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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/754,012 filed on 6/25/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below 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 as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“aperture piece 20” in paragraph [0025] should be changed to “aperture piece 40”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference number mentioned in the description: “42” in paragraph [0033].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein proximal ends of the truss rods…” in line 12. It is suggested that the above is changed to “wherein the proximal ends of the truss rods …”, for better clarity.
Claim 3 recites “wherein occulting disk…” in line 1. It is suggested that the above is changed to “wherein the occulting disk…”, for better clarity.
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 1-13 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 1 recites “thin” and “stiff” in line 4. The terms “thin” and “stiff” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “thin” and “stiff” 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. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the above terms mean “narrow” and “inflexible”, respectively.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the reasons given above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deforest (US 2007/0286461, hereinafter, “Deforest”).
Regarding claim 1, Deforest discloses an occulting assembly 10 for use with a telescope or other imaging instrument 24 when viewing the sun or other bright light source (Fig. 1), comprising:
an occulting disk 20 (Fig. 1, [0038]);
a truss rod 18, the truss rod being thin and stiff (Fig. 1, [0039]);
an adapter 17 having at least a mechanical interface to the telescope or other imaging instrument 24 and having an aperture piece (aperture-not labeled) in the segment connecting the two sides of cone 17 that defines an aperture in its center (Fig. 1, [0037]);
wherein the truss rod forms a truss that is attached to the bottom of the occulting disk 20 and to the top of the adapter 17 and has distal ends and proximal ends relative to the adapter;
wherein the occulting disk is sized to completely shadow the aperture (Fig. 1).
Deforest does not disclose a plurality of truss rods.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Deforest so that to duplicate the rod 18, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In the above modified Deforest, the distal ends of the truss rods are attached to the occulting disk 20 such that the truss is fully within the shadow of the occulting disk.
Deforest does not disclose wherein the proximal ends of the truss rods are attached to the adapter around the perimeter of the aperture. In Deforest, the proximal ends of the truss rods are attached to the top of the cone 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Deforest so that the proximal ends of the truss rods 18 are attached to the segment connecting the two sides of cone 17 around the perimeter of the aperture, for steadier support of the occluding disk 20.
Regarding claim 2, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1, wherein
the occulting disk 20 casts an umbral shadow and the truss rods 18 are attached near the periphery of the umbral shadow (Fig. 1). The truss rods 18 attached around the aperture, are also attached near the periphery of the umbral shadow.
Regarding claim 3, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1, wherein
the occulting disk 20 casts an umbral shadow and the truss rods are attached near the center of the umbral shadow (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1, wherein
the occulting disk comprises a single disk-shaped piece (claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1, wherein
the occulting disk comprises multiple disk-shaped pieces ([0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1, wherein
the adapter 17 slips over a telescope tube 14 (the assembly 10 is used for solar imaging, [0010]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1.
Deforest does not disclose the occulting disk is puck-shaped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Deforest so that the disk 20 is puck-shaped, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1.
Deforest does not disclose the occulting disk has or approximates an ogive shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Deforest so that the disk has or approximates an ogive shape, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1.
Deforest does not disclose the occulting disk has a truncated ogive shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Deforest so that the disk has a truncated ogive shape, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1.
Deforest does not disclose the aperture piece has a baffle around the aperture and the truss rods are attached inside the baffle.
In Deforest, a baffle 19 is arranged around the periphery of the aperture, at the top of the cone 17 (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Deforest so that a baffle is arranged around the aperture (and at the same level of the aperture, so that truss rods are attached inside the baffle), for better protection against stray light ([0032] in Deforest).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deforest, in view of Choi (US 2021/0325648, hereinafter, “Choi”).
Regarding claim 4, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1, wherein
the mechanical interface 17 is a tube that slips over an objective end of the imaging instrument 24 (Fig. 1).
Deforest does not disclose wherein the imaging instrument is a dioptric tube telescope.
Choi discloses a telescope ([0063]). In one embodiment, Choi discloses that the telescope may be a dioptric (tube) telescope ([0066]).
Both Deforest and Choi disclose optical instruments used in astronomy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Deforest so that the imaging instrument is a dioptric telescope, as taught by Choi, for offering sharp images by using lenses.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deforest, in view of Wakugawa (US 5,058,993, hereinafter, “Wakugawa”).
Regarding claim 11, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1.
Deforest does not disclose wherein the set of truss rods comprises six truss rods in a hexapod configuration.
Wakugawa discloses an optical mount used to fix various optical elements together (col. 3, lines 33-45). In one embodiment, the optical mount comprises six legs 16 configured in a hexapod configuration (Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 23-33).
Both Deforest and Wakugawa disclose optical instruments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Deforest so that the multiple truss rods between the two ends are arranged in a hexapod configuration, as taught by Wakugawa, for preventing light scattering (col. 3, lines 54-60 in Wakugawa).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deforest, in view of Yuan et al. (CN 11493581, hereinafter, “Jian”).
Regarding claim 12, Deforest discloses the occulting assembly of claim 1.
Deforest does not disclose the truss rods form triangles as a result of their attachment to the occulting disk and the adapter.
Yuan discloses (figure numbers herein refer to the original and paragraph numbers refer to the English translation) a telescope truss structure ([0001]). In one embodiment, the truss structure comprises multiple truss rods 3 which form triangles between their two ends (Fig. 3, [0051]-[0052]).
Both Deforest and Yuan disclose optical instruments used in astronomy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Deforest so that the multiple truss rods between the two ends form triangles as a result of their attachment to the disk 20 and the adapter 17, as taught by Yuan, for steadier support of the occluding disk 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights