DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/242,330. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21, 22, and 24-40 are pending.
Claims 39 and 40 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-20 and 23 are cancelled
Claims 21, 22, and 24-38 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
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) 21, 22, 24, 25, and 32-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freebury et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0259911) in view of Verwoerd (WO 2020/101488).
Regarding claim 21, Freebury et al. disclose an extendible mast (#2) for deploying equipment (#86), comprising:
a composite member (#17) formed from plural fiber reinforced layers (#18) laminated together in a matrix material (#19; see paragraph 48) in the form of a shell that is constructed and arranged so as to be configurable between a coiled form (see figure 14, where the member is configured to be coiled around element #40) and an extended form (see figure 3c), wherein when extended the composite member is resiliently biased in the form of an elongate tube having a slit (the slit between ends #15 and #16) along the length (#11) of the tube, the slit formed by longitudinal edges (#15 and #16) of the composite member and wherein when coiled the composite member is opened out (see figure 2B) at the longitudinal edges to a flattened form and wound about an axis (#39) transversely to the longitudinal extent of the composite member (see figures 3B and 14); and
one or more electrical conductors (#87) extending along at least part of the longitudinal extent of the composite member for making connection to the equipment (see paragraph 73), wherein the one or more electrical conductors are integrated between two or more layers within the laminate (paragraph 73 discloses conductor #87 is disposed between layers of material #18).
Freebury et al. disclose the claimed invention except for one or more layers of fiber has a cut-out portion or portions along the length of the extendible mast to accommodate some or all of the one or more electrical conductors. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Verwoerd, that antenna mats can be deployable from a rolled state #10 to a deployed state, where the mats can comprise of a plurality of layers #25 and #46 in order to sandwich antenna structures #6a/b and electrical conductors #42 and #44 therebetween, where cavities #30a/b and channels #32a/b can be provided within the layer #25 in order to allow for such electrical components to sit within the layer where needed. See figure 4B. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided cutouts within the layers of the composite material of Freebury et al., as taught in Verwoerd, in order to allow for proper positioning of the conductors during manufacturing and prevent movement of the conductor elements during deployment and retraction.
Regarding claim 22, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the one or more electrical conductors are positioned at or near the neutral axis of the extendible mast (see figure 3b of Freebury et al., where the conductor #87 is provided within the center of the composite #17 and thus along a neutral axis of the mast).
Regarding claim 24, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the one or more layers of fibers having a cut-out portion or portions is 0 or 90 degree orientation fiber (figures 3A-3C of Freebury et al. depict the inner layer #29 comprises of fibers extending at 0 and 90 degree angles, where it would have been obvious to have provided such cutouts, as taught in Verwoerd, within such a layer since such a layer is where the conductors are to be positioned in order to sandwich the conductor between the layers #18 and thus would provide proper positioning between such elements).
Regarding claim 25, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the layup is, in order, one or more outer layer having angled fiber (outer layer #27 comprises of angled fibers #37 which extend at an angle between 0 and 90 degrees within Freebury et al., see paragraph 52), one or more inner layers (Freebury et al.; #29) having 0 or 90 degree fibers (see figure 3A of Freebury et al., where the fibers #37 in layer #29 extend at 0 and 90 degree angles relative to one another), and one or more inner layers having angled fiber (paragraph 50 of Freebury et al. disclose the laminable material #29 can comprise of one or more layers #28 and thus when more than one layer is used, one layer can be considered one inner layer with 0 or 90 degree fibers and the other can be one or more inner layers having angled fibers that are angled 90 degrees relative to fibers extending parallel to the longitudinal axis #11).
Regarding claim 32, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the one or more electrical conductors are not closer to the edge of the composite member than 10% of the overall flattened width or the overall width of the one or more electrical conductors is not more than 50% of the overall width of the composite member (figure 3B of Freebury et al. depicts the conductor #87 is centrally located and thus considered not closer to the edges #15 and #16 than 10% of the overall flattened width and is instead closer to 50% of the width, and thus meets the first clause of the “or” statement).
Regarding claim 33, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the equipment deployed by the extendible mast or integrated within the extendible mast is a camera, sensor, PV panel, antenna, lighting system, communication equipment or any combination thereof (the equipment is not positively defined since the claims define the mast is configured to deploy such equipment and such equipment is not positively attached or provided on such a mast as presently defined, where Freebury et al. teach equipment #86 can be a camera, lights sensors, or the like in paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 34, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious a distal end of the extendible mast has a mount (Freebury et al.; #83) adapted to attach to a tool or other device (#86; see figure 1 of Freebury et al.), optionally having a socket for receiving and fixing the distal end of the extendible mast and optionally having means for attaching to the one or more conductors in the extendible mast (such optional limitations are not required in every instance and thus Freebury et al. is considered to meet such limitations when they are not wanted).
Regarding claim 35, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious a connector (the wire connector that leads to the electrical elements #88/89 as depicted in figure 15 of Freebury et al.) on the extendible mast for externally connecting to at least one of the one or more electrical conductors (see figure 15 and paragraph 73 of Freebury et al., where such a connector is configured to attach the conductor to a power source #88 or computer #89) and where the rest of the claim limitations are optional and thus not required in order to anticipate such a claim.
Regarding claim 36, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the composite member comprises a bistable material (see figures 3B and 3C of Freebury et al., where the material #17 is bistable since it can hold both a tube, curved shape and a flat shape for proper deployment and retraction).
Regarding claim 37, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious a housing (Freebury et al.; #5) for containing the mast in the coiled form and guiding the extendible mast as it is extended (see figure 1 of Freebury et al.).
Regarding claim 38, Freebury et al. disclose an extendible mast (#2) for deploying equipment (#86), comprising:
a composite member (#17) formed from plural fiber reinforced layers (#18) laminated together in a matrix material (#19; see paragraph 48) in the form of a shell that is constructed and arranged so as to be configurable between a coiled form (see figure 14, where the member is configured to be coiled around element #40) and an extended form (see figure 3c), wherein when extended the composite member is resiliently biased in the form of an elongate tube having a slit (the slit between ends #15 and #16) along the length (#11) of the tube, the slit formed by longitudinal edges (#15 and #16) of the composite member and wherein when coiled the composite member is opened out (see figure 2B) at the longitudinal edges to a flattened formed and wound about an axis (#39) extending transversely to the longitudinal extent of the composite member (see figures 3B and 14); and
one or more transmission elements (#87) extending along at least part of the longitudinal extent of the composite member for making connection to the equipment (see paragraph 73), wherein the one or more transmission elements are between two layers within the laminate (paragraph 73 discloses conductor #87 is disposed between layers of material #18), and wherein at least one of the one or more of the transmission elements is one or more of electrical conductor of data and at least one of a power, an optical fiber element, a hose for fluid flow (electrical conductor #87 leads to power supply #88 and computer #89 to thus provide power and data as needed through the mast)
However, Freebury et al. do not specifically disclose at least one layer of the laminate is at least partially removed to accommodate at least one of the one or more transmission elements. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Verwoerd, that antenna mats can be deployable from a rolled state #10 to a deployed state, where the mats can comprise of a plurality of layers #25 and #46 in order to sandwich antenna structures #6a/b and electrical conductors #42 and #44 therebetween, where cavities #30a/b and channels #32a/b can be provided within the layer #25 in order to allow for such electrical components to sit within the layer where needed. See figure 4B. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least partially removed a portion of the inner layer of the laminated of Freebury et al., as taught in Verwoerd, in order to allow for proper positioning of the conductors during manufacturing and prevent movement of the conductor elements during deployment and retraction.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd and Cox et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0317293).
Regarding claim 26, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the claimed invention except specifically for there are plural 0 or 90 layers, and at least one of the one or more electrical conductors is encased between at least two such layers. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Cox et al., that deployable slit tube structures #100 can be constructed so as to embed a fiber optic element #120 between fiber plies of the tube, where the composite layup of such a tube can comprise of 45 degree outer layers of e-glass fiber and the inner layers can comprise of 0 degree carbon fiber unidirectional plies #112, where figure 2G depicts the fiber optic #120 can be positioned in the center of such a layup between layers of the 0 degree plies #112. See paragraph 71. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the composite material of Freebury et al. to comprise of multiple inner layers of 0 degree fibers which the conductor is to be embedded between, as taught in Cox et al., in order to provide a high strain material that will hold its shape yet allow for extension of additional elements within the material without obstructing the deployment of the additional elements or destroying of the additional elements.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd and Killion et al. (U.S. Patent 3,524,190).
Regarding claim 27, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the claimed invention except for an aperture in an inner or outer layer to allow the electrical conductor to emerge from the body of the mast partway along its length. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Killion et al., that an extendable mast can comprise of an embedded conductor #22/108, where pins #28/110 of the conductor can extend from the conductor through an opening within the outer layer of the mast and outwardly therefrom in order to allow the mast to function properly as an antenna. See figures 8 and 13. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the mast of Freebury et al. to comprise of an aperture within the outer layer which allows the conductor to emerge therefrom, as taught in Killion et al., in order to allow the mast to function as an antenna or to properly power elements provided on an exterior of such a mast.
Claim(s) 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd and Davis et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0287240).
Regarding claim 28, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the claimed invention except for the fiber layup of the mast is modified at one or both ends compared with a middle section to decrease the stiffness of the mast in a region where the conductor leaves. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Davis et al., that extendable masts #110 can be constructed using an electrical conductor #111 embedded between inner layers #112-d-2/3 of the mast, which are sandwiched by outer layers #112-d-1/4. Figure 2C of Davis et al. depict the outer layers #112-d-1/4 do not extend all the way to ends of the mast and thus the ends of the mast comprise of less fiber material and thus less stiffness when compared to the middle segment of the mast in order to provide the mast with degrees of bend as needed by the end user of the mast in the extended state. See paragraph 90. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the mast of Freebury et al. to comprise of less stiffness and material at the longitudinal ends thereof where the conductor leaves the mast, as taught in Davis et al., in order to provide the mast with specific degrees of bend as needed by the end user in the deployed state.
Regarding claim 31, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the claimed invention except for at least one of the one or more electrical conductors is coated with a substance to promote bonding with the matrix material of the composite member. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Davis et al., that the conductive element #111 of a deployable mast can be coated with surface treatments #113 in order to improve structural performance, such as laminae adhesion, with the other layers #112 of the laminate structure. See figure 2B and paragraph 85. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the conductive elements of Freebury et al. to comprise of a coating, as taught in Davis et al., in order to provide better adhesion and structural performance between such elements of the composite mast structure.
Claim(s) 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd and Sinn et al. (DE 102021102980).
Regarding claim 29, Freebury et al. in view of Verwoerd render obvious the conductors #87 can comprise of electrically conductive foil, conductive wires, woven strands or the like (see paragraph 73) but do not specifically disclose use of a ribbon cable. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Sinn et al., that ribbon cables #50 are known and used in order to transmit data or power within deployable structures. See the top of page 8 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used ribbon cable for the electrical conductor of Freebury et al., as taught in Sinn et al., in order to properly transmit power and data between the respective elements of the assembly during use, where the simple substitution of one known electrical conductor for another would yield the same predictable result of transmitting power or data from one location of the mast to another.
Regarding claim 30, Freebury et al. disclose the conductors #87 can comprise of electrically conductive foil, conductive wires, woven strands or the like (see paragraph 73) but do not specifically disclose use of a twisted pair or a cable. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Sinn et al., that ribbon cables #50 are known and used in order to transmit data or power within deployable structures. See the top of page 8 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a cable for the electrical conductor of Freebury et al., as taught in Sinn et al., in order to properly transmit power and data between the respective elements of the assembly during use, where the simple substitution of one known electrical conductor for another would yield the same predictable result of transmitting power or data from one location of the mast to another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the prior art references of Freebury et al. and Verwoerd “relate to significantly different technologies, and therefore the skilled person could not reasonably be expected to combine these documents,” it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Verwoerd reference is within the field of inventor’s endeavor, which is deployable antennas, and is also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which is embedding electrical conductive elements within the material of the rollable antenna. Paragraph 73 of Freebury et al. discloses the electrically conductive elements #87 are disposed on the laminate, or is contained by, or disposed within or between layers of laminable material #18 of the laminate of the boom. Though Freebury et al. do not specifically disclose use of such cutouts within the laminable material of the laminate, one of ordinary skill in the art would use teachings within such a rollable antenna art, such as taught in Verwoerd, in order to prevent bulging of the material which may affect how the material rolls up and deployment of the boom. Daton-Lovett (U.S. Publication 2021/0277655) teaches that such cutouts can be applied to fiber reinforcement laminable material of such slit tube extendible booms in order to receive a strip of material #30 within such cutout portions and thus provides support that such cutout portions can be provided within the art of Freebury et al. and still allow the boom to function as necessary. Therefore, the rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
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 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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635