DETAILED ACTION
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)(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(s) 1, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Merrifield (U.S. 7,963,084).
In re Claims 1 and 10, Merrifield teaches a truss structure, comprising: a plurality of nodes/joints (120,125B,125C); a plurality of structural members coupled by the plurality of nodes, wherein the connection between the plurality of structural members to the plurality of nodes permit the plurality of structural members to be repositioned relative to each other to transition between a deployed configuration and a stowed configuration, wherein each node comprises at least four structural members coupled thereto, wherein the at least four structural members comprises two diagonal members (108) and two longeron members (101,102) coupled to a same node, wherein the two diagonal members are rigid and not configured to substantially deform between the deployed and stowed configurations and the two longeron members are deformable due to hinges (111).
As was noted, the applicant has described the structural members as being longeron and diagonal members. Therefore, none of these structural members coupled to the same node are perpendicular to either of the two longeron members when the truss structure is in the deployed configuration. The applicant could argue that transverse member (106) is perpendicular to the longerons, however this transverse member is not considered a structural member since the applicant has defined those as longerons or diagonal. Furthermore, the examiner notes that Figure (16) shows the truss structure in a circular configuration. Achieving this would require either some deformation of the longerons or some play in the node/joints to change the angle longeron positioning to produce the curvature. The examiner would argue that this would result in longerons that were not at an exact 90 degree angle with the transverse members (106) and therefore not perpendicular with them. (Figures 1-16)
In re Claims 11, Merrifield teaches a perimeter truss (900), comprising: a first set of a plurality of longerons (101,102); a first set of a plurality of nodes (125b) configured to connect the first set of the plurality of longerons so that the first set of the plurality of longerons are positioned in an approximate first circle in a deployed configuration; a second set of a plurality of longerons (101,102); a second set of a plurality of nodes (120,125c) configured to connect the second set of the plurality of longerons so that the second set of the plurality of longerons are positioned in an approximate second circle in the deployed configuration; a plurality of diagonals (108) coupled between the first set of the plurality of nodes and the second set of the plurality of nodes, wherein each node of the first set of a plurality of nodes and the second set of a plurality of nodes have two longerons and two diagonals coupled together to the same node. (Figures 1-16)
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) 4-5 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrifield (U.S. 7,963,084).in view of Mobrem (U.S. 20150244081).
In re Claims 4-5 and 12-13, Merrifield teaches a collapsible perimeter truss (900) in a deployed position. Figures 5A and Figure 15 show the system in the stowed configuration where the plurality of longerons (101,102) are in a deformed condition. (Figures 1-16)
Merrifield does not teach a first support structure coupled to the perimeter truss; a reflective surface supported by the first support structure; a second support structure coupled to the perimeter truss; and force elements connected between the first support structure and the second support structure.
Mobrem teaches a collapsible antenna with a collapsible perimeter truss (32), a first support structure (130) coupled to the perimeter truss; a reflective surface (160) supported by the first support structure; a second support structure (190) coupled to the perimeter truss; and force elements (200) connected between the first support structure and the second support structure. (Figures 1-17)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Merrifield with the teachings of Mobrem. The Mobrem support structure supports the curved shape of the reflective mesh. In the combination, it would structurally reinforce the perimeter truss taught by Merrifield.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrifield (U.S. 7,963,084).in view of Mobrem (U.S. 20150244081) and in further view of Keller et al. (U.S. 8,066,227)
In re Claims 6-7 and 14-15 the modified Merrifield has been previously discussed but does not teach longerons made from shaped memory alloy.
Keller teaches a collapsible solar array with longerons (320) made from shaped memory alloy. These longerons collapse or deploy when heated or cooled. (Figures 5-8)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to modify the longerons taught by Merrifield with a shaped memory all alloy this would allow flexibility in how compact the truss can collapse or deploy. The longerons of Merrifield each only have one hinge to fold up along. This would give the longerons a remembered condition is the deployed configuration.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrifield (U.S. 7,963,084).in view of Mobrem (U.S. 20150244081) and Keller et al. (U.S. 8,066,227) and in further view of Schwartzberg et al. (U.S. 4,475,323)
In re Claims 8-9 and 16-17, the modified Merrifield has been previously discussed but does not teach a deployment system comprising one or more cables and a plurality of pulleys.
Schwartzberg teaches that tension ties/cables (68) and spools to control the deployment of the truss hoop. Spools are very much like pulleys and are functionally equivalent to them. However, should the applicant disagree, the examiner takes official notice that cables and pulley are well known and conventional in the art. The application of tension on the one or more cables imposes a force on the plurality of longerons thereby transitioning or retaining the system in the stowed configuration. (Figures 13-17) Column 6, Lines 19-30
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Merrifield with the teachings of Schwartzberg. This would allow for a reliable, effective, and consistent mean of deployment of the truss structure.
In re Claims 18, the modified Merrifield has been previously discussed. Merrifield teaches that the diagonals (108) are rigid and not configured to substantially change between the deployed configuration and the stowed configuration. (Figures 1-16)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/16/2025 with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view the amended claim language requiring a new ground(s) of rejection based on the Merrifield reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633