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.
Claims 3 and 15 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.
Claims 3 and 15 recite protrusions configured to extend into openings, “each opening” of the openings comprising a first bore having a first width and a second bore having a second width, the second width smaller than the first width, which is confusing. A bore is a cylindrical hole, and as such, isn’t a bore width the bore diameter? How can each opening comprise both first and second bores? In other words, how can the distinct individual openings be related (definition of each) in that they have first and second bores?
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 sign(s) mentioned in the description: 257.
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 protrusions extending into openings must be shown or the feature canceled from claims 1 and 13. The drawings only show openings (figs. 7-10) or openings and protrusions (fig. 15A) that do not extend. Also, the openings and protrusions having a press or interference fit must be shown or the feature canceled from claims 2 and 14. The drawings show no relation at all between the openings and protrusions. 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.
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 13, 16, and 18 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grassmann (2,173,685).
13. Grassmann teaches a method of deploying a deployable mast (metal band 5 essentially forms a type of mast that can also be retracted), the method comprising:
feeding an elongate band 5 from a stowed configuration to a deployed, helical configuration extending along a longitudinal axis; and
receiving a plurality of protrusions 7 spaced along a first portion (one edge) of the elongate band into a plurality of holes 6 spaced along a second portion (the other edge) of the elongate band as the elongate band is fed into the deployed configuration, page 1, lines 30-35.
16. Grassmann teaches the method of Claim 13, Grassmann further comprising withdrawing the plurality of protrusions from the plurality of holes while feeding the elongate band from the deployed configuration back to the stowed configuration when the device is lowered.
18. Grassmann teaches the method of Claim 13, Grassmann further comprising feeding the elongate band from a spiral, stowed configuration, fig. 1, to the deployed configuration.
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, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, and 17-18 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis (254,782) in view of Kuckens (3,030,488).
1. Wallis teaches a system capable of deploying a deployable mast (as metal strip 1 is fed onto mandrel 2, the strip is essentially deployed up the mandrel as a mast-type elongate structure) the system comprising:
an elongate band 1 comprising openings (the holes the side that the rivets do not pass through) and protrusions (the ends of the rivets that pass through the holes on the other side); and a system configured to form the elongate band into a helical configuration along a longitudinal axis in which the plurality of protrusions extend into the plurality of openings, fig. 1.
Wallis does not expressly teach the system is a deployment system to deploy the strip from a stowed configuration into a deployed configuration along the longitudinal axis. Kuckens teaches a deployment system to deploy a strip 1 from a stowed configuration (wound coil) into a deployed (extended) configuration along a longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system to be a deployment system to deploy the strip from a stowed configuration into a deployed configuration along the longitudinal axis for manufacturing efficiency.
3. Wallis in view of Kuckens teaches the system of Claim 1, Wallis further teaching, as best understood, the plurality of openings comprising openings 3 with a first bore diameter on one band edge and openings 3 with a second bore diameter on the other edge. Wallis does not expressly teach the second diameter smaller than the first. Initially, Examiner indicates that no criticality is given for a second bore width being smaller than a first bore width (the only embodiment of protrusion sufficiently disclosed is the protrusion formed by the rivet shank after it passes through the openings on one band edge, and no reason is given for why these opening diameters need be different than the diameter of the openings on the other band edge, the openings that receive the rivet shank). In any case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second diameter (the diameter of the hole that receives the protrusion) to be smaller for a tight protrusion/opening fit.
4. Wallis in view of Kuckens teaches the system of Claim 1, Wallis further teaching the protrusions are spaced along a first lateral side of the elongate band, and the plurality of openings are spaced along a second, opposite lateral side of the elongate band, fig. 1.
8. Wallis in view of Kuckens teaches the system of Claim 1, Kuckens further teaching the elongate band is wound in a spiral when in the stowed configuration, fig. 1.
10. Wallis in view of Kuckens teaches the system of Claim 1, Kuckens, figs. 1-2, further teaching the deployment system comprises a storage reel and a drive system having a rotating member 27, wherein the storage reel rotates at a first rate and the rotating member rotates at a second rate different than the first rate (the rates are different because the diameters are different).
11. Wallis in view of Kuckens teaches the system of Claim 1, Wallis further teaching the elongate band in the deployed configuration is capable of comprising a cylindrical portion extending no less than 20 meters, depending on the length of the strip used.
13, 15, and 17-18. The claims recites an obvious method of using the Wallis in view of Kuckens system, the tubular metal members formed up along the mandrel by the Wallis in view of Kuckens system being considered a deployed mast as broadly recited as indicated above.
Claims 2 and 14 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis in view of Kuckens and in further view of Balding (5,473,850).
2. Wallis does not expressly teach the openings and protrusions are configured to have a press fit or interference fit. Balding teaches openings 28 and protrusions 26 are configured to have a press fit or interference fit, col. 9, lines 17-19. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the openings and protrusions to be configured to have a press fit or interference fit for a more secure connection.
14. The claim recites an obvious method of using the Wallis in view of Kuckens and in further view of Balding system.
Claim 5 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis in view of Kuckens and in further view of Nichols (4,850,522).
Wallis does not teach the elongate band comprises a plurality of band segments, with adjacent band segments of the plurality of band segments coupled together by at least one connector. Nichols teaches an elongate band comprises a plurality of band segments, with adjacent band segments of the plurality of band segments coupled together by at least one connector (a weld, col. 3, lines 10-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the elongate band to comprise a plurality of band segments, with adjacent band segments of the plurality of band segments coupled together by at least one connector to produce longer members.
Claims 5-6 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis in view of Kuckens and in further view of Pignatoro (5,834,083).
Wallis does not teach the elongate band comprises a plurality of band segments, with adjacent band segments of the plurality of band segments coupled together by at least one connector, the at least one connector comprises openings and is coupled with the adjacent band segments via the plurality of protrusions of the adjacent band segments extending into the openings of the at least one connector. Pignatoro teaches an elongate band comprises a plurality of band segments (56 and 58), with adjacent band segments of the plurality of band segments coupled together by at least one connector 100, the at least one connector comprises openings, fig. 16, and is coupled with the adjacent band segments via the plurality of protrusions 64 of the adjacent band segments extending into the openings of the at least one connector. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the elongate band to comprise a plurality of band segments, with adjacent band segments of the plurality of band segments coupled together by at least one connector to produce longer members, the at least one connector comprises openings and is coupled with the adjacent band segments via the plurality of protrusions of the adjacent band segments extending into the openings of the at least one connector to produce longer members.
Claim 7 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis in view of Kuckens and in further view of Nishikado (2026/0192390).
Wallis does not teach the elongate band comprises a plurality of band segments, adjacent band segments coupled together by securing an end of a first band segment to an end of a second band segment, the end of the first band segment overlapped with the end of the second band segment. Nishikado, fig. 1, comprises a plurality of segments, adjacent band segments coupled together by securing (via weld 3) an end of a first segment 10 to an end of a second segment 20, the end of the first segment overlapped with the end of the second segment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the elongate band to comprise a plurality of band segments, adjacent band segments coupled together by securing an end of a first band segment to an end of a second band segment, the end of the first band segment overlapped with the end of the second band segment to produce longer members.
Claims 9 and 19 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis in view of Kuckens and in further view of Wickman (11,602,780).
9. Wallis does not teach a welding system configured to weld adjacent edges of the elongate band as the elongate band deploys from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration. Wickman teaches a welding system configured to weld 8 adjacent edges of a elongate band as the elongate band deploys, fig. 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Wallis to have a welding system configured to weld adjacent edges of the elongate band as the elongate band deploys from the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration for strength.
19. The claim recites an obvious method of using the Wallis in view of Kuckens and in further view of Wickman system.
Claim 12 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann in view of Pignatoro.
Grassman does not teach the elongate band comprises a plurality of band segments, wherein ends of the band segments comprise stiffness reduction windows. Pignatoro teaches an elongate band comprises a plurality of band segments, wherein ends of the band segments comprise stiffness reduction windows (the round holes the pins go into reduce stiffness because material is taken away at the holes). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the elongate band to comprise a plurality of band segments, wherein ends of the band segments comprise stiffness reduction windows to produce a long member.
Claim 14 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann in view of Balding.
14. Grassmann does not expressly teach the openings and protrusions are configured to have a press fit or interference fit. Balding teaches openings 28 and protrusions 26 are configured to have a press fit or interference fit, col. 9, lines 17-19. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the openings and protrusions to be configured to have a press fit or interference fit for a more secure connection.
Claim 20 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassmann.
Grassman does not expressly teach deploying the deployable mast to have a cylindrical portion extending along the longitudinal axis no less than 20 meters. The mast length can be from 2 meters to “indefinite length”, para. 60, and as such, especially because no criticality for the claimed length is disclosed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deploy the deployable mast to have a cylindrical portion extending along the longitudinal axis no less than 20 meters to maximize extension.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights