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 .
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 “a hollow cylindrical cap encapsulating the release rod” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The reference number for what appears as a cylindrical cap, 134, is referenced as a rod guide in the instant specification.
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 § 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 2-19 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. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 2 recites “a hollow cylindrical cap”, then later “an end surface of the cylindrical cap.” Are the both these “cylindrical caps” referring to the same part?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the fastener", “the top cap”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the at least one spring assembly may be removed from the base”. Not clear if what follows “may be” is a required limitation of the claim.
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, 5, 6, 7, 9-11, 16, 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deslandes et al (20230141652).
In regards to claim 1, Deslandes discloses a payload release system, comprising:
a base (Fig. 3 comprising ref. 2);
a plate positioned on top of the base (Fig. 3 comprising at least ref. 3, upper portions of Fig. 1 ref. 1);
at least one mating interface (as seen at least in Fig. 4A, B, surface of contact between refs. 2 and 3);
at least one spring assembly, coupled to the base (Fig. 3 comprising ref. 40); and
a releasable actuator positioned within the base and extending through the base and the plate (Fig. 3 comprising at least ref 70, extending through base and plate seen in Fig. 4A, ref. 70 part of mechanism for actuating release of satellite).
In regards to claim 2, Deslandes 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 (Deslandes ref. 70), the bore holes positioned roughly center on the plate and the base, respectively (Deslandes as suggested in Figs. 3, 4).
In regards to claim 5, Delandes discloses the payload release system of claim 2, wherein the at least one mating interface comprises a first mating interface on the plate and a second mating interface on the base (Deslandes Fig. 5A mating between ref. 2), the bore holes extending through the first mating interface of the plate (Deslandes Fig. 5A at ref. 72) and the second mating interface of the base (Deslandes as seen in Fig. 5A, bore hole at lower portion of ref. 401).
In regards to claim 6, Deslandes as combined discloses the payload release system of claim 5, further comprising a liner positioned in-between the first mating interface and the second mating interface (Deslandes Fig. 3 comprising refs. 4 and 41).
In regards to claim 7, Deslandes discloses the payload release system of claim 2, the at least one spring assembly further comprising: an outer spring guide (Fig. 5A ref. 400), an inner spring guide (Fig. 5A ref. 401), a top cap (Deslandes seen in Fig. 5A not refenced, top portion of ref. 401), coupled to a top of the outer and the inner spring guide (Deslandes seen in Fig. 5A not refenced, top portion of ref. 401), a bottom cap, coupled to a bottom of the outer and the inner spring guide (Deslandes seen in Fig. 5A not refenced, bottom portion of ref. 401), a payload release mechanism encircling the outer spring guide and positioned between the top cap and bottom cap, and a fastener (Deslandes Fig. 5A ref. 402, fastener seen at ref. 401A).
In regards to claim 9, Deslandes discloses the payload release system of claim of claim 7, wherein the payload release mechanism is a spring (Deslandes ref. 402).
In regards to claim 10, Deslandes discloses the payload release system of claim 2, wherein the at least one spring assembly is removeably coupled to the base (as suggested in Fig. 3 of Deslandes, by disassembly of device 1, ref. 45 is “removeably coupled” to the base).
In regards to claim 11, Deslandes discloses the payload release system of claim 2, wherein the payload release mechanism has a body configured to be compressed such that when the fastener is removed and the top cap and a top flat portion of the rod is pushed downward a predetermined distance, the at least one spring assembly may be removed from the base (Fig. 3 ref. 40 spring assembly, compressed by way of ref. 400 and 401).
In regards to claim 16, Deslandes as combined discloses the payload release system of claim 5, wherein the first mating interface and the second mating interface include two or more reciprocal concentric shear features (Deslandes Fig. 3 comprising refs. 46, 410).
In regards to claim 17, Deslandes as combined discloses the payload release system of claim 16, wherein the concentric shear feature of the first mating interface includes a plurality of concentric ridge features and a plurality of concentric groove features (Deslandes as suggest in Fig. 3) and the concentric shear feature of the second mating interface includes a plurality of concentric ridge features and a plurality of concentric groove features (Deslandes as suggest in Fig. 3).
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahmed et al (US 6939073).
In regards to claim 20, Ahmed discloses a method for exchanging a spring assembly comprising:
disengaging a fastening (Fig. 2 ref. 9) from a bottom cap of the spring assembly (Fig. 2 ref. 8), thereby decoupling the spring assembly from a base (disengaging seen at least in Fig. 3);
applying a force on a top cap of the spring assembly (Fig. 3 ref. 30 compressed by force of spring assembly) and a rod extending through the spring assembly (ref. 15), thereby compressing a payload release mechanism of the spring assembly (compressing ref. 30 in Fig. 3); releasing the spring assembly from the base (Fig. 3 separation and releasing spring assembly).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 18, 19, 12, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deslandes.
In regards to claim 18, Deslandes as combined discloses the payload release system of claim 17, but 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, Deslandes as combined discloses the payload release system of claim 17, but 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.
In regards to 12, Deslandes 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, Deslandes 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.
Claim 3, 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deslandes in view of Ahmed et al (US 6939073).
In regards to claim 3, Deslandes discloses the payload system of claim 2, further comprising: a biasing member encircling the release rod (Deslandes ref. 45);
Deslandes does not expressly disclose: a dampening disk; and a hollow cylindrical cap encapsulating the release rod, biasing member, and dampening disk.
Ahmed teaches a cylindrical cap for a coupling mechanism to release a payload from a vehicle, which encapsulates release rod, biasing member, and dampening disk (Fig. 1 ref. 10, seen also in Fig. 2, dampening disk Fig. 2 ref. 30, rod ref. 15).
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, Delandes with Ahmed by providing a hollow cylindrical cap encapsulating 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.
Deslandes as combined further discloses:
wherein the dampening disk is positioned between a distal end of the release rod and an end surface of the cylindrical cap (as seen in Fig. 2 of Ahmed, position of ref. 30).
In regards to claim 4, Deslandes 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 Deslandes 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 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deslandes in view of Obry et al (US 5860624).
In regards to claim 8, Deslandes as discloses the payload release system of claim 7, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising a rod positioned within and extending through the inner spring guide.
Obry teaches a rod (Fig. 4 ref. 48) positioned within and extending through an inner and outer spring guide (as seen in Fig. 4, refs. 40 and upper portion of ref. 40 functioning as guide of ref. 48).
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, Delandes with Obry by providing a rod positioned within and extending through the inner spring guide in order to allow a greater extension of the spring guide during payload release.
Claim 14, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deslandes in view of Baghdasarian (US 20230061366).
In regards to claim 14, Deslandes 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, Delandes 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, Deslandes 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”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display coupling/separation mechanism for releasing payload from a vehicle or body in orbit.
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
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights