PTAB

IPR2014-01376

Space Exploration Technologies Corp v. Blue Origin LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Sea Landing of Space Launch Vehicles and Associated Systems and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’321 patent discloses systems and methods for landing a reusable portion of a space launch vehicle, such as a first or booster stage, on a sea-going platform. The method involves launching the vehicle, separating the stages, reorienting the booster stage to a tail-first orientation, and performing a vertical, powered landing on the platform.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-3 by Ishijima

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ishijima (Yoshiyuki Ishijima et al., Re-entry and Terminal Guidance for Vertical-Landing TSTO, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, 1998).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ishijima, published over a decade before the ’321 patent’s priority date, disclosed every limitation of claims 1-3. Ishijima described a method for recovering the first stage of a two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) reusable launch vehicle. Petitioner asserted that Ishijima’s Figure 1 illustrates an identical flight profile to that of the ’321 patent, including a nose-first launch using rocket engines, separation, a "Rotation Maneuver" to a tail-first orientation, and a vertical "Powered-Descent Phase" to land on a "tanker on the sea." Petitioner mapped the launch from a land-based site (Tanegashima Space Center) and the floating platform landing directly to the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 3.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 over Ishijima in view of Lane

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ishijima (a 1998 AIAA technical paper) and Lane (Patent 5,873,549).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that independent claim 8, which recites a similar method to claim 1 but with more detailed steps, was obvious over the combination of Ishijima and Lane. Ishijima was argued to teach most limitations, including coupling a payload, launching, turning off engines, separating, reorienting, and performing a powered vertical landing on a floating platform. Lane was introduced to supply specific teachings not explicit in Ishijima, namely reigniting the engines after the reorientation maneuver is complete and using aerodynamic control surfaces (flaps) to perform that maneuver. Lane explicitly disclosed delaying engine reignition until after reorientation and using flaps to perform the rotation maneuver.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Lane's engine timing with Ishijima's system to achieve the known benefit of minimizing propellant usage, a critical concern in rocket design. Similarly, a POSITA would have been motivated to implement the general "Rotation Maneuver" shown in Ishijima using the well-known and specific aerodynamic flap system disclosed in Lane to provide vehicle stability and control during the unpowered phase of flight.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that combining these known techniques—propellant-saving engine timing and flap-based aerodynamic control—with Ishijima's disclosed landing profile would have been a predictable and straightforward integration for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 4 and 5 over Ishijima in view of Mueller '653

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ishijima (a 1998 AIAA technical paper) and Mueller ’653 (Patent 5,927,653).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims 4 and 5, which add limitations concerning the post-recovery reuse of the launch vehicle. While Ishijima described a "Reusable Launch Vehicle" recovered on a tanker and transferred to a launch site, Mueller ’653 was cited for its detailed disclosure of the logistical steps for reuse. Mueller ’653 taught a system for transporting recovered vehicle stages to a "reconfiguration and assembly complex" for refurbishment and subsequent relaunching.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that the motivation to combine was the shared, explicit goal of both references: reducing the cost of space transportation through reusability. A POSITA seeking to implement the reusable system of Ishijima would naturally look to prior art like Mueller ’653 for established methods of vehicle refurbishment and preparation for the next launch. The substantial cost savings provided a compelling reason to integrate these teachings.
    • Expectation of Success: The process of refurbishing and reusing aerospace components was a known concept, and Petitioner argued there would have been a high expectation of success in applying the logistical framework from Mueller ’653 to the vehicle recovered in Ishijima.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations relying on: Kindem (Patent 6,024,006) for transferring a recovered vehicle to a transit vessel; and Spencer (Patent 6,450,452) and Waters (a 2001 ION conference proceeding) for separating stages at a predetermined altitude and using GPS-based positional information to guide the landing.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "space launch vehicle": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a device used to carry a payload into space," consistent with its use in the specification and general understanding in the art.
  • "tail-first orientation": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a position in which the vehicle tail is pointed substantially in the direction of motion," accounting for minor deviations and stabilization efforts described in the specification.
  • "positional information": Petitioner proposed this term, which appears in claims 7 and 11 but not the specification, be construed as "a signal comprising data representative of location," based on context and related disclosures of a platform broadcasting its position.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of the ’321 patent as unpatentable based on the grounds set forth in the petition.