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 .
Drawings
Figure 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. (See Applicant’s paragraph 0057) See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “L” has been used to designate both “Lift” and “Transverse Force” (disclosed in specification, however, the figures show it as parallel force). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the forces transverse and parallel to the tether are disclosed as transverse force (L) and the parallel force (D) but are shown in the figures as the opposite of what is disclosed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-9 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 1, lines 1-2, recites “a method for stabilization of the orbital motion set-up of a group of satellites bound to a tether”. This is unclear. What is disclosed is the stabilization of the orbital flight formation of the group of satellites, not the stabilization of the orbital motion of the group of satellites. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “stabilization of the orbital motion” in claim 1, line 1, as -- stabilization of the orbital flight formation --, since this is what is actually disclosed.
The term “ABEP” in claim 9, line 2, is an acronym without reciting what the acronym means. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “ABEP” in claim 9, line 2, as – Atmosphere-Breathing Electric Propulsion (ABEP) --, since this is the meaning of the acronym disclosed in the specification.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “the relative position of the satellites is maintained by applying a control tension to the tether” but does not recite what or how this is done. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite how or what is controlling the tension force to the tether. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims is about two or more tethered satellites wherein the relative position of the satellites are maintained my applying a control tension to the tether but not reciting how it is done or what is doing it, simply that it is done.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (NPL: “Coordinated control of tethered satellite cluster systems”, AIA A Paper, Pub date August 6, 2001).
Regarding claim 1
Mori teaches a method for stabilization of the orbital motion set-up of a group of satellites bound to a tether wherein the relative position of the satellites is maintained by applying a control tension to the tether. (See abstract, page 2, “Introduction” & “Tethered Satellite Cluster Systems”; page 5, Rotating Motion; page 10, Position Control, page 11, Thruster Control; & figures 1, 3-5, & 7)
Regarding claim 2
Mori teaches wherein the control tension of the tether is obtained, at least partly, by exerting a force on at least one satellite. (See page 2, “Introduction” & “Tethered Satellite Cluster Systems”; page 5, Rotating Motion; page 10, Position Control, page 11, Thruster Control; & figures 1, 3-5, & 7)
Regarding claim 3
Mori teaches wherein a satellite on which a force is exerted, is arranged at the end of the tether. (See page 2, “Introduction” & “Tethered Satellite Cluster Systems”; page 5, Rotating Motion; page 10, Position Control, page 11, Thruster Control; & figures 1, 3-5, & 7)
Regarding claim 6
Mori teaches wherein the control tension of the tether is obtained, at least partly, by rotating at least one sub-group of satellites bound by the tether relative to the center of mass of the sub-group. (See page 2, “Introduction” & “Tethered Satellite Cluster Systems”; page 5, Rotating Motion; page 10, Position Control, page 11, Thruster Control; & figures 1, 3-5, & 7)
Regarding claim 7
Mori teaches wherein the control tension of the tether is obtained, at least partly, by exerting a thrust on at least one driving satellite. (See page 11, Thruster Control; & figures 1, 3-5, & 7)
Regarding claim 8
Mori teaches wherein the driving satellite (satellite 2) is in an intermediate position along the tether. (See page 11, Thruster Control; & figures 1, 2 & 7)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (NPL: “Coordinated control of tethered satellite cluster systems”, AIA A Paper, Pub date August 6, 2001) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turner (Pub No. US 2016/0244189 A1).
Regarding claim 4
Mori is silent about wherein the motion of the satellites is in a low Earth orbit and the control tension of the tether is obtained by adjusting the disposition of one or more aerodynamic surfaces provided on the satellite whereon a force is exerted.
However, Turner teaches wherein the motion of the satellites is in a low Earth orbit and the control tension of the tether is obtained by adjusting the disposition of one or more aerodynamic surfaces provided on the satellite whereon a force is exerted. (See paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0009, 0016, 0039, 0044, & figures 1-4 & 7-9)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motion of the satellites is in a low Earth orbit and the control tension of the tether is obtained by adjusting the disposition of one or more aerodynamic surfaces provided on the satellite whereon a force is exerted as taught by Turner in the satellite system of Mori, so as to regulate drag to maintain the satellite in a desired position with respect to one or more other spacecraft/satellites in a constellation. (See paragraph 0039)
Regarding claim 5
Mori is silent about wherein the aerodynamic surfaces are integral with the respective satellites, while the set-up of the associated satellite, and/or the angle of incident relative to the orbital movement velocity of the aerodynamic surfaces are controlled by the position of the center of mass of the same satellite.
However, Turner teaches wherein the aerodynamic surfaces are integral with the respective satellite, while the set-up of the associated satellite, and/or the angle of incident relative to the orbital movement velocity of the aerodynamic surfaces are controlled by the position of the center of mass of the same satellite. (See paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0009, 0016, 0039, 0044, & figures 1-4 & 7-9)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a aerodynamic surfaces are integral with the respective satellite, while the set-up of the associated satellite, and/or the angle of incident relative to the orbital movement velocity of the aerodynamic surfaces are controlled by the position of the center of mass of the same satellite as taught by Turner in the satellite system of Mori, so as to regulate drag to maintain the satellite in a desired position with respect to one or more other spacecraft/satellites in a constellation. (See paragraph 0039)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (NPL: “Coordinated control of tethered satellite cluster systems”, AIA A Paper, Pub date August 6, 2001) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (Pub No. US 2022/0205436 A1).
Regarding claim 9
Mori is silent about wherein the thrust is obtained by means of ABEP electric propulsors.
However, Wu teaches wherein the thrust is obtained by means of ABEP electric propulsors. (See paragraphs 0001, 0004, 0006, 0029, & 0031)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thrust that is obtained by means of ABEP electric propulsors as taught by Wu in the satellite system of Mori, since an ABEP propulsor is a well-known propulsor to generate thrust even with no working medium carried so as to reduce launching and operating costs. (See paragraphs 0029 & 0031)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference Saltman (Pub No. US 2025/0002181 A1) discloses a method for stabilization of the orbital motion set-up of a group of satellites bound to a tether wherein the relative position of the satellites is maintained by applying a control tension to the tether; wherein the control tension of the tether is obtained, at least partly, by exerting a force on at least one satellite; wherein a satellite on which a force is exerted, is arranged at the end of the tether; & wherein the control tension of the tether is obtained, at least partly, by rotating at least one sub-group of satellites bound by the tether relative to the center of mass of the sub-group.
The reference Keshmiri et al. (NPL: “Effects of Aerodynamic Lift on the Stability of Tethered Satellite Systems”, Advances in Astronautical Sciences, vol. 42, no. 3, Pub date January 1, 1993) discloses a method for stabilization of the orbital motion set-up of a group of satellites bound to a tether wherein the relative position of the satellites is maintained by applying a control tension to the tether; wherein the control tension of the tether is obtained, at least partly, by exerting a force on at least one satellite; wherein a satellite on which a force is exerted, is arranged at the end of the tether; wherein the motion of the satellites is in a low Earth orbit and the control tension of the tether is obtained by adjusting the disposition of one or more aerodynamic surfaces provided on the satellite whereon a force is exerted; & wherein the aerodynamic surfaces are integral with the respective satellites, while the set-up of the associated satellite, and/or the angle of incident relative to the orbital movement velocity of the aerodynamic surfaces are controlled by the position of the center of mass of the same satellite.
The reference Reedy et al. (Pub No. US 2021/0284361 A1) discloses wherein the motion of the satellites is in a low Earth orbit and the control tension of the tether is obtained by adjusting the disposition of one or more aerodynamic surfaces provided on the satellite whereon a force is exerted; & wherein the aerodynamic surfaces are integral with the respective satellites, while the set-up of the associated satellite, and/or the angle of incident relative to the orbital movement velocity of the aerodynamic surfaces are controlled by the position of the center of mass of the same satellite.
The reference Pines et al. (NPL: “Two Nonlinear Control Approaches for Retrieval of a Thrusting Tethered Subsatellite”, Journal of Guidance and Control and Dynamics, AIA A, Reston VA, US, vol. 13, no. 4, Pub date July 1, 1990) discloses a method for stabilization of the orbital motion set-up of a group of satellites bound to a tether wherein the relative position of the satellites is maintained by applying a control tension to the tether; wherein the control tension of the tether is obtained, at least partly, by exerting a force on at least one satellite; wherein a satellite on which a force is exerted, is arranged at the end of the tether; wherein the control tension of the tether is obtained, at least partly, by exerting a thrust on at least one driving satellite ; & wherein the driving satellite is in an intermediate position along the tether.
The references Swet (US Patent No. 3,532,298) & Robinson (US Patent No. 6,945,499 B1) each disclose a method for stabilization of the orbital motion set-up of a group of satellites bound to a tether wherein the relative position of the satellites is maintained by applying a control tension to the tether; wherein the control tension of the tether is obtained, at least partly, by exerting a force on at least one satellite; wherein a satellite on which a force is exerted, is arranged at the end of the tether.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
