DETAILED ACTION
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 19 is 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.
In re Claim 19, the language specifies first and second sets of structural members. Are these additional structural members that are part of the plurality of structural members from claim 1 or are they a separate first and second set. This lack of clarity renders the scope of the claim indefinite. The examiner will interpret as best able.
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 and 10, 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 claim language has described the at least four structural members as being two longeron and two diagonal members. Therefore, in Merrifield, none of the structural members that are 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 claim language has defined the structural members as longerons or diagonal.
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, 10, 11, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrifield (U.S. 7,963,084) in view of Leung (U.S. 5,056,291).
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 has been described above, the examiner maintains that the language requiring no perpendicular structural members is limited to just the four structural members (two diagonals and two longerons) and that the transverse members (106) disclosed by Merrifield are not subject to that limitation. However, as the applicant disagrees, the examiner notes that truss structures without structural members that are perpendicular to the longeron members are known in the art.
Leung teaches a three-dimensional structural framework where nodes (10) are the junction points for longerons (12,14,18) and diagonals (16). There are no structural members that are perpendicular to the longerons connected to these nodes. (Figures 1-3)
Trusses without perpendicular structural members are well known and obvious variants and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to utilize one since this variant is capable of supporting an applied load.
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. The first and second circles appear to be the same size and shape, however, should the applicant dispute this, modifying the perimeter truss to meet this requirement would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. Changes in size, shape, and proportion have been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. A modification would allow the truss to be reconfigured to meet varying loading requirements.
Merrifield teaches a plurality of diagonals (108) coupled between the first set of the plurality of nodes (125b) and the second set of the plurality of nodes (120,125c), wherein each node of the first set of a plurality of nodes and the second set of a plurality of nodes have two longerons (101,102) and two diagonals (108) coupled together to the same node. (Figures 1-16)
Merrifield does not specifically teach that no node of the first circle has any structural member extending to any node of the second circle that is perpendicular to any of the first set of the plurality of longerons and the second set of the plurality of longerons.
The examiner notes that truss structures without structural members that are perpendicular to the longeron members are known in the art. Leung teaches a three-dimensional structural framework where nodes (10) are the junction points for longerons (12,14,18) and diagonals (16). There are no structural members that are perpendicular to the longerons connected to these nodes. (Figures 1-3)
Trusses without perpendicular structural members are well known and obvious variants and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to utilize one since this obvious variant is capable of supporting an applied load.
In the combination, this would result in a perimeter truss where no node of the first circle has any structural member extending to any node of the second circle that is perpendicular to any of the first set of the plurality of longerons and the second set of the plurality of longerons.
In re Claims 19 and 20, Merrifield teaches perimeter truss (900) comprising: a first set of structural members/longerons (101) of the plurality of structural members coupled by a first set of the plurality of nodes (120) to define a first shape; a second set of structural members/longerons (102) of the plurality of structural members coupled by a second set of the plurality of nodes (125B) to define a second shape. Both shapes are circular so the first shape can be considered a mirror image of the second shape. Structural members (diagonals 108) connect the first shape to the second shape.
Merrifield does not teach that there are no structural members coupled between the first shape and the second shape that are perpendicular to the first set of structural members or second set of structural members.
As the examiner previously noted, truss structures without structural members that are perpendicular to the longeron members are obvious variants that are well known in the art, as exemplified by Leung.
Leung teaches a three-dimensional structural framework where nodes (10) are the junction points for longerons (12,14,18) and diagonals (16). There are no structural members that are perpendicular to the longerons connected to these nodes. (Figures 1-3)
As was stated previously, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Merrifield with the teachings of the Leung variant since this obvious variant is capable of supporting an applied load.
The combination would result in a configuration where there are no structural members coupled between the first shape and the second shape are perpendicular to the first set of structural members or second set of structural members.
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 Leung (U.S. 5,056,291), and in further 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 Leung (U.S. 5,056,291) and 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 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 16-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merrifield (U.S. 7,963,084) in view of Leung (U.S. 5,056,291), 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 May/14/2026 with respect to the claims have been considered but are largely moot in view the amended claim language requiring a new ground(s) of rejection based on the Leung reference.
The applicant has argued that member (106), disclosed by Merrifield, is indeed a structural member of the truss. The examiner reiterates that claim language has described the” at least four structural members” as being two longeron and two diagonal members. Therefore, none of these structural members (the diagonals) that are coupled to the same node taught by Merrifield are perpendicular to either of the two longeron members when the truss structure is in the deployed configuration. The examiner maintains that this transverse member is not considered a structural member since claim language has defined the structural members as longerons or diagonal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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
Prosecution Insights