner discloses a method of deploying satellites from a launch vehicle, comprising:
connecting adjacent satellites (Fig. 1 ref. 110) by one of a plurality of separation systems (Fig. 1 ref. 130, disclosed as mechanical linkages) along an axis that is horizontal relative to a vertical launch axis (as seen in Fig. 1 of Turner);
connecting a first satellite of the adjacent satellites directly to the launch vehicle by another one of the plurality of separation systems (as seen in Fig. 1, ref. 124 disclosed as trunk member); and
sequentially separating the adjacent satellites by using each separation system of the plurality of separation systems (ref. 110 satellites are dispensed, with the outer first, followed by the inner satellites, ref. 130 separation systems, secures satellites in position for sequential dispensing, thus the ref. 130 are used in the sequential separation).
In regards to claim 17, Turner discloses the method of claim 15, wherein sequentially separating the adjacent satellites includes: urging a second satellite of the adjacent satellites away from the first satellite and the launch vehicle (Turner C7:45 “the robotic manipulator may be configured to deploy the spacecraft by imparting a delta V to the spacecraft relative to the orbiting system. Accordingly, the method 700 may continue at block 760 imparting a relative motion to the spacecraft and, at block 770, releasing the spacecraft” imparting motion/urging satellite away).
In regards to claim 18, Turner discloses the method of claim 15, wherein sequentially separating the adjacent satellites includes: urging the first satellite away from the launch vehicle (Turner C7:45 “the robotic manipulator may be configured to deploy the spacecraft by imparting a delta V to the spacecraft relative to the orbiting system. Accordingly, the method 700 may continue at block 760 imparting a relative motion to the spacecraft and, at block 770, releasing the spacecraft” imparting motion/urging satellite away).
In regards to claim 19, Turner discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the first satellite is connected to a payload adaptor of the launch vehicle (Turner ref. 110 first satellite, connected to refs. 126, 124, which are acting as payload adaptors, connected by way of one or more intermediate elements).
In regards to claim 20, Turner discloses the method of claim 15, wherein each satellite of the adjacent satellites, apart from the first satellite, is connected only to one or more other satellites of the adjacent satellites (as seen in Fig. 1 of Turner, connected by way of refs. 130, connected by way of one or more intermediate elements).
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 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherrette (US 11072441) in view of Walker (US 9902507).
In regards to claim 1, Cherrette discloses a satellite apparatus, comprising:
a housing including an opposing first wall and second wall (seen in Figs. 1, 7, C3:35 “The spacecraft body 12 includes a side panel or wall at each of the six sides of the body 12, where one of the side walls facing the Z-direction has been removed so as to expose the cylinder 14 extending through the body 12”); and
a support structure spanning the first wall and the second wall and enclosed by the housing (ref. 12 C3:30 “a central mounting cylinder 14 extends through the spacecraft body 12 that is oriented along the Z-axis and extends some distance from the spacecraft body 12”),
Cherrette does not expressly disclose: the support structure having a first end portion that is affixed to the first wall
Walker teaches s support structure of a satellite affixed to a wall (Figs. 4 and 6, support ref. 16 affied to wall ref. 12).
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, Cherrette with Walker by providing the means for the support structure to have a first end portion that is affixed to the first wall in order to allow the structure to be supported by the wall and to secure it to the wall to prevent movement.
Cherrette as combine further discloses:
a second end portion that protrudes through the second wall (Cherrette as seen in Fig. 7 ref. 14 protruding through wall refs. 100, 102),
wherein the second end portion of the support structure is configured for connection to a launch vehicle or a second satellite apparatus via a separation system (Cherrette C4:33 “The spacecraft 10 is mounted to two other identical three-axis spacecrafts by securing the flange 16 or 18 of the spacecraft 10 to an identical flange of an adjacent spacecraft. As is well understood by those skilled in the art”).
In regards to claim 2, Cherrette as combined discloses the satellite apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support structure is cylindrical (Cherrette ref. 14).
In regards to claim 3, Cherrette as combined discloses the satellite apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support structure includes a flange for connection to the launch vehicle (Walker Fig. 6 ref. 16, seen also in Fig. 11 at ref. 14).
In regards to claim 4, Cherrette as combined discloses the satellite apparatus of claim 1, wherein the support structure (Cherrette ref. 14) includes a first portion of the separation system (Cherrette ref. 16)) and the launch vehicle includes a second portion of the separation system (Cherrette as combined, Walker discloses launch adaptor for satellite to launch vehicle coupling ref. 16).
In regards to claim 5, Cherrette as combined discloses the satellite apparatus of claim 1, wherein the housing includes four side walls spanning between the first wall and the second wall (Cherrette C3:36 “The spacecraft body 12 includes a side panel or wall at each of the six sides of the body 12”, seen also in Figs. 1 and 7).
In regards to claim 6, Cherrette as combined discloses the satellite apparatus of claim 5, wherein each of the four side walls is connected to the support structure only through the first wall and the second wall (Cherrette as seen in Fig. 7, no support structure attached to ref. 14).
In regards to claim 7, Cherrette as combined discloses the satellite apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the second satellite apparatus has a second support structure having a first end portion and a second end portion (as seen in Fig. 3 of Cherrette, C4:34 discloses identical satellites), the first end portion of the support structure is configured for connection to the second end portion of the second support structure when the second end portion of the support structure is connected to the launch vehicle (Cherrette Fig. 3, C3:33 “The spacecraft 10 is mounted to two other identical three-axis spacecrafts by securing the flange 16 or 18 of the spacecraft 10 to an identical flange of an adjacent spacecraft”), and
the second end portion of the support structure is configured for connection to the first end portion of the second support structure when the second end portion of the second support structure is connected to the launch vehicle (as seen in Fig. 3 of Cherrette, Walker discloses launch adapter ref. 16 for satellite to launch vehicle).
In regards to claim 8, Cherrette as combined discloses the satellite apparatus of claim 7, wherein the support structure and the second support structure align along an axis when connected (se seen in Cherrette Fig. 3 support structure ref. 14 aligned).
In regards to claim 9, Cherrette as combined discloses the satellite apparatus of claim 7, wherein the first end portion of the support structure is configured for connection to the second end portion of the second support structure via a second separation system when the second end portion of the support structure is connected to the launch vehicle (Cherrette Fig. 3 bottom satellite coupled to launch vehicle, accordingly comprising separation system, adjacent satellite comprises separation system, C4:33, Walker discloses launch adapter).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 would be allowed if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under the Double Patenting rejection.
Claim 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display satellite and satellite dispensing systems having satellites align in a stack as well as having internal cylindrical structure.
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