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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2022/0128812 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022) in view of Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14.
Regarding claim 1, Cox discloses: A device comprising:
a backing defining a plane (abstract “the mirror assembly is rotationally coupled to a base”) extending in first and second directions; first, second, and third flexures arranged in a pattern on the backing, wherein each flexure of the first, second, and third flexures has one respective unconstrained translational degree of freedom in the plane (abstract teaches multiple flexures that move in multiple degrees of freedom, para. [0031] teaches flexures 131-134); and
a mirror supported by the first, second, and third flexures, wherein the mirror has an optical axis, and the unconstrained translational degree of freedom of each flexure of the first, second, and third flexures is perpendicular to the optical axis (abstract teaches multiple flexures that move in multiple degrees of freedom, para. [0031] teaches flexures 131-134),
Cox is silent about: the pattern includes the first flexure at a first location, the second flexure at a second location, and the third flexure at a third location, and the first, second, and third locations are Bessel points of the mirror.
In a similar field of endeavor Nicholas et al. disclose: the pattern includes the first flexure at a first location, the second flexure at a second location, and the third flexure at a third location, and the first, second, and third locations are Bessel points of the mirror (Pg.990469-7 last para. pg.9940469-12 fig. 11) motivated by the benefits for reducing the gravitational deformation and improving the surface accuracy.
In light of the benefits for reducing the gravitational deformation and improving the surface accuracy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the three Bessel points of Nicholas et al. with the mirror & flexures setup of Cox.
Regarding claim 7, Cox and Nicholas et al. disclose: the pattern includes the first, second, and third flexures at first, second, and third locations, respectively, wherein the first location is on a center line of the mirror, and the second and third locations are symmetric about the center line (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Cox and Nicholas et al. disclose: a shape of the first flexure is symmetric about the center line (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Cox and Nicholas et al. disclose: a dimensional extent of a portion of the first, second, and third flexures is least along respective, unconstrained translational degrees of freedom of the first, second, and third flexures (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claims 2, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2022/0128812 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022) in view of Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14 and further in view of Winrow (US 10,409,030 B1; pub. Sep. 10, 2019).
Regarding claim 2, the combined references are silent about: the unconstrained translational degrees of freedom of the first, second, and third flexures are oriented to intersect at a thermal center of expansion of the mirror.
In a similar field of endeavor Winrow discloses: the unconstrained translational degrees of freedom of the first, second, and third flexures are oriented to intersect at a thermal center of expansion of the mirror (col.5 L55-65) motivated for accurate mirror alignment.
In light of the benefits for accurate mirror alignment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cox and Nicholas et al. with the teachings of Winrow.
Regarding claim 12, the combined references are silent about: adhesive pads between the mirror and the first, second, and third flexures, wherein a material and at least one dimensional extent of each adhesive pad of the adhesive pads provide three rotational degrees of freedom for each of the first, second, and third flexures and the adhesive pads.
In a similar field of endeavor Winrow discloses: providing adhesive pads between the mirror and the flexure (col.4 L30-42) motivated by the benefits for securing the mirror to the flexures.
In light of the benefits for securing the mirror to the flexures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cox and Nicholas et al. with the teachings of Winrow.
Regarding claim 13, Winrow discloses: adhesive having the shape of the top of the flexure (col.4 L30-42 & fig.5) motivated by the benefits for securing the mirror to the flexures.
The combined references are silent about: the adhesive pads are cylindrical, having a height in range of 0.5 mm +10% and a diameter of 30 mm ±10%. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to have the adhesive pads are cylindrical, having a height in range of 0.5 mm +10% and a diameter of 30 mm ±10% since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within 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, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2022/0128812 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022) in view of Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14 and further in view of Rajan et al. (US 2022/0035123 A1; pub. Fec. 3, 2022).
Regarding claim 3, the combined references are silent about: the first, second, and third flexures are configured such that loads imposed on the mirror due to thermal variations in a range of 5° C are less than 0.5 N.
In a similar field of endeavor Rajan et al. disclose: the first, second, and third flexures are configured such that loads imposed on the mirror due to thermal variations in a range of 5° C are less than 0.5 N (claim 1) motivated by the benefits for a mirror system that can be deployed in a harsh environment.
In light of the benefits for a mirror system that can be deployed in a harsh environment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cox and Nicholas et al. with the teachings of Rajan et al.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cox, Nicholas et al. and Rajan et al. disclose: the first, second, and third flexures are all a same type of flexure (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2022/0128812 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022) in view of Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14 in view of Winrow (US 10,409,030 B1; pub. Sep. 10, 2019) and further in view of Rajan et al. (US 2022/0035123 A1; pub. Fec. 3, 2022).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: the first, second, and third flexures are configured such that a shape of the mirror is maintained after a thermal cycle in range of 45°C.
In a similar field of endeavor Rajan et al. disclose: the first, second, and third flexures are configured such that a shape of the mirror is maintained after a thermal cycle in range of 45°C (claim 1) motivated by the benefits for a mirror system that can be deployed in a harsh environment.
In light of the benefits for a mirror system that can be deployed in a harsh environment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cox, Nicholas et al. and Winrow with the teachings of Rajan et al.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2022/0128812 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022) in view of Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14 and further in view of Streetman et al. (US 6,478,434 B1; pub. Nov. 12, 2002).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: the first, second, and third flexures are configured such that a shape of the mirror is maintained after accelerating up to about 29.4 m/s².
In a similar field of endeavor Streetman et al. disclose: the first, second, and third flexures are configured such that a shape of the mirror is maintained after accelerating up to about 29.4 m/s² (col.9 L1-5) motivated by the benefits for a mirror system that can be deployed in a harsh environment.
In light of the benefits for a mirror system that can be deployed in a harsh environment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cox and Nicholas et al. with the teachings of Streetman et al.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2022/0128812 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022) in view of Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14 and further in view of da Silva et al. (US 2012/0236379 A1; pub. Sep. 20, 2012).
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: the first, second, and third flexures are configured such that a lowest resonant frequency of the mirror is greater than 60 Hz.
In a similar field of endeavor da Silva et al. disclose: the first, second, and third flexures are configured such that a lowest resonant frequency of the mirror is greater than 60 Hz (para. [0060]) motivated by the benefits for a fast-scanning mirror system.
In light of the benefits for a fast-scanning mirror system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cox and Nicholas et al. with the teachings of da Silva et al.
Claims 10 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2022/0128812 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022) in view of Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14 in view of Gillund et al. (US 11,986,948 B1; pub. May 21, 2024).
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: each flexure of the first, second, and third flexures comprises a center portion and two side portions displaced from the center portion and connected to the center portion by respective intermediate portions, and the center portion is configured to move along the unconstrained translational degree of freedom, the side portions are configured to remain stationary along the unconstrained translational degree of freedom.
In a similar field of endeavor Gillund et al. disclose: each flexure of the first, second, and third flexures comprises a center portion (fig.3 items 350A & 350B) and two side portions (fig.3 items 310A & 310B) displaced from the center portion and connected to the center portion by respective intermediate portions (fig.3 items 330A, 330B, 340A,340B), and the center portion is configured to move along the unconstrained translational degree of freedom (abstract teaches that the flexure has 6 degrees of freedom), the side portions are configured to remain stationary along the unconstrained translational degree of freedom (Fig.3 items 310A & 310B are mounting blocks/stationary) motivated by the benefits for reduced mechanical stress which could hinder mirror performance.
In light of the benefits for a fast-scanning mirror system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cox and Nicholas et al. with the teachings of Gillund et al.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Cox, Nicholas et al. and Gillund et al. disclose: the center portion is connected to the side portions by connecting portions, and a dimensional extent of the connecting portions along the direction of the unconstrained translational degree of freedom is less than dimensional extents of the connecting portions along the two directions perpendicular to the unconstrained translational degree of freedom (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2022/0128812 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022) in view of Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14 in view of Winrow (US 10,409,030 B1; pub. Sep. 10, 2019) and further in view of Cole et al. (US 2022/0088903 A1; pub. Mar. 24, 2022).
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: the material of the adhesive pads has a Young's modulus of 1.1 MPa ± 15%, a tensile strength of 7.1 MPa, and a coefficient of thermal expansion of 370 micron/meter/°C ± 50%.
In a similar field of endeavor Cole et al. disclose: adhesives with linear coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) ranging from (6-200)×10.sup.−6 m/(mK), high impact strength; Young's modulus of about 0.5 to about 5 GPa; tensile strength of about 15 MPa to about 80 MPa; % (para. [0047]) motivated by benefits for a strong adhesion that would increase the mirror system lifecycle.
In light of the benefits for a strong adhesion that would increase the mirror system lifecycle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Cox, Nicholas et al. and Winrow with the teachings of Cole et al.
Cole et al. are silent about: the material of the adhesive pads has a Young's modulus of 1.1 MPa ± 15%, a tensile strength of 7.1 MPa, and a coefficient of thermal expansion of 370 micron/meter/°C ± 50%. However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Claims 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2022/0128812 A1; pub. Apr. 28, 2022) in view of Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14 and further in view of Boschetti et al. (US 2021/0278352 A1; pub. Sep. 9, 2021).
Regarding claim 16, the combined references are silent about: A system comprising: an X-ray source configured to emit X-rays; a scintillator arranged to absorb, on a first side of the scintillator, the X-rays, the scintillator being configured to emit light from a second side of the scintillator in response to absorption of the X-rays; the device of claim 1, wherein the mirror is arranged to reflect the light from the second side of the scintillator toward a camera; and the camera arranged to receive the light reflected by the mirror.
In a similar field of endeavor Boschetti et al. disclose: A system comprising: an X-ray source configured to emit X-rays; a scintillator arranged to absorb, on a first side of the scintillator, the X-rays, the scintillator being configured to emit light from a second side of the scintillator in response to absorption of the X-rays; the device of claim 1, wherein the mirror is arranged to reflect the light from the second side of the scintillator toward a camera; and the camera arranged to receive the light reflected by the mirror (para. [0048]) motivated by the benefits for an apparatus that a simple configuration and that is cost-effective (Boschetti et al. para. [0048]).
In light of the benefits for an apparatus that a simple configuration and that is cost-effective as taught by Boschetti et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apparatus of Cox and Nicholas et al. with the teachings of Boschetti et al.
Regarding claim 17, Boschetti et al. disclose: an angle between a direction of a portion of the light when it encounters the mirror (para. [0048]) motivated by the benefits for an apparatus that a simple configuration and that is cost-effective (Boschetti et al. para. [0048]).
Boschetti et al. disclose: the optical axis is acute. However, tt has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Claims 18 -19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14 in view of Winrow (US 10,409,030 B1; pub. Sep. 10, 2019) and further in view of Hoyer-Ellefsen (US 4,340,830; pub. Jul. 20, 1982).
Regarding claim 18, Nicholas et al. disclose: A method comprising: installing engineered flexures on a backing at three locations corresponding to Bessel points of a mirror, thereby forming a flexure and backing assembly (Pg.990469-7 last para. pg.9940469-12 fig. 11).
Nicholas et al. are silent about: disposing the mirror onto a jig comprising support pads disposed on a surface facing the mirror; positioning shim jigs on the mirror; placing the flexure and backing assembly on the jig supporting the mirror; installing flexure spacer jigs on the engineered flexures; injecting adhesive at adhesive injection ports on the engineered flexures; allowing the adhesive to cure, thereby forming adhesive pads contacting the backing and the mirror; removing the shim jigs from the mirror and the flexure spacer jigs from the engineered flexures; and separating the flexure and backing assembly from the jig.
In a similar field of endeavor Winrow discloses: injecting flexures mount holes with adhesive (col.1 L65-67 & col.2 L1-3) motivated by the benefits for mounting a mirror on flexures with precision (Winrow col.1 L50-54).
In light of the benefits for a strong adhesion that would increase the mirror system lifecycle as taught by Winrow; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicholas et al. with the teachings of Winrow.
Winrow is silent about: disposing the mirror onto a jig comprising support pads disposed on a surface facing the mirror; positioning shim jigs on the mirror; placing the flexure and backing assembly on the jig supporting the mirror; installing flexure spacer jigs on the engineered flexures; injecting adhesive at adhesive injection ports on the engineered flexures; allowing the adhesive to cure, thereby forming adhesive pads contacting the backing and the mirror; removing the shim jigs from the mirror and the flexure spacer jigs from the engineered flexures; and separating the flexure and backing assembly from the jig.
In a similar field of endeavor Hoyer-Ellefsen discloses: using shim jigs for applying adhesive to bond two components (col.7 L13-16) motivated by the benefits for improving components coupling during curing (Hoyer-Ellefsen col.7 L13-16).
In light of the benefits for improving components coupling during curing as taught by Hoyer-Ellefsen; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicholas et al. and Winrow with the teachings of Hoyer-Ellefsen to have: disposing the mirror onto a jig comprising support pads disposed on a surface facing the mirror; positioning shim jigs on the mirror; placing the flexure and backing assembly on the jig supporting the mirror; installing flexure spacer jigs on the engineered flexures; injecting adhesive at adhesive injection ports on the engineered flexures; allowing the adhesive to cure, thereby forming adhesive pads contacting the backing and the mirror; removing the shim jigs from the mirror and the flexure spacer jigs from the engineered flexures; and separating the flexure and backing assembly from the jig
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Nicholas et al., Winrow and Hoyer-Ellefsen disclose: installing the engineered flexures on the backing comprises aligning each engineered flexure with a corresponding through hole in the backing (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 18).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al. “Hypatia and Stoic: an active optics system for a large space telescope”, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 9904, 2016, pg.990469-1 - 990469-14 in view of Winrow (US 10,409,030 B1; pub. Sep. 10, 2019) in view of Hoyer-Ellefsen (US 4,340,830; pub. Jul. 20, 1982) and further in view of Cisar et al. (US 2003/0003343 A1; pub. Jan. 2, 2003).
Regarding claim 20, the combined references are silent about: positioning the shim jigs comprises: sliding alignments pins through holes in the shim jigs; and aligning recesses in the shim jigs over locations of respective adhesive pads of the adhesive pads.
In a similar field of endeavor Cisar et al. disclose: positioning the shim jigs comprises: sliding alignments pins through holes in the shim jigs; and aligning recesses in the shim jigs over locations of respective adhesive pads of the adhesive pads (para. [0064]-[0065]) motivated by the benefits for improved components alignment and bounding accuracy.
In light of the benefits for improved components alignment and bounding accuracy; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nicholas et al., Winrow and Hoyer-Ellefsen with the teachings of Cisar et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights