DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected election, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/7/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 & 17-19, in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 & 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical & grammatical errors.
In claim 1, line 9, the term “ot” should be replaced with “to”.
In claim 6, line 9, the term “form” should be replaced with “from”.
In claim 7, line 1, the term “continually” should be replaced with another term such as “alternatingly” or the like. The mandrels are not continually moving during the process; one of the two mandrels, alternatingly, are repositioned after each gore section bonding step. While the elements of claim 7 are not indefinite and are understood by the Examiner, the Applicant should consider amending elements such as “using either the second mandrel and then the first mandrel as a template” for clarity.
In claim 17, line 9, the term “form” should be replaced with “from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 17 & 18 are 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the first cutting template" in line 7, and “the gore composite” in line 11.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "the first gore" and “the second gore” in line 3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claims 17 & 18 recite the same elements, respectively, as claims 6 & 5. However, claims 5 & 6 do not have insufficient antecedent basis rejections because of the limitations cited in claims 4 & 5, upon which 5 & 6 depend.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claims 17 & 18 will be examined using the elements taken from claims 4 & 5 that would define and provide antecedent basis to the deficient limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulry (US4672389A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A method for making a membrane surface having an axis of revolution, comprising: providing a first mandrel having a first working surface and a second mandrel having a second working surface; providing a first gore material and a second gore material, wherein the first gore material and the second gore material are flat; positioning the first gore material over the first working surface and the second gore material over the second working surface; aligning the first mandrel with the second mandrel and seaming the first gore material to the second gore material.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Ulry teaches a method for making a membrane surface having an axis of revolution (Fig. 15. see the matching radial membrane segments placed atop a parabolic mold – item 90), comprising: providing twelve membrane segments, which include a first gore material and a second gore material, (Fig. 15, see twelve equal radial membrane segments upon the mold; [Col. 6, lines 50-51]); wherein the first gore material and the second gore material are flat sheets [Col. 6, lines 45-54].
Ulry teaches the twelve gore materials are each positioned radially over a corresponding working surface section of the mold [Col. 7, lines 18-23]. Ulry teaches seaming the first gore material to the second gore material, as ‘adjacent gores are joined by heat sealing or bonding the meridional edges at template locations’ [Col. 7, lines 24-25].
Ulry is silent on the means for heat sealing or bonding the two gore materials together. Therefore, any applicable device commonly known to one of ordinary skill in the art could be used, e.g., a hand-held heating device such as a banding iron.
Ulry is silent on providing a first mandrel and a second mandrel which have working surfaces, instead teaching a large mold that comprises twelve matching working surface sections. Due to this, Ulry is also silent on the need for aligning the first mandrel with the second mandrel as Ulry teaches the mold comprises a single contour surface [Col. 7, lines 18-23].
However, the mold of Ulry (See Figs. 14 & 15) essentially functions as twelve connected and aligned mandrels. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to separate the mold taught by Ulry into twelve connectable and matching mold sections, or mandrels, for several reasons. First, a legal precedent for making a component separable as prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art can be applied when "if it were considered desirable for any reason to [separate an apparatus into individual components/sections], it would be obvious to [separate the components] for that purpose." See MPEP 2144(V)(C).
Separating the Ulry mold into twelve wedge sections may be prima facie obvious for size, volume, and weight considerations. Because Ulry teaches the membrane product may part of a ‘space-erectible antenna system’, there may be an obvious need to break down the mold into sections to reduce overall volume due to limited cargo volume of a spacecraft to construct the parabolic membrane in space. The size of the complete constructed mold could be larger than the available cargo space.
Ulry teaches support for this with “the desired shape is achieved by dividing the paraboloid into a plurality (twelve are shown) of equal segments and constructing a mold 90 of the desired diameter D with straight line elements 92 between each of the equally spaced contour templates 91” [Col. 6, lines 50-54].
Further, in addition to the ‘size and volume considerations’ rationale for making the mold separable, it also would be prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to consider the overall weight of the mold sections and to reduce the number of the mold sections used. A minimum of only two mold sections or mandrels may be required for full assembly of the parabolic membrane product, because only two sections of the membrane are worked upon at a time in fabricating the membrane product. Ulry teaches only two adjacent membrane sections may be bonded together at once [Col. 7, lines 24-25]; Ulry is silent on the entire twelve-section membrane being bonded together in a simultaneous process.
These teachings and rationales explain the desire for and the means for ‘providing a first mandrel and a second mandrel which have working surfaces’.
The need for aligning the first mandrel with the second mandrel would be prima facie obvious for proper function of the parabolic membrane for use as part of an antenna system. Aligned mandrel sections would maintain the ‘single contour surface’ [Col. 7, lines 18-23] for the working surface taught by Ulry, which would correspond to the form a parabolic membrane of an antenna - known to a person of ordinary skill in the art to require a single contour surface.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first working surface is identical to the second working surface and each working surface is curved about a first axis and straight along a second axis, the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis.
With respect to claim 2, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Ulry teaches the first working surface is identical to the second working surface [Col. 6, lines 50-54], and each working surface is curved about a first axis (Fig. 14, side view - shows curve of the mold) and straight along a second axis (Fig. 15, plan view - see the twelve identical sections straight lines), the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the positioning of the first gore material on the first working surface and the second gore material on the second working surface comprises positioning each gore material on and in contact with each working surface respective so that the gore material conforms to the working surface.
With respect to claim 3, Ulry teaches the positioning of the first gore material on the first working surface and the second gore material on the second working surface comprises positioning each gore material on and in contact with each working surface respective so that the gore material conforms to the working surface (Fig. 15, see twelve equal radial membrane segments upon the mold; [Col. 6, lines 50-51]); wherein the first gore material and the second gore material are flat sheets [Col. 6, lines 45-54].
As set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Ulry teaches the twelve gore materials are each positioned radially over a corresponding working surface section of the mold [Col. 7, lines 18-23].
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the first gore material that is provided is flat and is larger than the first working surface so that the first gore material extends past a first perimeter of the first working surface when the first gore material is positioned over the first working surface, and the second gore material that is provided is flat and is larger than the second working surface so that the first gore material extends past a second perimeter of the second working surface when the second gore material is positioned over the second working surface , and the method further comprising cutting the first gore material to a first gore using the first working surface as a first cutting template and cutting the second gore material to a second gore using the second working surface as a second cutting template.
With respect to claim 4, Ulry teaches the first gore material that is provided is flat and is larger than the first working surface so that the first gore material extends past a first perimeter of the first working surface when the first gore material is positioned over the first working surface , and the second gore material that is provided is flat and is larger than the second working surface so that the first gore material extends past a second perimeter of the second working surface when the second gore material is positioned over the second working surface (Fig. 15, see twelve equal radial membrane segments upon the mold; [Col. 6, lines 50-51]); wherein the first gore material and the second gore material are flat sheets [Col. 6, lines 45-54], and the method further comprising cutting the first gore material to a first gore using the first working surface as a first cutting template and cutting the second gore material to a second gore using the second working surface as a second cutting template [Col. 7, lines 18-23].
5. The method of claim 4, wherein seaming the first gore material to the second gore material comprises aligning the first mandrel with the second mandrel and seaming the first gore to the second gore after the first gore material and the second gore material are cut to create a gore composite.
With respect to claim 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 4, Ulry teaches seaming the first gore material to the second gore material comprises aligning the first mandrel with the second mandrel and seaming the first gore to the second gore after the first gore material and the second gore material are cut to create a gore composite [Col. 7, lines 18-23].
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the first mandrel and the second mandrel comprise less than half the revolution of the membrane surface, the method further comprising: moving the first mandrel from under the first gore material on a first side of the second mandrel; providing a third gore material on the first working surface; cutting the third gore material using the first working surface as the first cutting template to create a third gore; repositioning the first mandrel on an opposite side of the second mandrel from the first side, while the second gore material remains on the second mandrel; and seaming the third gore to the gore composite creating an updated gore composite.
With respect to claim 6, Ulry teaches the first mandrel and the second mandrel comprise less than half the revolution of the membrane surface (Fig. 15, twelve identical mold sections or mandrels in a revolution).
Ulry is silent on the method further comprising: moving the first mandrel from under the first gore material on a first side of the second mandrel; providing a third gore material on the first working surface; cutting the third gore material using the first working surface as the first cutting template to create a third gore; repositioning the first mandrel on an opposite side of the second mandrel from the first side, while the second gore material remains on the second mandrel; and seaming the third gore to the gore composite creating an updated gore composite.
However, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, two adjacent and aligned mandrels can be used to join two cut gore materials together to form a seam, with only a minimum of two mandrels required to support the membrane to perform the heat sealing or bonding step.
For the next step of adding a third gore to the updated (first and second gore materials) gore composite, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to reconfigure the membranes and/or mandrels, by: shifting the updated gore composite to the left or the right by one section; or by holding one mandrel with its bonded ‘updated gore composite’ section in place while moving the other mandrel to the opposite side of the stationary mandrel, to perform the cutting and bonding steps of the third gore to the updated gore composite.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising: continually moving the second mandrel and then the first mandrel from under the updated gore composite and using either the second mandrel and then first mandrel as a template for cutting a new gore, seaming the new gore to the updated gore composite until the revolution of the membrane surface is complete, and seaming the first gore to a last gore together using the first mandrel and the second mandrel.
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, the modified process of Ulry could teach adding a third gore material to the updated (first and second gore materials) gore composite by holding one mandrel with its bonded ‘updated gore composite’ section in place while moving the other mandrel to the opposite side of the stationary mandrel, to perform the cutting and bonding steps of the third gore to the updated gore composite.
