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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The remarks argue the new limitations are not met. The modified rejection is necessitated by this amendment.
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) 1-5 and 14-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naepflin et al (US2015/0077874) in view of Maier (US 2,464,141) or Rich et al (“Polishing process for concave lightweight silicon coated silicon carbide optics”).
Naepflin et al discloses an mirror assembly comprising a mirror (12) capable of being used in space (see paragraphs 0024, 0027 and 0053) having an optical surface on a front side (16) and a mounting interface surface (the top surface of the ribs (24) and nodes (28) on a back side of the mirror (see figures 1A-3), the back side having support ribs (24) formed thereon (see figures 1A-3), the mounting interface surface being formed through at least one of the support ribs and facilitating mounting of the mirror to an external support structure (114a-c, 118 or the support frame of the telescope (not shown)), see paragraph 0039, in a final installation by coupling with a final installation mounting structure (114a-c, 118, 190, 194a, 194b, or the support frame of the telescope (not shown)), see paragraph 0039 along with figures 2-7b, wherein the mirror is assembled to a test support base (114a-c, 118 or the support frame of the telescope (not shown), see paragraph 0039) by coupling a test mounting structure (114a-c, 118, 150a, 150b, 190, 194a, 194b) to the mounting interface surface (see figures 2-7b), wherein the test mounting structure corresponds to the final installation mounting structure (see figures 2-7b), wherein the test mounting structure is inherently capable to facilitate addressing of final installation deformations within the mirror prior to the final installation of the mirror via the struts (190, 194a, 194b), wherein the test mounting structure is formed of struts (190, 194a, 194b) and assembling the aerospace mirror includes aligning the struts to the test support base in line with the top surface of the ribs (see figures 2-4A), wherein the optical surface was machined (see paragraph 0029), wherein machining the optical surface comprises polishing, grinding, lapping, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0029), wherein the struts (194, 194a, 194b, 220, 230, 260) have an adjustable length (see paragraph 0073 along with figures 3, 7a and 9A), wherein the struts (190, 194a, 194b) are inherently configured to produce an equivalent effect on the mirror as the final installation mounting structure (see figures 2-4A, 7a and 7b), when the mirror assembling is completed, wherein the struts (190, 194a, 194b, 220, 230, 260) comprise an adjustable length (see paragraph 0073 along with figures 3, 7a and 9A), wherein the mirror is assemble to the test support base, the test support base comprises coupling the test mount structure to one or more support ribs (24) of the mounting interface surface of the mirror (see figures 1b-3), wherein the test support base comprises coupling one or more attachment fittings (150a, 150b, 190, 194a, 194b) of the test mounting structure to the mounting interface surface of the mirror (see figures 1b-3), wherein the attachment fittings are inherently capable of being permanently attached to the mounting interface surface of the mirror and utilize to mount the mirror to the final installation mounting structure and wherein the mirror assembly is inherently capable of utilizing the test mounting structure as the final installation mounting structure, and facilitating assembly of the mirror to the external support structure in the final installation via the test mounting structure due to the fact that Naepflin et al imparts all of the claimed structure, see figures 1A-9A along with the associated description thereof, wherein the optical surface is inherently coated with an optical coating (a highly reflective material, see paragraph 0029), except for explicitly stating that the optical surface was measure and machined to have a selected surface roughness, surface quality or tolerance so as to obtain a desirable optical surface.
Maier and Rich et al each teaches it is well known to machine/polish an optical surface to have a selected surface roughness/flatness/quality within a desired tolerance as measured by an interferometer in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of obtaining a desirable optical surface quality and/or to prepare an optical surface to receive a reflective coating. See column 3, lines 20-30 of Maier and pages 238-240 of Rich et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the optical surface of Naepflin et al to be machine/polish to a selected surface roughness/flatness/quality within a desired tolerance and measured the roughness/flatness/quality of the optical surface with an interferometer, as taught by Maier or Rich et al, in order to obtain a selected surface quality and/or to prepare the optical surface for a reflective coating.
The combination does not explicitly disclose “measuring the optical surface while the mirror is on the test support base; and machining the optical surface while the mirror is on the test support base.”
There was, at the time of invention, a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem. In this case, it is recognized in the art that measuring and machining can either take place “while the mirror is on the test support base” or off the base.
As for the nature of the combination, it is noted that there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem such that the pixel electrodes may be activated simultaneously or at different times. And these two, finite options (i.e., on or off the test support base) could have been pursued, by one of ordinary skill in the art, the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, to achieve testing and machining “on the test base” would have given a person of ordinary skill good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, including improved image quality. "If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007) at 1397. Success is anticipated since the two options are straightforward, and there are benefits to performing the testing and machining process “on the test support” such as optimization of size, proportion and evenness across the system, potentially improving image quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to try changing when the testing and machining is done to while the mirror is on the test support base to another of the finite options so as to optimize the structure’s size, proportion and/or evenness across the system, potentially improving image quality
As to the limitations of claims 2-4, 14-17 and 20-24, such method limitations are considered met by the mirror assembly structure of Naepflin et al in view of Maier or Rich et al.
As to the limitations of claim 19, the examiner takes official notice that it is known to use and employ mirror actuators/struts having a negative coefficient of thermal expansion in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of compensating for different optical materials. Note, by example only, U.S. Patent 7,244,034 to Karandikar et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0141108 to Atkinson et al; U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2008/0129796 to McAvoy et al, and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0162931 to Carrigan et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the actuator/struts of Naepflin et al in view of Maier or Rich et al to include a negative coefficient of thermal expansion, as commonly used and employed in the optical art, in order to compensate for the use of different optical materials.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 14-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullard et al (US2017/0055731) in view of Maier (US 2,464,141) or Rich et al (“Polishing process for concave lightweight silicon coated silicon carbide optics”).
To the extent the claims are definite, Bullard et al discloses an mirror assembly comprising an aerospace mirror (101) capable of being used in space (due to the fact that the mirror is mountable to a satellite, see paragraph 0016) which imparts an optical surface on a front side of optical face sheet (111) and a mounting interface surface (115, 115’, 215 and/or attachment fittings, see paragraph 0016) of the ribs (110) on a back side of the mirror (see figures 1-5), the back side having support ribs (110) formed thereon (see figures 1-5), the mounting interface surface being formed through at least one of the support ribs and facilitating mounting of the aerospace mirror to an external support structure (struts 120a-f and/or base structure, such as a satellite, via strut mounts (not shown), see paragraph 0016), in a final installation by coupling with a final installation mounting structure (i.e., the base structure, such as a satellite, and/or strut mounts (not shown), see paragraph 0016 along with figures 1-5), wherein the aerospace mirror is assembled to a test support base (i.e., the base structure, such as a satellite, and/or strut mounts (not shown), see paragraph 0016 along with figures 1-5), by coupling a test mounting structure [(120a-f and/or 130), (220 and/or 230)] to the mounting interface surface (see figures 2, 3 and 5), wherein the test mounting structure corresponds to the final installation mounting structure (see figures 1-5), wherein the test mounting structure is inherently capable to facilitate addressing of final installation deformations within the mirror prior to the final installation of the mirror via struts (120a-f, 220), wherein the test mounting structure is formed of struts (120a-f, 220) and assembling the aerospace mirror to the test support base includes aligning the struts in line with the ribs (see figures 2, 3 and 5), wherein the struts (120a-f, 220) are inherently configured to produce an equivalent effect on the mirror as the final installation mounting structure (see figures 2, 3 and 5), when the mirror assembling is completed, wherein the aerospace mirror is assemble to the test support base, the test support base comprises coupling the test mount structure to one or more support ribs (110) of the mounting interface surface of the mirror (see figures 1-5), wherein the test support base comprises coupling one or more attachment fittings (strut mounts (not shown), see paragraph 0016) of the test mounting structure to the mounting interface surface of the aerospace mirror (see figures 1-5), wherein the attachment fittings are inherently capable of being permanently attached to the mounting interface surface of the aerospace mirror and utilize to mount the aerospace mirror to the final installation mounting structure and wherein the aerospace mirror is inherently capable of utilizing the test mounting structure as the final installation mounting structure, and facilitating assembly of the aerospace mirror to the external support structure in the final installation via the test mounting structure due to the fact that Bullard et al imparts all of the claimed structure, see figures 1-5 along with the associated description thereof, except for explicitly stating that the optical surface was measure and machined to have a selected surface roughness, surface quality or tolerance so as to obtain a desirable optical surface.
Maier and Rich et al each teaches it is well known to machine/polish an optical surface to have a selected surface roughness/flatness/quality within a desired tolerance as measured by an interferometer in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of obtaining a desirable optical surface quality and/or to prepare an optical surface to receive a reflective coating. See column 3, lines 20-30 of Maier and pages 238-240 of Rich et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the optical surface of Bullard et al to be machine/polish to a selected surface roughness/flatness/quality within a desired tolerance and measured the roughness/flatness/quality of the optical surface with an interferometer, as taught by Maier or Rich et al, in order to obtain a selected surface quality and/or to prepare the optical surface for a reflective coating.
As to the limitations of claims 2-4, 14-17 and 20-23, such method limitations are considered met by the mirror assembly structure of Bullard et al in view of Maier or Rich et al.
As to the limitations of claims 5 and 18, the examiner takes Official notice that it is known to use and employ mirror actuators/struts having an adjustable length in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of compensating for any environmental factors or disturbances. Note, by example only, US 2015/0077874 to Naepflin et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the actuator/struts of Bullard et al in view of Maier or Rich et al to include struts having an adjustable length, as commonly used and employed in the optical art, in order to compensate for any environmental factors or disturbances.
As to the limitations of claim 19, the examiner takes official notice that it is known to use and employ mirror actuators/struts having a negative coefficient of thermal expansion in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of compensating for different optical materials. Note, by example only, U.S. Patent 7,244,034 to Karandikar et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0141108 to Atkinson et al; U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2008/0129796 to McAvoy et al, and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0162931 to Carrigan et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the actuator/struts of Naepflin et al in view of Maier or Rich et al to include a negative coefficient of thermal expansion, as commonly used and employed in the optical art, in order to compensate for the use of different optical materials.
As to the limitations of claim 24, the examiner takes Official notice that it is known to coat an optical face sheet with an reflective optical coating in the same field of endeavor for the purpose obtaining a mirror. Note, by example only, US 2015/0077874 to Naepflin et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the face sheet of Bullard et al in view of Maier or Rich et al to include an reflective optical coating, as commonly used and employed in the optical art, in order to obtaining a mirror or reflecting surface.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D. CARRUTH whose telephone number is (571)272-9791, who can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Supervisory Examiner Carruth by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Director Allana L Bidder, can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights