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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on XX are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner herein.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on XX is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-11 were originally filed.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are amended with the preliminary amendment filed 23 February 2024.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 § U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for failing to be fully enabled by the Applicant’s Specification.
Re claim 8, because the Specification, while being enabling for the following limitations:
A parameter checking method of a variable-stroke self-adaptive adjustment quasi-zero stiffness device, the variable-stroke self-adaptive adjustment quasi-zero stiffness device comprising an integrating sphere, a target, a collimator, a pointing measuring instrument, a disturbance source, an inertia simulation tooling, a quasi-zero stiffness suspension adjustment device and an optical air-bearing platform, wherein the integrating sphere, the target and the collimator are coaxially mounted on the optical air-bearing platform in sequence; the integrating sphere provides a light source, the target provides point target information, and the collimator simulates infinity; the pointing measuring instrument is an object to be tested, the inertia simulation tooling is a hollow cubic structure, and the pointing measuring instrument is connected and fixed with the inertia simulation tooling through a screw; three disturbance sources are mounted on the inertia simulation tooling to provide small disturbance and inertia for the pointing measuring instrument; the quasi-zero stiffness suspension adjustment device suspends the inertia simulation tooling to provide a free boundary environment; and the quasi-zero stiffness suspension adjustment device, the pointing measuring instrument, the disturbance source and the inertia simulation tooling form a set of two-pendulum system as a whole
it does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope of these limitations:
checking a quasi-zero stiffness frequency, wherein according to the two-pendulum system formed by the quasi-zero stiffness suspension adjustment device, the pointing measuring instrument, the disturbance source and the inertia simulation tooling as a whole, a dynamic equation of the two-pendulum system is established and solved to obtain a characteristic frequency of the variable-stroke self-adaptive adjustment quasi-zero stiffness device;
checking a strength, wherein a shear stress of a spring wire is checked by a strength checking calculation formula of the high-modulus and high-stiffness spring; and
checking an adjustment resolution, wherein an adjustment of the pointing measuring instrument in the U and V directions and a position adjustment of the target on a focal plane of the pointing measuring instrument are realized through the double-stroke bolt assembly.
In other words, the Specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. More specifically, the following factors were considered by the Examiner and support the determination that Applicant’s claimed invention is not fully enabled:
(A) The breadth of the claims – the explicitly mathematical nature of these features allows for a reasonable interpretation of their scope approaching infinity, thus supporting the rejection.
(B) The nature of the invention – Applicant’s proposed invention is highly technical in nature, as evidenced by its application to spacecraft micro-vibration analysis, as well as the complicated underlying mathematical concepts to do so, thus supporting the rejection.
(C) The state of the prior art – after thorough review of the prior art, the Examiner concludes that the state of the prior art is relatively limited, thus supporting the rejection.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill – as per B/C above, the Examiner concludes that the level of one of ordinary skill in the art is relatively high, thus supporting the rejection.
(E) The level of predictability in the art – as per B/C/D above, the Examiner concludes that the level of predictability in the art is relatively low, thus supporting the rejection.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor – n/a due to scope of the claim (claims 9-11 combined provide adequate direction)
(G) The existence of working examples – n/a due to the scope of the claim (claims 9-11 combined provide adequate algorithm)
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – n/a due to the scope of the claim (claims 9-11 combined provide adequate algorithm)
Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC §112(a) for the reasons stated above.
Re claims 9-11, Applicant recites limitations respectively dependent from claim 8, but that fail to cure the deficiencies discussed in the rejection above. Accordingly, claims 9-11 are rejected based at least on the same reasons applied to claim 8.
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 1-11 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.
Re claim 1, Applicant recites the limitation, “three disturbance sources are mounted on the inertia simulation tooling to provide small disturbance and inertia…” (emphasis added), which contains a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. More specifically, such limitation is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of its scope. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as any disturbance.
Re claims 2-7, Applicant recites limitations respectively dependent from claim 1, but that fail to cure the deficiencies discussed in the rejection above. Accordingly, claims 2-7 are rejected based at least on the same reasons applied to claim 1.
Re claim 8, Applicant recites limitations that suffer from the same or substantially the same deficiencies as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re claims 9-11, Applicant recites limitations respectively dependent from claim 1, but that fail to cure the deficiencies discussed in the rejection above. Accordingly, claims 2-7 are rejected based at least on the same reasons applied to claim 1.
Further re claim 4, Applicant recites the limitation, “wherein basic characteristic frequencies of the two-pendulum system are…” (emphasis added), which contains a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. More specifically, such limitation is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of its scope. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as any characteristic.
Further re claim 6, Applicant recites the limitation, “wherein the quasi-zero stiffness suspension adjustment device comprises:… high-stiffness suspenders… a high-modulus and high-stiffness spring…” (emphasis added), which contains relative terms that renders the claim indefinite. More specifically, such limitation is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of its scope. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as any type spring.
Further re claim 9, Applicant recites the features, “solved by a Runge-Kutta numerical solution method… an ode 15i function in Matlab… a finite element analysis method…”. However, such limitations represent mathematical calculations that may be executed in any number of manners, by definition. Furthermore, the term “Matlab” is a registered trademark being used to describe a proprietary function in a proprietary software system. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of these limitations, thereby rendering them indefinite.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Re claims 1-11, notwithstanding the rejections above, the claimed invention appears to not be disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art. More specifically in claim 1, Applicant recites,
A variable-stroke self-adaptive adjustment quasi-zero stiffness device, comprising:
an integrating sphere;
a target;
a collimator;
a pointing measuring instrument;
a disturbance source;
an inertia simulation tooling;
a quasi-zero stiffness suspension adjustment device; and
an optical air-bearing platform,
wherein:
the integrating sphere, the target and the collimator are coaxially mounted on the optical air-bearing platform in sequence;
the integrating sphere provides a light source, the target provides point target information, and the collimator simulates infinity;
the pointing measuring instrument is an object to be tested, the inertia simulation tooling is a hollow cubic structure, and the pointing measuring instrument is connected and fixed with the inertia simulation tooling through a screw;
three disturbance sources are mounted on the inertia simulation tooling to provide small disturbance and inertia for the pointing measuring instrument;
the quasi-zero stiffness suspension adjustment device suspends the inertia simulation tooling to provide a free boundary environment; and
the quasi-zero stiffness suspension adjustment device, the pointing measuring instrument, the disturbance source and the inertia simulation tooling form a set of two-pendulum system as a whole. (emphasis added)
As best understood within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art.
For example, Zhang et al. (CN106599480A, “ZHANG”) discloses a micro-vibration simulation model for testing a camera on a spacecraft. However, ZHANG, as best understood by the Examiner, fails to disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious the particular claim limitations highlighted above, in view of the claimed invention as a whole.
Furthermore, Yan et al. (CN108801574A, “YAN”) discloses a similar spacecraft micro-vibration analysis tool with an integrated sphere, target, collimator, and optical platform. However, like ZHANG, YAN, as best understood by the Examiner, fails to disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious the particular claim limitations highlighted above, in view of the claimed invention as a whole.
Further still, Zhu et al. (CN110929388A, “ZHU”) discloses another micro-vibration analysis system for an aircraft. However, like ZHANG and YAN, ZHU, as best understood by the Examiner, fails to disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious the particular claim limitations highlighted above, in view of the claimed invention as a whole.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 is deemed allowable over the prior art. Independent claim 8 encompasses the same or substantially the same allowable scope as claim 1, and is therefore allowable for at least the same reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-11 are each allowable based at least on their respective dependency to claims 1 or 8.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
CN111638721A, Guan et al. – spacecraft attitude control field analysis system
CN107941441A, Liu et al. – micro-vibration analysis model for spacecraft
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. 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. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855