Ulry is silent on continually moving the second mandrel and then the first mandrel from under the updated gore composite and using either the second mandrel and then first mandrel as a template for cutting a new gore, seaming the new gore to the updated gore composite until the revolution of the membrane surface is complete, and seaming the first gore to a last gore together using the first mandrel and the second mandrel.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to repeat the modified Ulry process steps from the rejection of claim 6 to alternatingly relocate one of the mandrels at a time after each bonding step until all twelve gore materials have been cut and bonded together to form a completed parabolic gore composite.
8. The method of claim 6, further comprising: rotating the first working surface, the second working surface, or both the first working surface and the second working surface to align the first working surface to the second working surface.
With respect to claim 8, as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, the modified process of Ulry could teach adding a next gore material to the updated gore composite by holding one mandrel with its bonded ‘updated gore composite’ section in place while moving the other mandrel to the opposite side of the stationary mandrel, to perform the cutting and bonding steps of the next gore to the updated gore composite.
Ulry is silent on rotating a mandrel during its relocation.
However, rotation of the relocating mandrel along the x-y plane would be required to realign from one side to the opposite side of the stationary mandrel.
It would be prima facie obvious that any path could be used to relocate the moving mandrel to align on the opposite side of the stationary mandrel.
Relocating the mandrel to the opposite side of the stationary mandrel by pivoting the mandrel around at the centerpoint of the parabolic shape, would require rotation only of “one working surface around another working surface to align the first working surface to the second working surface”.
9. The method of claim 6, further comprising: leveling the first working surface and the second working surface to align the first working surface to the second working surface.
With respect to claim 9, Ulry teaches the working surfaces are aligned to form a single contour surface [Col. 7, lines 18-23].
Ulry does not explicitly teach leveling the first working surface and the second working surface to align the first working surface to the second working surface.
However, it would be prima facie obvious that the base of the working surfaces must be flat and level in order to properly align the first and second working surfaces together.
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the first mandrel and the second mandrel comprise less than half the revolution of the membrane surface, the method further comprising: moving the first mandrel from under the first gore material on a first side of the second mandrel; providing a third gore material on the first working surface; cutting the third gore material using the first working surface as the first cutting template to create a third gore; repositioning the first mandrel on an opposite side of the second mandrel from the first side, while the second gore material remains on the second mandrel; and seaming the third gore to the gore composite creating an updated gore composite.
With respect to claim 17, Ulry teaches the first mandrel and the second mandrel comprise less than half the revolution of the membrane surface (Fig. 15, twelve identical mold sections or mandrels in a revolution).
Ulry is silent on the method further comprising: moving the first mandrel from under the first gore material on a first side of the second mandrel; providing a third gore material on the first working surface; cutting the third gore material using the first working surface as the first cutting template to create a third gore; repositioning the first mandrel on an opposite side of the second mandrel from the first side, while the second gore material remains on the second mandrel; and seaming the third gore to the gore composite creating an updated gore composite.
However, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, two adjacent and aligned mandrels can be used to join two cut gore materials together to form a seam, with only a minimum of two mandrels required to support the membrane to perform the heat sealing or bonding step.
For the next step of adding a third gore to the updated (first and second gore materials) gore composite, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to reconfigure the membranes and/or mandrels, by: shifting the updated gore composite to the left or the right by one section; or by holding one mandrel with its bonded ‘updated gore composite’ section in place while moving the other mandrel to the opposite side of the stationary mandrel, to perform the cutting and bonding steps of the third gore to the updated gore composite.
18. The method of claim 1, wherein seaming the first gore material to the second gore material comprises aligning the first mandrel with the second mandrel and seaming the first gore to the second gore after the first gore material and the second gore material are cut to create a gore composite.
With respect to claim 18, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, the modified process of Ulry teaches seaming the first gore material to the second gore material comprises aligning the first mandrel with the second mandrel and seaming the first gore to the second gore after the first gore material and the second gore material are cut to create a gore composite [Col. 7, lines 18-27].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 & 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 10 & 19, no prior art was found to modify Ulry to teach stretching the first gore material on the first mandrel and/or the second gore material on the second mandrel.
As set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Ulry teaches placing the first gore material flat on the first mandrel and the second gore material flat on the second mandrel.
Ulry teaches the gore materials preferably comprise vinyl and randomly oriented fiber reinforcement “Tyvek” layers, both of which are polyolefins [Col. 7, lines 34-42].
Ulry is silent on stretching the first gore material on the first mandrel and/or the second gore material on the second mandrel. Polyolefins are not commonly known to be classified as stretchable, and Ulry supports this by teaching the gore material “provides excellent isotropic tensile strength and stiffness” [Col. 7, lines 42-43].
No prior art in this field was discovered to teach stretching a gore material on a mandrel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748