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 .
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "the at least one further carrier panel" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that claim 16 recites “further comprising at least one further carrier panel”, but claim 18 instead depends from claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cruijssen et al. (US 20170320600 A1), hereinafter Cruijssen.
Regarding Claim 1
Cruijssen teaches a system for a satellite (Abstract), the system comprising a carrier panel (solar array panel (330)) and a tensioning device (hold-down mechanism (370)), the tensioning device being switchable from a holding state, in which it holds the carrier panel in a transportation pose (state shown in Fig. 4A, for example), to a release state, in which it permits movement of the carrier panel from the transportation pose into a working pose (Fig. 4B-D, for example), wherein the system is configured such that the carrier panel is elastically deformed in the transportation pose (Para. [0008]-[0009], Fig. 4A, for example, shows solar array (330a) bent in stowed position) and, after switching the tensioning device into the release state, a restoring force based on the elastic deformation of the carrier panel contributes to the movement of the carrier panel from the transportation pose into the working pose (Para. [0008]).
Regarding Claim 2
Cruijssen teaches the system according to claim 1, configured such that the elastic deformation is adjustable (Examiner notes that since the hold-down mechanism (330) comprises an actuator (371) to move the solar array panel from the stowed state to the deployed state, the elastic deformation changes as the mechanism actuates and is therefore adjustable, Para. [0063]).
Regarding Claim 3
Cruijssen teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the elastic deformation comprises a bending of at least a portion of the carrier panel (Para. [0009], Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 10
Cruijssen teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the tensioning device is configured to, in the holding state, center the carrier panel in a predetermined position at least in its length and width direction (Fig. 4A-D).
Regarding Claim 13
Cruijssen teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the tensioning device comprises an actuator that is configured to switchably bring the tensioning device from the holding state into the release state (actuator (371), Para. [0063]).
Regarding Claim 14
Cruijssen teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the actuator is configured to be attached to the satellite and/or is configured such that, in the release state, it is decoupled from the carrier panel (Fig. 4A-D shows actuator (371) attached to spacecraft (10) and decoupled from carrier panel when in the release state).
Regarding Claim 15
Cruijssen teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein at least one solar cell is arranged on the carrier panel (Para. [0010]).
Regarding Claim 16
Cruijssen teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising at least one further carrier panel (Para. [0073] “The spacecraft may include a single solar array or multiple solar arrays”), wherein the tensioning device in the holding state holds the at least one further carrier panel in its transportation pose and in the release state permits a movement of the at least one further carrier panel from its transportation pose into its working pose (Para. [0073]).
Regarding Claim 17
Cruijssen teaches the system of claim 16, configured such that the carrier panels lie on top of one another in a stack-like manner in their transportation poses (Para. [0073]).
Regarding Claim 19
Cruijssen teaches an elastically deformable carrier panel (solar array panel (330)) that is configured to be used in a system for a satellite (Abstract), wherein said system comprises a tensioning device (hold-down mechanism (370)) that is switchable from a holding state, in which it holds the carrier panel in a transportation pose (state shown in Fig. 4A, for example), to a release state, in which it permits movement of the carrier panel from the transportation pose into a working pose (Fig. 4B-D, for example), wherein the carrier panel is configured to be elastically deformed in the transportation pose (Para. [0008]-[0009], Fig. 4A, for example, shows solar array (330a) bent in stowed position) and that system is configured such that after switching the tensioning device into the release state, a restoring force based on the elastic deformation of the carrier panel contributes to the movement of the carrier panel from the transportation pose into the working pose (Para. [0008]).
Regarding Claim 20
Cruijssen teaches a satellite (Abstract) comprising a system including a carrier panel (solar array panel (330)) and a tensioning device (hold-down mechanism (370)), the tensioning device being switchable from a holding state, in which it holds the carrier panel in a transportation pose (state shown in Fig. 4A, for example), to a release state, in which it permits movement of the carrier panel from the transportation pose into a working pose (Fig. 4B-D, for example), wherein the system is configured such that the carrier panel is elastically deformed in the transportation pose (Para. [0008]-[0009], Fig. 4A, for example, shows solar array (330a) bent in stowed position) and, after switching the tensioning device into the release state, a restoring force based on the elastic deformation of the carrier panel contributes to the movement of the carrier panel from the transportation pose into the working pose (Para. [0008]).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruijssen et al. (US 20170320600 A1), hereinafter Cruijssen, in view of Hattori et al. (US 20250164741 A1), hereinafter Hattori.
Regarding Claim 11
Cruijssen teaches the system according to claim 10, wherein the tensioning device comprises a centering element for centering the carrier panel (Examiner notes that the hold-down mechanism (370) in Fig. 4A is shown extending through the solar array panel and can be understood to hold down the panel in a specific location), but does not teach:
the centering element having a frustoconical surface, wherein the frustoconical surface, in the holding state, forms a support.
Hattori teaches:
the centering element (projection (31A)) having a frustoconical surface (Para. [0069]), wherein the frustoconical surface, in the holding state, forms a support (Para. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tensioning device of Cruijssen with the centering element having a frustoconical surface as taught by Hattori with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to align the solar array panel to the spacecraft accurately and precisely each time. Examiner further notes that given a support and recess, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruijssen et al. (US 20170320600 A1), hereinafter Cruijssen.
Regarding Claim 12
Cruijssen teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising a hinge fixed to the carrier panel and defining an axis of rotation (Para. [0073] “The (at least one) solar array may comprise a plurality of solar array panels, which may for example be hingedly coupled to each other to allow folding up into a stack of solar panels in a stowed state prior to launch”), wherein the movement of the carrier panel from the transportation pose to the working pose comprises a rotation about the axis of rotation (Para. [0073 “and to allow unfolding into an co-planar sequence of panels in a deployed state after the launched spacecraft has assumed its intended trajectory in space (e.g. a planetary orbit)”), wherein the system is configured such that the elastic deformation of the carrier panel in a first part of the carrier panel is less than in a second part of the carrier panel (Examiner notes that the center of the carrier panel is bent more than the edges, Fig. 4A), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first part is closer to the hinge than the second part.
However, Examiner notes that although the hinge location is not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the hinge and axis of rotation would be placed at the edge of the solar panel array, and more specifically at one of the edges not bent during storage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hinges located as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success. The hinges must be placed at an edge in order to unfold into a coplanar sequence of panels and placing the hinges on an end that does not bend eliminates unnecessary complexity of the system.
Regarding Claim 18
Cruijssen teaches the system according to claim 12, configured such that the at least one further carrier panel is elastically deformed in its transportation pose (Examiner notes that when the solar array comprises a plurality of solar array panels (Para. [0073]), all solar array panels would elastically deform in the storage state) and, after the tensioning device has been switched into the release state, a restoring force based on the elastic deformation of the at least one further carrier panel contributes to the movement of the at least one further carrier panel from its transportation pose into its working pose (Para. [0073] “and to allow unfolding into an co-planar sequence of panels in a deployed state after the launched spacecraft has assumed its intended trajectory in space (e.g. a planetary orbit”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20240351711 A1 – “Solar Array Spring Elements For Stacking Spacecraft”
US 20240300673 A1 – “Deployable Panel Array And Related Assemblies And Methods”
US 20020195177 A1 – “Conductive Shape Memory Metal Deployment Latch Hinge Deployment Method”
US 10773833 B1 – “Panel For Use In A Deployable And Cantilevered Solar Array Structure”
US 10734941 B2 – “Compact, Self-deploying Structures And Methods For Deploying Foldable, Structural Origami Arrays Using A Compression Column”
US 10189583 B2 – “Deployable Sheet Material Systems And Methods”
US 9611056 B1 – “Directionally Controlled Elastically Deployable Roll-out Solar Array”
US 6147294 A – “D-wing Deployable Solar Array”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647