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 .
Response to Amendment
The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn, the 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 2, 11 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 2, 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaszubowski et al (US 6547476).
In regards to claim 1, Kaszubowski discloses a payload release system, comprising:
a base (Figs. 1, Figs. 2 ref. 108);
a plate positioned on top of the base (Figs. 1, Figs. 2 ref. 106 considered a plate);
a first mating interface defined at the base, the first mating interface comprising a first concentric shear feature including a first concentric ridge feature and a first concentric groove feature (as seen in Fig. 2A and Figs. 4 and seen below for ref. 108);
a second mating interface defined at the plate, the second mating interface comprising a second concentric shear feature including a second concentric ridge feature and a second concentric groove feature (as seen in Fig. 2A and Figs. 3 and below for ref. 106),
wherein the first concentric shear feature is in planar contact with the second concentric shear feature (as seen in Fig. 2A);
at least one spring assembly coupled to the base (Fig. 1B ref. 104); and
a releasable actuator positioned within the base and extending through the base and the plate along an axial direction (Fig. 2A comprising ref. 200, 204),
wherein at least a portion of the releasable actuator extends through each of the first mating interface and the second mating interface (as seen in Fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Kaszubowski discloses the payload release system of claim 1, the releasable actuator further comprising a release rod extending through a bore hole of the plate and a bore hole of the base (as seen in Fig. 2A ref. 204), each bore hole being positioned at a center on the plate and the base, respectively (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2A at least).
In regards to claim 10, Kaszubowski discloses the payload release system of claim 2, wherein the at least one spring assembly is removably coupled to the base (as suggested in Figs. 1 of Kasz, by disassembly of device 200, the spring/bias mechanism is "removably coupled" to the base).
Claim 12, 13, 16, 18, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaszubowski.
In regards to 12, Kaszubowski discloses the payload release system of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the base has a diameter of 1 to 10 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the means for the base to have a diameter of 1 to 10 inches in order accommodate a greater amount of payload, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 13, Kaszubowski discloses the payload release system of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the at least one mating interface has a diameter of 1 to 5 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the means for the at least one mating interface has a diameter of 1 to 5 inches in order accommodate a greater amount of payload and to accommodate payload sized to fit within a launch vehicle fairing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 16, Kaszubowski discloses the payload release system of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the first mating interface comprises a plurality of first concentric ridge features and first concentric groove features and the second mating interface comprises a plurality of second concentric ridge features and second concentric groove features. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide additionally a plurality of first concentric ridge features and first concentric groove features and the second mating interface comprises a plurality of second concentric ridge features and second concentric groove features in order to allow for greater resistance to sheer force in the coupling, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regards to claim 18, Kaszubowski as combined discloses the payload release system of claim 16, while Kaszubowski does not expressly disclose: wherein the plurality of concentric ridge features of the first mating interface and the second mating interface are spaced at a ratio of 1.4 to 1 of peak to peak spacing to depth. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the means for the plurality of concentric ridge features of the first mating interface and the second mating interface to be spaced at a ratio of 1.4 to 1 of peak to peak spacing to depth in order allow secure mating between the two bodies, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 19, Kaszubowski as combined discloses the payload release system of claim 16, while Kaszubowski discloses consideration of the angle of the side walls and resisting sheer loading, C6:42, Kaszubowski does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of concentric ridge features of the first mating interface extend from the plurality of the concentric groove features at an angle from 30° to 120° and the plurality of concentric ridge features of the second mating interface extend from the plurality of the concentric groove features at an angle from 30° to 120°. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the means for the plurality of concentric ridge features of the first mating interface and the second mating interface to be spaced at a ratio of 1.4 to 1 of peak to peak spacing to depth in order allow secure mating between the two bodies, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 3, 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaszubowski in view of Ahmed et al (US 6939073).
In regards to claim 3, Kaszubowski discloses the payload system of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose as taught by Ahmed: further comprising: a biasing member encircling the release rod (Ahmed Fig. 3 ref. 16); a dampening disk (Ahmed dampening disk Fig. 2 ref. 30);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Kaszubowski with Ahmed by providing a biasing member encircling the release rod, biasing member, and dampening disk in order to prevent debris from the mechanism escaping and possibly coming into contact with the vehicle.
Kaszubowski as combined further discloses:
a rod guide encapsulating the release rod, biasing member, and dampening disk (Kaszubowski as combined, Kaszubowski ref. 202, Ahmed ref. 10),
wherein the dampening disk is positioned between a distal end of the release rod and an end surface of the
In regards to claim 4, Kaszubowski as combined discloses the payload system of claim 3, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the dampening disk is at least partially made from a foam material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with the reasonable expectation of success, to modify the dampening disk of Kaszubowski as combined by providing he dampening disk is at least partially made from a foam material in order to allow for damping of shock or vibration during launch or transport, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. V. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaszubowski in view of Soranno et al (US 6193193).
In regards to claim 11, Kaszubowski discloses the payload release system of claim 2, while Kaszubowski suggests in Fig. 1 that the assembly is removable when the releasable actuator is in an engaged position given the hexagonal fasteners on ref. 104, but Kaszubowski does not expressly disclose: wherein the at least one spring assembly
Soranno teaches removing spacecraft assembles via bolts (C6:2 “The assemblies 42 and 44 and the interface 46 can be made removable by bolts or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Kaszubowski with Soranno by providing the means for the at least one spring assembly.
Claim 14, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaszubowski in view of Baghdasarian (US 20230061366).
In regards to claim 14, Kaszubowski discloses the payload release system of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising a telemetry switch configured to receive and send a signal.
Baghdasarian teaches commanding a satellite system via a remote signal ([0074 discloses receiving telemetry and sensing commands, accordingly comprising a device to send and receive a signal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Kaszubowski with Baghdasarian by providing a telemetry switch to receive and send a signal as is well known in the art.
In regards to claim 15, Kaszubowski as combined discloses the payload release system of claim 14, wherein the telemetry switch is configured to send the signal to a launch vehicle or to a payload for launch (Baghdasarian [0074] "An operator on the ground can control spacecraft 102 by sending commands").
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 7-9 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.
Claim 20 allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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 HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights