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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “to be” is not a positive limitation inasmuch as the term is in future tense and implies a change in condition in the future. This does not serve to limit the structure in the present tense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: (thereon). Appropriate correction is required.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claims and correct all such informalities.
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, 3, and 5-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Re claims 3 and 5-13 the term “a thermal control system” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether the " a thermal control system” is the same " a thermal control system” recited in claim 1 or additional/different.
Re claim 1 the term “the screen barrier, the equipment, the shield, control unit ” are improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether the "the screen barrier, the equipment, the shield, control unit” are the same "the at least one screen barrier, the avionics equipment, the at least one shield, at least one control unit” recited in claim 1 or additional/different.
Re claim 1 the phrases " the flux, the energy, the hot side, the orbital position, the manufacturer, the external environment, the execution, the actuator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Re claim 1 the phrases "at least one panel” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what the “at least one panel” refers to. Is it solar panel or different panel.
Re claim 6 the phrases " the holder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Re claim 7 the phrases " the solar panel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Re claim 10 the phrases " the heat flux, the operational state, the value, the user, the rotational movement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Re claim 10 the term “the heater strip” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether the "the heater strip” is the same "the at least one heater strip” recited in claim 10 or additional/different.
Re claim 10 the phrases "each other” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what the “each other” refers to.
Re claim 11 the phrases "the other” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what the “the other” refers to.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights