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 .
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 18 is 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 18, the limitation “a central spring coupled to the central beam to assist its axial movement” is indefinite because the term ‘it’ refers back to another prior introduced element, but it is not clear which one. It is suggested that applicant replace ‘it’ with the element that they believe ‘it refers to. Additionally, the language ‘its axial movement’ appears to suggest that the central beam can move axially, but applicant has not clearly introduced such a limitation in the claim. It is suggested that if this is the intended claim scope, applicant should amend the claim to clarify (e.g. by claiming that the central beam is configured to move axially).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 106628270 A) in view of Holemans (US 20020014558 A1), O’Brien (US 6935805 B2), and Brunnen (GB 2202572 A).
Regarding claim 10, Shen (CN 106628270 A) discloses a system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, configured to be able to change from a closed state to an open state, that comprises:
an upper bracket comprising an inner protruding portion (Shen, figure 1, see callout below, upper bracket; has an inner portion),
a lower bracket comprising an inner protruding portion (Shen, figure 1, see callout below, lower bracket; has an inner portion),
an internal assembly fixed to the lower bracket that comprises
a central beam (Shen, figures 1-3, item 3),
at least two levers (Shen, figures 1-3, item 14),
at least two clamps (Shen, figures 1-3, item 6),
at least two guiding systems for the clamps (Shen, figures 1-3, item 13),
a central rod (Shen, figures 1-3, item 5) and
an actuator (Shen, figures 1-3, item 4), wherein:
the clamps of the internal assembly have a peripheral groove configured to mate with the protruding portions of the upper bracket and the lower bracket,
each lever is rigid (Shen, figures 1-3, item 14, lever is rigid), is articulated to a clamp by a hinge and to the central beam by a hinge (Shen, figures 1-3, item 14, lever is hinged to the clamp and to the central beam) and,
the clamps are guided by the guiding systems that allow the radial movement of the clamps (Shen, figures 1-3, item 13, guide systems allow for radial movement of the clamps),
each guiding system comprising a guide on which at least one pin protruding from the corresponding clamp is fitted (Shen, figures 1-3, item 15, clamps attached to the guide by a hinge pin), and
the central rod is joined to the central beam (Shen, figures 1-3, items 3 and 5, central rod is joint to the central beam via the actuator), is preloaded in a closed state of the system by torquing an upper nut (Shen, figures 1-3, item 8) and is releasable by the action of the actuator (Shen, figures 1-3, item 5, motor rotates central rod to move to an open state), except:
wherein the upper and lower brackets are in the form of a ring;
wherein there are at least three levers, clamps and guiding systems;
wherein the upper bracket and the lower bracket enclose an interior hollow space where the internal assembly is placed in a closed state of the system;
wherein each lever further comprises a latch system to fix the lever on the central beam in an open state of the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Holemans (US 20020014558 A1) teaches an upper bracket in the form of a ring (Holemans, figure 4, item 201),
a lower bracket in the form of a ring (Holemans, figure 4, item 202),
wherein the upper bracket and the lower bracket enclose an interior hollow space where the internal assembly is placed in a closed state of the system (Holemans, figures 2 and 4, item 200).
Shen and Holemans are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft securing/deployment system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the brackets of Shen with the ring shape and interior hollow space between the brackets of Holemans with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the clamps, levers, and guides from damage or impacts when the system is closed/holding down a spacecraft.
O’Brien (US 6935805 B2) teaches a latch system to fix the lever on the central beam in an open state of the system (O’Brien, figure 14, items 14 and 18, col 4 lines 8-19); and
Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft securing/deployment system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lever of Shen as modified by Holemans with latch system to fix the lever on the central beam in an open state of the system of O’Brien with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent oscillations during and after moving to the open position as such oscillations may cause impacts with the spacecraft and/or have unwanted impacts on vehicle attitude.
Brunnen (GB 2202572 A) teaches four clamps, arranged symmetrically in pairs with respect to the central rod (Brunnen, figure 1, item 25, four gripping members arranged symmetrically and in pairs on opposite sides about a center of the arrangement).
Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien and Brunnen are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft fastening/securing systems. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the levers and clamps of Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien with the four times radial symmetry of Brunnen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent to payload from sliding out of the hold down system and to increase redundancy in the case of a failure of one of the levers/clamp systems.
Regarding claim 11, Shen as modified by Holemans, O’Brien, and Brunnen teaches the system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, according to claim 10, that comprises four levers and four clamps, arranged symmetrically in pairs with respect to the central rod (Brunnen, figure 1, item 25, four gripping members arranged symmetrically and in pairs on opposite sides about a center of the arrangement).
Regarding claim 17, Shen as modified by Holemans, O’Brien, and Brunnen teaches the system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, according to claim 10, wherein the actuator is a non-explosive actuator (Shen, figures 1-3, item 4, non-explosive actuator).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 106628270 A) in view of Holemans (US 20020014558 A1), and O’Brien (US 6935805 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Shen (CN 106628270 A) discloses a system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, configured to be able to change from a closed state to an open state, that comprises:
an upper bracket comprising an inner protruding portion (Shen, figure 1, see callout below, upper bracket; has an inner portion),
a lower bracket comprising an inner protruding portion (Shen, figure 1, see callout below, lower bracket; has an inner portion),
an internal assembly fixed to the lower bracket that comprises
a central beam (Shen, figures 1-3, item 3),
at least two levers (Shen, figures 1-3, item 14),
at least two clamps (Shen, figures 1-3, item 6),
at least two guiding systems for the clamps (Shen, figures 1-3, item 13),
a central rod (Shen, figures 1-3, item 5) and
an actuator (Shen, figures 1-3, item 4), wherein:
the clamps of the internal assembly have a peripheral groove configured to mate with the protruding portions of the upper bracket and the lower bracket,
each lever is rigid (Shen, figures 1-3, item 14, lever is rigid), is articulated to a clamp by a hinge and to the central beam by a hinge (Shen, figures 1-3, item 14, lever is hinged to the clamp and to the central beam) and,
the clamps are guided by the guiding systems that allow the radial movement of the clamps (Shen, figures 1-3, item 13, guide systems allow for radial movement of the clamps),
each guiding system comprising a guide on which at least one pin protruding from the corresponding clamp is fitted (Shen, figures 1-3, item 15, clamps attached to the guide by a hinge pin), and
the central rod is joined to the central beam (Shen, figures 1-3, items 3 and 5, central rod is joint to the central beam via the actuator), is preloaded in a closed state of the system by torquing an upper nut (Shen, figures 1-3, item 8) and is releasable by the action of the actuator (Shen, figures 1-3, item 5, motor rotates central rod to move to an open state), except:
wherein the upper and lower brackets are in the form of a ring;
wherein there are at least three levers, clamps and guiding systems;
wherein the upper bracket and the lower bracket enclose an interior hollow space where the internal assembly is placed in a closed state of the system;
wherein each lever further comprises a latch system to fix the lever on the central beam in an open state of the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Holemans (US 20020014558 A1) teaches an upper bracket in the form of a ring (Holemans, figure 4, item 201),
a lower bracket in the form of a ring (Holemans, figure 4, item 202),
wherein the upper bracket and the lower bracket enclose an interior hollow space where the internal assembly is placed in a closed state of the system (Holemans, figures 2 and 4, item 200).
Shen and Holemans are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft securing/deployment system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the brackets of Shen with the ring shape and interior hollow space between the brackets of Holemans with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the clamps, levers, and guides from damage or impacts when the system is closed/holding down a spacecraft.
O’Brien (US 6935805 B2) teaches a latch system to fix the lever on the central beam in an open state of the system (O’Brien, figure 14, items 14 and 18, col 4 lines 8-19); and
wherein there are at least three levers and clamps (O’Brien, figures 4-5, items 76 and 18).
Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft securing/deployment system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lever and the arrangement of levers, clamps, and guiding systems of Shen as modified by Holemans with latch system to fix the lever on the central beam in an open state of the system and the three times radial symmetry of O’Brien with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent oscillations during and after moving to the open position as such oscillations may cause impacts with the spacecraft and/or have unwanted impacts on vehicle attitude and to prevent the payload from sliding out of the hold down system and for reducing vibrations.
Regarding claim 12, Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien teaches the system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, according to claim 10, that comprises three levers and three clamps with an equal angular separation between them (O’Brien, figure 4, items 76 and 18, three latching pawls members with an equal angular separation).
Regarding claim 17, Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien teaches the system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, according to claim 10, wherein the actuator is a non-explosive actuator (Shen, figures 1-3, item 4, non-explosive actuator).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 106628270 A) in view of Holemans (US 20020014558 A1) and O’Brien (US 6935805 B2), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 101864047 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien teaches the system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, according to claim 10, wherein the movement of the central rod is limited by a stopper.
Kim (KR 101864047 B1) teaches a central rod (Kim, figure 1, items 20) wherein the movement of the central rod is limited (Kim, figure 1, items 20 and 21, cylinder and protruding end contactable with stopper) by a stopper (Kim, figure 1 item 30, stopper).
Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien and Kim are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of rocket separation devices. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the central rod and beam of Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien with the stopper of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent overextension of the rod which may damage the release system.
Regarding claim 14, Shen as modified by Holemans, O’Brien, and Kim teaches the system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, according to claim 13, except:
wherein the stopper is covered with elastomer.
Kim does not specify what material the stopper is made of, but Kim also teaches a shock absorber which is made of an elastomer (Kim, figure 5, item 70, ¶34 of the translation, shock absorbing ring made of an elastomer).
Shen as modified by Holemans, O’Brien, and Kim are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of rocket separation devices. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stopper of Shen as modified by Holemans, O’Brien, and Kim with the elastomer of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success in order to absorb impacts with the stopper and thus prevent damage.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 106628270 A) in view of Holemans (US 20020014558 A1) and O’Brien (US 6935805 B2), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Moran (US 20210031952 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien teaches the system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, according to claim 10, except:
wherein the actuator is a pyronut.
Moran (US 20210031952 A1) teaches an actuator which is a pyronut (Moran, ¶7, pyronut separation device).
Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien and Moran are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft securing/deployment system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the actuator of Shen as modified by Holemans with the pyronut of Moran with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a backup release system.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 106628270 A) in view of Holemans (US 20020014558 A1) and O’Brien (US 6935805 B2), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lepek (US 20160325928 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien teaches the system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, according to claim 10, that additionally comprises a central spring coupled to the central beam to assist its axial movement.
Lepek (US 20160325928 A1) teaches a central spring coupled to a central beam to assist axial movement of the central beam (Lepek, figures 1-13, item 25, 32, and 35, spring biases movement of the central beam along a central beam axis).
Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien and Lepek are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of spacecraft securing/deployment system. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to actuator of Shen as modified by Holemans with the coil spring of Lepek with a reasonable expectation of success in order to release the clamp in the event of a failure of the central beam or central rod.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15, Shen as modified by Holemans and O’Brien discloses the system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with respect to a launcher, according to claim 10, except:
wherein the latch system comprises a metallic blade arranged on the lever and a recess made on the central beam, the metallic blade being configured to couple with the recess in an open state of the system.
Thus, the prior art fails to teach the claimed matter alone and it would not have been obvious to meet the claims either without undue hindsight based on the applicant' s disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 109131956 A teaches a system for hold down and release of a spacecraft where levers and clamps are the same structure
CN 111038745 A / CN 111114848 A / CN 111114854 A teach a system for hold down and release of a spacecraft wherein clamps are moved along tracks and actuated by a plate attached to a central rod moving up and down to articulate the clamps
US 11987393 B2 teaches a system for hold down and release of a spacecraft wherein three pivot arms are spaced around a central beam and biased outwards to engage with upper section; a central rod is moved to bring the pivot arms inwards to release a spacecraft
US 9475594 B2 teaches a system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with upper and lower brackets and a tubular clamp device
US 20160325928 A1 teaches a system for hold down and release of a spacecraft with upper and lower brackets; clamps join launcher and spacecraft and are articulated through a central rod; uses an alternative to a lever
US 5040748 A teaches a system for hold down and release of a spacecraft where clamps are hinged on a guide structure of the central beam and to the lever to allow for articulation
US 6935805 B2 teaches a system for hold down and release of a spacecraft where levers are formed together and threaded to move up and down on a threaded central rod
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 Michener can be reached at (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 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights