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 because the shading makes the drawings unclear by reducing the legibility of the figures. See MPEP 608.02(V)(m). 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.
The drawings are objected to because figures 2 and 3 contain numerals which may mistakenly be portrayed as reference characters. The only numbers in the drawings should be reference characters, sheet numbers and view numbers. See MPEP(V)(p). 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.
The drawings are objected to because the drawings (at least figure 7) include words/legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing. They should contain as few words as possible. See MPEP (V)(o). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification states [paragraphs 22, 83 and 93] “an offset strut structure offset from the central strut structure towards a first side”. It appears that “a first side” should be “a third side” based on the specification and drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 7, 12, 13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the applicant states “the central column structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure”. It appear “that” should be “than” to read “the central column structure has a smaller width dimension than the outer structure”.
Regarding claim 3, the applicant states “the central column structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure”. It appear “that” should be “than” to read “the central column structure has a smaller width dimension than the outer structure”.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant states “the central strut structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure”. It appear “that” should be “than” to read “the central strut structure has a smaller width dimension than the outer structure”.
Regarding claim 12, the applicant states “the central column structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure”. It appear “that” should be “than” to read “the central column structure has a smaller width dimension than the outer structure”.
Regarding claim 13, the applicant states “the central column structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure”. It appear “that” should be “than” to read “the central column structure has a smaller width dimension than the outer structure”.
Regarding claim 17, the applicant states “the central strut structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure”. It appear “that” should be “than” to read “the central strut structure has a smaller width dimension than the outer structure”.
Regarding claims 2/3 and 12/13, applicant is advised that should claims 2 and 12 be found allowable, claims 3 and 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 8-10 and 18-20 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.
Regarding claim 8, the applicant states “the payload structure further comprising an offset strut structure offset from the central strut structure towards a first side”. However, claim 1, from which claim 8 indirectly depends, states “an offset column structure offset from the central column structure towards a first side”. It is unclear how the first side can go in two different directions. Furthermore, since “a first side” was already previously claimed, this limitation appears to be introduced twice, falling under double inclusion. Where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). It appears claim 8 should say “the payload structure further comprising an offset strut structure offset from the central strut structure towards a third side” and further amend the last line of the claim to say “the third side” instead of “a third side”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first offset strut structure" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the first offset strut structure” should be “the offset strut structure”.
Regarding claim 18, the applicant states “the payload structure further comprising an offset strut structure offset from the central strut structure towards a first side”. However, claim 11, from which claim 8 indirectly depends, states “an offset column structure offset from the central column structure towards a first side”. It is unclear how the first side can go in two different directions. Furthermore, since “a first side” was already previously claimed, this limitation appears to be introduced twice, falling under double inclusion. Where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). It appears claim 18 should say “the payload structure further comprising an offset strut structure offset from the central strut structure towards a third side” and further amend the last line of the claim to say “the third side” instead of “a third side”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first offset strut structure" in line 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the first offset strut structure” should be “the offset strut structure”.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as depending from rejected base claims since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roopnarine (et al. (US 20110296675).
Regarding claim 1, Roopnarine teaches a payload structure (figure 1, 2, 5A and 7A) for in-space use (paragraph 8), the payload structure comprising: a first payload wall (figure 1, reference 14) comprising: an outer structure (figure 2, reference 20 and 22 and figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below) defining a quadrilateral inner area (figure 2 and 7A), the inner area spanned by a sheet (figure 1: sheet spanning wall 14); a central column structure centrally aligned to and spanning the sheet (figure 1 and 7a, as shown in the annotate figure below); and an offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below) offset from the central column structure towards a first side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below) such that a first distance between the central column structure and the offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below) is less than a second distance between the offset column structure and a generally parallel portion of the outer structure on the first side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the central column structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the central column structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload structure further comprising a second offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1), the second offset column structure offset from the central column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1) towards a second side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1) such that a third distance between the central column structure and the second offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1) is less than a fourth distance between the second offset column structure and a second generally parallel portion of the outer structure on the second side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1), the second side opposite the first side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload structure further comprising a second offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1), the second offset column structure offset from the central column structure towards the first side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1) such that the first distance between the central column structure and the offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1) is less than a third distance between the offset column structure and the second offset column structure( figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1), and wherein the third distance is less than a fourth distance from the second offset column structure to the generally parallel portion of the outer structure on the first side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload structure further comprising a central strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below), the central strut structure centrally aligned to and spanning the sheet (figure 1 and 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below), and the central strut structure is generally perpendicular to the central column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
470
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 6, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the central strut structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 6, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload structure further comprising an offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6) offset from the central strut structure towards a third side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6) such that a fifth distance between the central strut structure and the offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6) is less than a sixth distance between the central strut structure and a generally parallel portion of the outer structure on the third side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 8, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload structure further comprising a second offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6), the second offset strut structure offset from the central strut structure towards a fourth side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6) such that a seventh distance between the central strut structure and the second offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6) is less than an eighth distance between the central strut structure and a fourth generally parallel portion of the outer structure on the fourth side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6), the fourth side opposite the third side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6).
Regarding claim 10, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 8, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload structure further comprising a second offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6), the second offset strut structure offset from the central strut structure towards the third side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6) such that a ninth distance between the central strut structure and the offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6) is less than a tenth distance between the offset strut structure and the second offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6), and wherein the tenth distance is less than an eleventh distance from the second offset strut structure to the generally parallel portion of the outer structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 6).
Regarding claim 11, Roopnarine teaches a payload wall (figure 1, 2, 5A and 7A, reference 14) for in-space use (paragraph 8), the payload wall comprising: an outer structure (figure 2, reference 20 and 22 and figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below) defining a quadrilateral inner area (figure 2 and 7A), the inner area spanned by a sheet (figure 1: sheet spanning wall 14); a central column structure centrally aligned to and spanning the sheet (figure 1 and 7a, as shown in the annotate figure below); and an offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below) offset from the central column structure towards a first side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below) such that a first distance between the central column structure and the offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below) is less than a second distance between the offset column structure and a generally parallel portion of the outer structure on the first side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
583
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the central column structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11).
Regarding claim 13, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the central column structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload wall further comprising a second offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11), the second offset column structure offset from the central column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11) towards a second side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11) such that a third distance between the central column structure and the second offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11) is less than a fourth distance between the second offset column structure and a second generally parallel portion of the outer structure on the second side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11), the second side opposite the first side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11).
Regarding claim 15, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload wall further comprising a second offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11), the second offset column structure offset from the central column structure towards the first side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11) such that the first distance between the central column structure and the offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11) is less than a third distance between the offset column structure and the second offset column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11), and wherein the third distance is less than a fourth distance from the second offset column structure to the generally parallel portion of the outer structure on the first side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotate figure above for claim 11).
Regarding claim 16, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 11, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload wall further comprising a central strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below), the central strut structure centrally aligned to and spanning the sheet (figure 1 and 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below), and the central strut structure is generally perpendicular to the central column structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
470
780
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 16, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the central strut structure has a smaller width dimension that the outer structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16).
Regarding claim 18, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 16, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload wall further comprising an offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16) offset from the central strut structure towards a third side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16) such that a fifth distance between the central strut structure and the offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16) is less than a sixth distance between the central strut structure and a generally parallel portion of the outer structure on the third side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16).
Regarding claim 19, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 18, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload structure further comprising a second offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16), the second offset strut structure offset from the central strut structure towards a fourth side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16) such that a seventh distance between the central strut structure and the second offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16) is less than an eighth distance between the central strut structure and a fourth generally parallel portion of the outer structure on the fourth side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16), the fourth side opposite the third side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16).
Regarding claim 20, Roopnarine teach all of the claim limitations of claim 18, as show above. Furthermore, Roopnarine teaches the payload structure further comprising a second offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16), the second offset strut structure offset from the central strut structure towards the third side (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16) such that a ninth distance between the central strut structure and the offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16) is less than a tenth distance between the offset strut structure and the second offset strut structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16), and wherein the tenth distance is less than an eleventh distance from the second offset strut structure to the generally parallel portion of the outer structure (figure 7A, as shown in the annotated figure above for claim 16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aston et al. (US 20210351859) discloses a payload structure including a wall having an outer structure with a sheet.
Chu (US 20090032530) discloses a payload structure including a wall having an outer structure with a sheet.
Oren et al. (US 20180016095) discloses a payload structure including a wall having an outer structure with column structures and strut structures.
Quincieu (US 20060185277) discloses a payload structure including a wall having an outer structure with a sheet with column structures and strut structures.
Jones et al. (US 5,380,083) discloses a payload structure including a wall having an outer structure with a sheet.
Filley (US 4,872,625) discloses a payload structure including a wall having an outer structure with a sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights