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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 5, 2026 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 21, 23-28, 30, 32-34, cancelled claims 22, 29, and 36, and added claims 37-38. Claims 21, 23-28, 30-35, and 37-38 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 3, 2025. The examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections and the Specification, Drawings, and Claims objections in light of the amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 with respect to claim 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 21, the applicant argues “Baudasse also appears to be directed to a deployable mast for an antenna. Applicant respectfully submits that Baudasse does not teach, disclose or suggest the claimed subject matter of claim 21 as amended, specifically that of: a plurality of deployable boom segments arranged along the deployment axis, wherein each deployable boom segment of the plurality of deployable boom segments comprises a subset of the plurality of spring tapes and a deployable interface ring to which the subset of the plurality of spring tapes are attached, each deployable boom segment deployable along the deployment axis upon release of stored potential energy in the subset of the plurality of spring tapes; a retaining device configured to retain the interface rings through direct contact with each interface ring, thereby biasing the spring tapes into a folded configuration; and an actuator configured to actuate the retaining device to release the interface rings sequentially. Baudasse also teaches that motors may be used to control the rate or speed of deployment. This is discussed at, for example, paragraph 47 of Baudasse, which states that ‘the speed of unfolding of the tape springs can be controlled by progressive unwinding of a cable controlled by a motor.’ No part of Baudasse teaches, discloses or suggests the claimed subject matter of ‘a retaining device configured to retain the interface rings through direct contact with each interface ring, thereby biasing the spring tapes into a folded configuration; and an actuator configured to actuate the retaining device to release the interface rings sequentially’. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the subject-matter of claim 21 is new with respect to Baudasse.”
This argument is unpersuasive. The claim as written does not exclude the motor and pulley system of Baudasse from disclosing, with a broad and reasonable interpretation, a retaining device and an actuator of claim 21, Baudasse discloses a retaining device (160, 161a, 161b, 162a, 162b, 163a, 163b) configured to retain the interface rings (12, 13, 15) through direct contact with each interface ring (12, 13, 15), thereby biasing the spring tapes (1) into a folded configuration (Fig. 7a); and an actuator (160) configured to actuate the retaining device (160, 161a, 161b, 162a, 162b, 163a, 163b) to release the interface rings sequentially (Fig. 7a-7d).
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 24, 27, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 21, 24, and 33, “each deployable boom segment” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “each deployable boom segment of the plurality of deployable boom segments”
In claims 21 and 38, “the spring tapes” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “the plurality of spring tapes”
In claim 27, “the deployable interface ring of an adjacent deployable boom segment” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “a deployable interface ring of an adjacent deployable boom segment”
In claim 33, “the at least three spring tapes” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “at least three spring tapes”
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 21, 23-28, 30-33, and 37-38 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 21 recites the limitation "the interface rings" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a deployable interface ring” or a new limitation.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "each interface ring" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a deployable interface ring” or a new limitation.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "each subset of the spring tapes" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a deployable interface ring” or a new limitation.
The term "sufficient" in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "sufficient" 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 the scope of the invention. The term modifies the limitation "deployment force" and renders it indefinite.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the axial deployment axis" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "each interface ring" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a deployable interface ring” or a new limitation.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the respective interface ring" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a deployable interface ring” or a new limitation.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the interface ring" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a deployable interface ring” or “the respective interface ring” or a new limitation.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the extended spring tapes" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 23-28 and 31-33 inherit the deficiencies of claim 21.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 23-28, 30, 32-35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baudasse et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0068281 A1), hereinafter known as Baudasse.
Regarding claim 21, Baudasse discloses (Fig. 1, 3a, 5a, and 7a-7d) A boom (10) for deploying an antenna ([0002]), the boom (10) configured to extend axially along a deployment axis to deploy the antenna ([0002], [0030]), the boom comprising: a plurality of spring tapes (11) arranged axisymmetrically around the deployment axis; a plurality of deployable boom segments (E1-EN) arranged along the deployment axis, wherein each deployable boom segment of the plurality of deployable boom segments (E1-EN) comprises a subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11) and a deployable interface ring (12, 13, 15) to which the subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11) are attached, each deployable boom segment (E1-EN) deployable along the deployment axis upon release of stored potential energy in the subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11); a retaining device (160, 161a, 161b, 162a, 162b, 163a, 163b) configured to retain the interface rings (12, 13, 15) through direct contact with each interface ring (12, 13, 15), thereby biasing the spring tapes (1) into a folded configuration (Fig. 7a); and an actuator (160) configured to actuate the retaining device (160, 161a, 161b, 162a, 162b, 163a, 163b) to release the interface rings sequentially (Fig. 7a-7d); wherein the plurality of spring tapes (11) are compressed along the deployment axis in a first axial direction when the boom is in a stowed configuration (Fig. 3a), thereby storing potential energy that is releasable to generate a translational force along the deployment axis in a second axial direction and convert the boom from the stowed configuration to a deployed configuration ([0047]); and wherein, upon removal of a compressive force, the plurality of spring tapes extend in the first axial direction via release of the stored potential energy to convert the boom from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration ([0047]), the plurality of spring tapes (11) being collinear with the deployment axis when extended (Fig. 7d).
Regarding claim 23, Baudasse further discloses (Fig. 2) wherein a number of the plurality of spring tapes (11) in a deployable boom segment is at least three.
Regarding claim 24, Baudasse further discloses (Fig. 7a-7d) wherein each deployable boom segment (E1-EN) deploys along a deployment direction under the translational force of the subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11; [0047]).
Regarding claim 25, Baudasse further discloses wherein the folded configuration stores the stored potential energy in the subset of the plurality of spring tapes ([0047]).
Regarding claim 26, Baudasse further discloses (Fig. 7a-7d) wherein the deployable interface ring (12, 13, 15) is retained in the stowed configuration by the retaining device (160, 161a, 161b, 162a, 162b, 163a, 163b) which when actuated releases the deployable interface ring (12, 13, 15) and the deployable interface ring (12, 13, 15) is translated along the deployment axis as the stored potential energy in the subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11) is released ([0047]).
Regarding claim 27, Baudasse further discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11) are attached at a first end to the deployable interface ring (12) and at a second end to the deployable interface ring (15) of an adjacent deployable boom segment.
Regarding claim 28, Baudasse further discloses (Fig. 3a) wherein the plurality of spring tapes (11) are stowed from the deployed configuration by folding the plurality of spring tapes (11).
Regarding claim 30, Baudasse further discloses (Fig. 7a-7d) wherein the retaining device (160, 161a, 161b, 162a, 162b, 163a, 163b) is configured to release the plurality of deployable boom segments sequentially by releasing the compressive force stored in each subset of the spring tapes sequentially (Fig. 7a-7d; [0051], [0060]).
Regarding claim 32, Baudasse further discloses wherein the plurality of spring tapes (11) are composed of a material that provides stiffness to the boom when deployed ([0030]) and that provides sufficient deployment force to the stowed configuration ([0047]).
Regarding claim 33, Baudasse further discloses (Fig. 2) wherein for each deployable boom segment a number of the plurality of spring tapes (11) is at least three and the at least three spring tapes are evenly spaced around a circumference of the deployable interface ring (12, 13, 15).
Regarding claim 34, Baudasse discloses (Fig. 1, 3a, 5a, and 7a-7d) A boom (10) for deploying an antenna ([0002]), the boom (10) configured to extend axially along a deployment axis from a stowed configuration (Fig. 7a) to a deployed configuration (Fig. 7d), the boom comprising: a plurality of spring tapes (11) arranged axisymmetrically around the deployment axis and configured to store potential energy when compressed axially along the deployment axis ([0047]), an interface ring (12, 13, 15) to which a subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11) is attached, a retaining device (160, 161a, 161b, 162a, 162b, 163a, 163b) configured to retain the interface ring (12, 13, 15) through direct contact with the interface ring (12, 13, 15), thereby biasing the subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11) into a folded configuration (Fig. 7a), and an actuator (160) configured to actuate the retaining device (160, 161a, 161b, 162a, 162b, 163a, 163b) to release the interface ring (12, 13, 15), wherein release of the stored potential energy in the subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11) causes partial deployment of the boom (10; [0047]), the plurality of spring tapes (11) being collinear with the deployment axis when deployed (Fig. 7d).
Regarding claim 35, Baudasse further discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the plurality of spring tapes (11) are evenly spaced and include at least three spring tapes (11).
Regarding claim 38, Baudasse discloses (Fig. 1, 3a, 5a, and 7a-7d) A method of stowing and deploying an antenna ([0002]), the method comprising: providing a boom (10) configured to extend axially along a deployment axis to deploy the antenna ([0002], [0030]), the boom comprising: a plurality of spring tapes (11) arranged axisymmetrically around the deployment axis; a plurality of deployable boom segments (E1-EN) arranged along the deployment axis, wherein each deployable boom segment (E1-EN) comprises a subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11) and a deployable interface ring (12, 13, 15) to which the subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11) are attached, each deployable boom segment (E1-EN) deployable along the deployment axis upon release of stored potential energy in the subset of the plurality of spring tapes (11); retaining each interface ring (12, 13, 15) in a stowed position via a retaining device (160, 161a, 161b, 162a, 162b, 163a, 163b) in direct contact with the respective interface ring (12, 13, 15), wherein in the stowed position the interface ring (12, 13, 15) compresses the spring tapes (11) along the deployment axis; sequentially performing, for each interface ring (12, 13, 15): actuating the retaining device to release the interface ring (12, 13, 15), thereby allowing the spring tapes (11) to extend to deploy the interface ring to a deployed position (Fig. 7d) supported by the extended spring tapes (11).
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudasse in view of Fraux et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0297720 A1), hereinafter known as Fraux.
Regarding claim 31, Baudasse does not specifically teach wherein the plurality of spring tapes are composed of a spring steel, beryllium copper, or any composite material thereof.
However, Fraux teaches wherein the plurality of spring tapes are composed of a spring steel, beryllium copper, or any composite material thereof ([0038]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the boom of Baudasse with Fraux to include “wherein the plurality of spring tapes are composed of a spring steel, beryllium copper, or any composite material thereof,” as taught by Fraux, for the purpose of achieving desired stiffness, mass, and torque properties (see also [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have “wherein the plurality of spring tapes are composed of a spring steel, beryllium copper, or any composite material thereof”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudasse in view of Holemans (US Patent No. 5721558 A).
Regarding claim 37, Baudasse does not specifically teach further comprising an extendable support structure connected to the boom such that the extendable support structure extends passively as the boom is deployed, wherein the extendable support structure constrains a helical radiating element attached to the boom along the axial deployment axis when the helical radiating element is deployed by the boom.
However, Holemans teaches (Fig. 2 and 8-9) an extendable support structure (38, 40, 42, 44, and 46) connected to the boom (58) such that the extendable support structure extends passively as the boom (58) is deployed, wherein the extendable support structure (38, 40, 42, 44, and 46) constrains a helical radiating element (16, 24, 26, 66) attached to the boom (58) along the axial deployment axis when the helical radiating element (16, 24, 26, 66) is deployed by the boom (58).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the boom of Baudasse with Holemans to include “an extendable support structure connected to the boom such that the extendable support structure extends passively as the boom is deployed, wherein the extendable support structure constrains a helical radiating element attached to the boom along the axial deployment axis when the helical radiating element is deployed by the boom,” as taught by Holemans, for the purpose of improving power consumption and bandwidth control (see also col. 1, line 58 to col. 2, line 4).
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/YONCHAN J KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights