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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference # 21 & 22 in figure 5 are not in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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: there is an apparent typo on page 2, column 2, line 47. In page 2, column 2, line 47, “hing mechanism” should be – hinge mechanism --.
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 6-11 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 6 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: claims 6 & 8, lines 2-3 & 6-7, respectively, recites “the petal structure coupled to a boom structure is adapted to rotate on a hinge structure”. It is unclear if the petal structure is adapted to rotate on a hinge structure or if a boom structure is adapted to rotate on a hinge structure. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “the petal structure coupled to a boom structure is adapted to rotate on a hinge structure” in claims 6 & 8, lines 2-3 & 6-7, respectively, as -- the petal structure coupled to a boom structure, the boom structure is adapted to rotate on a hinge structure --, since this is what is disclosed in the specification.
Claim 11 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. In Claim 11, lines 5-13, appear to be narrative and unclear and referring to the disclosure. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting claims 11 as claim 11, lines 1-4 since that is the end of the first sentence and those lines appear to recite limitations, wherein lines 5-13 appear to just be narrative about the specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 are allowed. However, the 112 issues need to be resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “extending the boom structure along with the petal structure and the fins from a resting position on the surface of the spacecraft to an extended position on the opposite side; reorienting the petal structure and the fins through a half-circle rotation, while extension of the boom structure to a tail-level position, wherein by way of the rotation along the axis , the petal structure is adapted to align longitudinally with respect to the spacecraft with the fins facing inwards” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 11,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the petal structure along with the boom structure is adapted to move upwards extending the boom structure along with the petal structure and the fins from a resting position on the surface of the spacecraft to an extended position on the opposite side, wherein the petal structure is adapted to be reoriented through a half- circle rotation, while extension of the boom structure to a tail- level position, wherein by way of the rotation along the axis , the petal structure is adapted to align longitudinally with respect to the spacecraft with the fins facing inwards” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference Baekby Bjarnoe (Pub No. US 2022/0081130 A1) discloses a spacecraft and method, a spacecraft tail returning the spacecraft from space, a first, second, and third stage, and a petal structure. The reference Featherstone et al. (Pub No. US 2014/0263841 A1), Boelitz et al. (Pub No. US 2010/0320329 A1), & Featherstone (Pub No. US 2010/0327107 A1) each disclose a spacecraft and method, a spacecraft tail returning the spacecraft from space, fins, engines, a retractable and expandable heat shield, and the fins rotates with respect to the axis normal to the surface of the spacecraft body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
