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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/27/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Foreign Document Numbers WO20210224572 and WO2022 have not been considered. Additionally NPL Document Jimenez, "Mechanics of Thin Carbon Fiber Composites With a Silicone Matrix, has only been given a cursory review.
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
modular deployable structures
attachment feature
perimeter frame
first set of modular deployable structures
second set of modular deployable structures
closed loop frame
antenna surface
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Element 702 has more than one name in paragraph [0071].
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 1-15 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 1-15 recite limitation “modular deployable structures”. It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 3 recite limitation “attachment feature”. It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "permits" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites limitations “perimeter frame” in lines 2 and 4. Is this the same as the outer frame? Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 recite limitation “second set of modular deployable structures”. It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 and 12 recite limitation “antenna surface”. It is unclear what element this is referring to. For purposes of examination, examiner at best, is interpreting it to be the same as element 104 “reflector”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12, line 2 recited limitation “closed loop frame”. It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appropriate 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, 2, 4-6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4315265 A Palmer; William B. et al.
Regarding claim 1 Palmer teaches, a deployable structure (element 14), comprising: a plurality of modular deployable structures (fig. 5), wherein each of the plurality of modular deployable structures are separate structures from each of another of the plurality of modular deployable structures (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2 Palmer teaches, the deployable structure of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of modular deployable structures comprises an attachment feature configured to attach with the attachment feature of another of the plurality of modular deployable structures (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4 Palmer teaches, the deployable structure of claim 1, wherein each of the modular deployable structures comprises a perimeter frame, wherein the perimeter frame is collapsible and expandable between a stowed configuration having a reduced volume and a deployed configuration having an expanded volume relative to the reduced volume (fig. 5a, element 20), a support structure coupled to the perimeter frame (fig. 5s, element 26 and 24), and a surface supported by the support structure (element 4).
Regarding claim 5 Palmer teaches, the deployable structure of claim 4, wherein the frame of each of the modular deployable structures comprises at least three sides (elements 30 and 20), where two opposing sides of the at least three sides are tapered to create a narrower end and a wider end between the two opposing sides (fig. 5 and 5a, element 4 is tapered, fig. 5 element 30 is along length of element 4), and a third side extending between the two opposing sides at the wider end between the two opposing sides (element 20), wherein the frame defines a closed loop structure (fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 6 Palmer teaches, the deployable structure of claim 5, wherein the frame of each of the modular deployable structures comprises a plurality of longerons, a plurality of diagonals, and nodes connecting adjacent longerons and diagonals, wherein the longerons are flexible to deform in the stowed configuration and extend in the deployed configuration.
Regarding claim 12 Palmer teaches, the deployable structure of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of modular deployable structures comprises a closed loop frame expandable between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration, where the stowed configuration has a smaller volume than the deployed configuration (figs. 4 and 5), a support structure coupled to the frame (fig. 5a, element 20 and 30), and a surface (elements 4,6,8,10) supported by the support structure (fig.2), wherein the surface comprises a portion of an antenna surface (element 14), a portion of a reflective surface, or a portion of a collector surface, wherein the antenna surface, reflective surface, or collector surface is defined by the individual surfaces of the plurality of modular deployable structures coupled together in the deployed configuration (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1, 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4171876 A Wood; Douglas E.
Regarding claim 1 Wood teaches, a deployable structure, comprising: a plurality of modular deployable structures (fig. 5, element 80), wherein each of the plurality of modular deployable structures are separate structures from each of another of the plurality of modular deployable structures (col. 7, lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 4 Wood teaches, the deployable structure of claim 1, wherein each of the modular deployable structures comprises a perimeter frame (fig. 5), wherein the perimeter frame is collapsible and expandable between a stowed configuration having a reduced volume and a deployed configuration having an expanded volume relative to the reduced volume (col. 8 lines 9-21), a support structure coupled to the perimeter frame (fig. 6), and a surface supported by the support structure (element 11).
Regarding claim 5 Wood teaches, the deployable structure of claim 4, wherein the frame of each of the modular deployable structures comprises at least three sides (fig. 5), where two opposing sides of the at least three sides are tapered to create a narrower end and a wider end between the two opposing sides (fig. 5), and a third side extending between the two opposing sides at the wider end between the two opposing sides, wherein the frame defines a closed loop structure (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6 Wood teaches, the deployable structure of claim 5, wherein the frame of each of the modular deployable structures comprises a plurality of longerons, a plurality of diagonals (fig. 5, element 86), and nodes connecting adjacent longerons and diagonals (fig. 6, element 42), wherein the longerons are flexible to deform in the stowed configuration and extend in the deployed configuration (col. 14, lines 50-54 “aluminum tubing”).
Regarding claim 7 Wood teaches, the deployable structure of claim 6, wherein the plurality of modular deployable structures comprises a first set of modular deployable structures wherein each of the first set of modular deployable structures have a same configuration (fig. 5, element 80).
Regarding claim 8 Wood teaches, the deployable structure of claim 7, wherein a first side of the two opposing sides of each of the first set of modular deployable structures couple to a second side of the two opposing sides of another one of the plurality of the first set of modular deployable structures, wherein the first set of modular deployable structures are configured to attach together to form a first ring (figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 9 Wood teaches, the deployable structure of claim 8, wherein the plurality of modular deployable structures comprises a second set of modular deployable structures, wherein each of the second set of modular deployable structures have a second same configuration (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10 Wood teaches, the deployable structure of claim 9, wherein the second set of modular deployable structures are configured to couple together to form a second ring, wherein the second ring sized and shaped relative to the first ring size and shape to be concentric with and positioned radially outside the first ring (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11 Wood teaches, the deployable structure of claim 10, wherein the plurality of modular deployable structures are configured to attach together and position each of the surfaces of the plurality of modular deployable structures to form an antenna surface of the deployable structure (fig. 5, element 94).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11358738 B1 Eller; Michael R. et al.
Regarding claim 13, Eller teaches, a method of deploying a deployable structure, comprising: launching a plurality of modular deployable structures to a deployment location (para 0031 “The system's purpose is to launch preferably several PanelSats”); coupling the plurality of modular deployable structures together to form the deployable structure (fig. 3); and deploying the deployable structure from a collapsed configuration to a deployed configuration (para 0051).
Regarding claim 14, Eller teaches, the method of deploying the deployable structure of claim 13, wherein the launch of the plurality of modular deployable structures includes storing each of the plurality of modular deployable structures in separate payloads of one or more space craft to move the plurality of modular deployable structures from earth to the deployment location in space (para 0099).
Regarding claim 15, Eller teaches, the method of deploying the deployable structure of claim 13, further comprising: using a robot to position each of the plurality of modular deployable structures relative to each other and attaching the plurality of modular deployable structures together (para 0085 robotic arm).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer.
Regarding claim 3 Palmer teaches, the deployable structure of claim 2, wherein the attachment feature comprises a mated surface configured to correspond to another mated surface of another attachment feature of the another of the plurality of modular deployable structures (figs. 6a and 6b), but fails to teach, wherein the mated surface and the another mated surface comprises corresponding tapered cylindrical surface,
Examiner takes official notice it is well known in to use tapered hinge pins as they help in retention of the pin. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Palmer with a tapered pin. The motivation to do so would be to retain the pin.
wherein a relative size of the mated surface and the another mated surface permits ultrasonic welding of the attachment feature to the attachment feature of another of the plurality of modular deployable structures.
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