DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application filed 1 June 2025 which claims priority to PRO 63/658,577 filed 11 June 2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2 June 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1 and all claims depending therefrom 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.
The terms “light, dark, low, high, significant” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “light, dark, low, high, significant” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the terms will be read as “a radiator assembly positionable on an outer surface of a spacecraft, configured to controllably change from a first state with a lower absorptance-to-emittance ratio to a second state with a higher absorptance-to-emittance ratio than the first state; and a controller in communication with the radiator assembly, to dynamically adapt to the thermal load on the system to accommodate varying system and mission parameters, providing a dynamic modulation range, instant switching, and controllability”.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US 2003/0085323) in view of Demiryont.
- Regarding Claim 1. Keller discloses a thermal control system (10, illustrated by fig. 2) for a spacecraft (12), comprising:
a radiator assembly (26) positionable on an outer surface of a spacecraft (12, illustrated by fig. 2). Keller does not disclose the radiator assembly configured to controllably change from a first state with a lower absorptance-to-emittance ratio to a second state with a higher absorptance-to-emittance ratio than the first state; and
a controller in communication with the radiator assembly, to dynamically adapt to the thermal load on the system to accommodate varying system and mission parameters, providing a dynamic modulation range, instant switching, and controllability.
However, Demiryont discloses an assembly for use with thermal control of spacecraft (“space-craft thermal management system” column 5 lines 14-15) wherein the assembly (10, fig. 1) is configured to controllably change from a first state with a lower absorptance-to-emittance ratio to a second state with a higher absorptance-to-emittance ratio than the first state (“selectively alter the coloration and transparency of the EC layer” column 1 lines 44-45); and a controller in communication with the assembly, to dynamically adapt to the thermal load on the system to accommodate vary system and mission parameters, providing a dynamic modulation range, instant switching, and controllability (“selectively controllable by applying a voltage across the plurality of active layers” column 2 lines 32-33; the intended use of controlling the thermal load is realized by one of ordinary skill in the art with the combination of the assembly of Keller with the assembly of Demiryont). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to combine Keller and Demiryont to provide a thermal control system that adapts to the environment of the system to ensure the internal temperature of the spacecraft is regulated as taught my Demiryont.
- Regarding Claim 2. Keller as modified discloses the system of claim 1, with the radiator assembly (10). Demiryont further discloses a UV reflective layer, barrier layer, a reflective display layer, and IR reflective layer (fig. 1 illustrates the various layers).
- Regarding Claim 3. Keller as modified discloses the system of claim 1. Demiryont further discloses the controller operates a reflective display layer of the assembly to dynamically adjust the absorptance-to-emittance state thereof to control thermal requirements (“selectively controllable by applying a voltage across the plurality of active layers” column 2 lines 32-33).
- Regarding Claim 4. Keller as modified discloses the system of claim 1, with the radiator assembly. Demiryont further discloses a reflective display layer formed of electrophoretic material that can change its optical properties in a controlled manner (“selectively controllable by applying a voltage across the plurality of active layers” column 2 lines 32-33; “optical change” column 1 lines 38-39).
- Regarding Claim 5. Keller as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the radiator assembly is thermally connected to subsystems of the spacecraft, such as payload, spacecraft bus and other subsystems to control the thermal load thereof (inherent to the radiator assembly of Keller).
- Regarding Claim 6. Keller as modified discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a heat storage system assembly thermally connected to the radiator assembly (inherent to the system of Keller).
- Regarding Claim 8. Keller as modified discloses the system of claim 1. Demiryont further discloses wherein the reflective display layer is selected from the group consisting of electrochromic, electrophoretic, reflective LCD, electrowetting, electrofluidic, IMOD, and DMD materials (fig. 1 and disclosure of Demiryont).
- Regarding Claim 15. Keller discloses a spacecraft (12) comprising:
a structural panel mounted with a multi-layer radiator assembly (10) including a reflective display layer (inherent);
and heat storage components thermally coupled to the radiator assembly (10) and spacecraft subsystems (illustrated by fig. 2). Keller does not disclose a controller configured to operate the reflective display layer to adjust thermal properties.
However, Demiryont discloses a controller configured to operate the reflective display layer to adjust thermal properties (“space-craft thermal management system” column 5 lines 14-15; “selectively alter the coloration and transparency of the EC layer” column 1 lines 44-45; “selectively controllable by applying a voltage across the plurality of active layers” column 2 lines 32-33; the intended use of controlling thermal properties is realized by one of ordinary skill in the art with the combination of the assembly of Keller with the assembly of Demiryont). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to combine Keller and Demiryont to provide a thermal control system that adapts to the environment of the system to ensure the internal temperature of the spacecraft is regulated as taught my Demiryont.
- Regarding Claim 16. Keller as modified discloses the spacecraft of claim 15. Demiryont further discloses wherein the multi-layer radiator assembly includes a UV protective layer and IR reflective layer (fig. 1).
- Regarding Claim 18. Keller as modified discloses the spacecraft of claim 15, further comprising heat switches managed by the controller to redistribute thermal energy between components (inherent to Keller).
Claims 9, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller as modified in view of Obviousness.
- Regarding Claim 9. Keller as modified discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the thermal control system is software reconfigurable for pre-launch and on-orbit adaptation.
However, the examiner contends that it is an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to provide for reconfigurable software within the thermal control system to ensure the system can be used for various orbital trajectories and scenarios. Doing so allows for greater efficiency to be realized along with lowered operating costs as the system will be capable of being adapted to various use cases.
- Regarding Claim 17. Keller as modified discloses the spacecraft of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the reflective display layer is dynamically adjustable via a programmable controller.
However, the examiner contends that it is an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to provide for a programmable controller to dynamically adjust the reflective layer to ensure the spacecraft can be used for various orbital trajectories and scenarios. Doing so allows for greater efficiency to be realized along with lowered operating costs as the system will be capable of being adapted to various use cases.
- Regarding Claim 19. Keller as modified discloses the spacecraft of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the controller adjusts the radiator's state to a high absorptance condition prior to eclipse for heat storage.
However, the examiner contends that it is an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to provide for heat storage prior to eclipse to ensure the spacecraft can be used for various orbital trajectories and scenarios and internal system remain operational during the eclipse operating conditions. Doing so allows for greater efficiency to be realized along with lowered operating costs as the system will be capable of being adapted to various use cases.
- Regarding Claim 20. Keller as modified discloses the spacecraft of claim 15, wherein the radiator also serves as an optical stealth feature to reduce satellite visibility.
However, the examiner contends that it is an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to provide the radiator to also serve as an optical stealth feature to reduce satellite visibility of the spacecraft to ensure the spacecraft can be used for various orbital trajectories and scenarios. Doing so allows for greater efficiency to be realized along with lowered operating costs as the system will be capable of being adapted to various use cases.
Claims 10-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of Demiryont in further view of Obviousness.
- Regarding Claim 10. Keller discloses a method of thermally regulating a spacecraft (12), comprising:
pre-integrating a radiator assembly (10) with a spacecraft bus (inherent). Keller does not disclose using a software controller to configure the radiator assembly to a desired absorptance state based on mission-specific parameters received after integration.
However, Demiryont discloses a system configured to control a desired absorptance state based on mission-specific parameters (“selectively controllable by applying a voltage across the plurality of active layers” column 2 lines 32-33; the intended use of controlling the thermal load is realized by one of ordinary skill in the art with the combination of the assembly of Keller with the assembly of Demiryont, see claim 1). Keller as modified does disclose a software controller for post integration.
However, the examiner contends that it is an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to provide for post integration software control within the thermal control system to ensure the system can be used for various orbital trajectories and scenarios. Doing so allows for greater efficiency to be realized along with lowered operating costs as the system will be capable of being adapted to various use cases.
- Regarding Claim 11. Keller as modified discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising conducting thermal testing and reprogramming the controller based on thermal balance results (inherent).
- Regarding Claim 12. Keller as modified discloses the method of claim 10, wherein configuring includes setting the a/s state to match orbital parameters and payload thermal requirements (inherent).
- Regarding Claim 13. Keller as modified discloses the method of claim 10. Demiryont further discloses wherein the radiator assembly includes an electrophoretic display layer controlled via voltage input (fig. 1 and “selectively controllable by applying a voltage across the plurality of active layers” column 2 lines 32-33; “optical change” column 1 lines 38-39).
- Regarding Claim 14. Keller as modified discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the radiator's thermos-optical state is adjusted dynamically in response to sun exposure and eclipse entry or exit (inherent).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYE W ABELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1500 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TYE WILLIAM ABELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644 3 February 2026
Prosecution Insights