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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Throughout the specification thermal conductivity is referred to in units of W/m/K (watts per meter per Kelvin). It should be written as W/mK or W/(mK) as a proper SI unit of measure for thermal conductivity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: conductive filler in claims 15 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
space vehicle body
interior surface
interior of the space vehicle
exterior surface
heat-conductive liquid
heat pipe
space defined between the material of the radiator and the material of the panel
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to because they do not meet Standards for Drawings in 37 CFR 1.84 sections:
(b) Photograph; figures 6, 8A-8B, 15A-16B contain what appears to be photographs and are not ordinarily permitted in utility patent application.
(m) Shading; figures 6, 8A-8B, 15A-16B contain shading which prevents clear understanding of images.
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 1-18 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.
Claims 1 and 15 recite limitation “space vehicle body”. It is unclear what element is being referred to. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 1 and 15 recite limitation “interior surface”. It is unclear what element is being referred to. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1, lines recite limitation “interior of the space vehicle body” in lines 3-4 and 7. It is unclear what element is being referred to. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 1 and 18 recited limitation “onboard equipment component”, It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appreciate correction is required.
Claims 7, 13 and 16, recite limitation “W/m/K”. This is not a proper unit of measure for thermal conductivity, and should be written as W/mK or W/(mK). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-8, lines recite limitation “heat-conductive liquid”. It is unclear what element is being referred to. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 9 and 10, lines recite limitation “heat pipe. It is unclear what element is being referred to. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 15, and 16, recite limitation “conductive filler”. It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appreciate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20080164012 A1 Cavanaugh; David B. et al.
Regarding claim 1 Cavanaugh teaches, a space vehicle, comprising: a space vehicle body (fig. 4), wherein the space vehicle body comprises an interior surface defining an interior of the space vehicle body and an opposite the interior surface, and wherein at least a portion of the space vehicle body comprises a panel comprising a sheet metal (element 10); an onboard equipment component positioned within the interior of the space vehicle body (element 8); a radiator (fig. 3) positioned on the exterior surface of the space vehicle body, wherein the radiator comprises a plurality of corrugations (fig. 3), and wherein the plurality of corrugations are angled so as to reflect at least a portion of incident sunlight away from Earth (fig. 3); and a heat transport element (para 0042 cylinder, fig. 3) positioned along the interior surface of the space vehicle body so as to convey heat away from the onboard equipment component and toward the radiator.
Regarding claim 3 Cavanaugh teaches, the space vehicle of claim 1, wherein the heat transport element is oriented along the plurality of corrugations of the radiator (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4 Cavanaugh teaches, the space vehicle of claim 1, wherein the heat transport element is positioned within one of the plurality of corrugations of the radiator (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5 Cavanaugh teaches, the space vehicle of claim 1, wherein the heat transport element is defined by a material of the radiator and a material of the panel underlying the material of the radiator.
Regarding claim 6 Cavanaugh teaches, the space vehicle of claim 5, wherein the heat transport element further comprises a heat-conductive liquid (para 0040 fluid) positioned within a space defined between the material of the radiator and the material of the panel .
Regarding claim 7 Cavanaugh teaches, the space vehicle of claim 6, wherein the heat-conductive liquid has a thermal conductivity greater than 0.2 W/m K at standard temperature and pressure (para 0040 water and ammonia).
Regarding claim 8 Cavanaugh teaches, the space vehicle of claim 6, wherein the heat-conductive liquid comprises ammonia (para 0040).
Regarding claim 9 Cavanaugh teaches, the space vehicle of claim 1, wherein the heat transport element comprises a heat pipe (para 0042 cylinder fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17 Cavanaugh teaches, the space vehicle of claim 1, wherein the plurality of corrugations are further angled so as to reduce a proportion of incident sunlight that shines on the radiator (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18 Cavanaugh teaches, the space vehicle of claim 1, wherein the onboard equipment component is one of a platform equipment component or a payload component (element 8).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavanaugh as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20120125571 A1 Lutz; Martine et al.
Regarding claim 11, Cavanaugh teaches, the space vehicle of claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the heat transport element comprises a carbon nanotube-based material.
However Lutz teaches, wherein the heat transport element comprises a carbon nanotube-based material (para 0014).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle taught by Cavanaugh with the tubes taught by Lutz with a reasonable expectation of success “for dissipating heat” (para 0014).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 12, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art Cavanaugh teaches, heat transfer using cylinders but fails to teach “wherein the heat transport element is oriented transversely to the plurality of corrugations of the radiator” or “where the cylinder is made of “at least one of a copper-water heat pipe, a carbon-ammonia heat pipe, or an aluminum-ammonia heat pipe”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights