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, 7, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “being” are not positive limitations inasmuch as the terms including the word "being" are passive and thus do not serve to clearly limit the structure in an active sense. 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.
Reference of prior art
Roder et al. (US 20070069081, Demiseable Momentum Exchange System).
Bialke. (US 20080099626, Reconfigurable Reaction Wheel For Spacecraft).
Marshall et al. (US 20170313445, SMALL SCALE REACTION WHEEL ASSEMBLIES).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Roder.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder discloses:
An inertia disk for a spacecraft, the inertia disk (depicted in fig. 1) comprising:
a body including an inner portion and a lip (items 14, 22), the inner portion being proximate a center of the body such that the inner portion spans from the center to the lip, the lip having a thickness greater than a thickness of the inner portion (items 14, 22 as depicted in fig. 1), wherein the body is at least partially made of aluminum (¶ 0036).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder discloses:
The inertia disk of claim 1, wherein the aluminum has a melting point of less than about 1000 degrees Celsius (¶ 0035).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder discloses:
A reaction wheel assembly for a spacecraft, the reaction wheel assembly comprising: an inertia disk including: a body including an inner portion and a lip, the inner portion being proximate a center of the body such that the inner portion spans from the center to the lip, the lip having a thickness greater than a thickness of the inner portion, wherein the body is at least partially made of aluminum;
(Claim 7 above is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 7 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1).
an enclosure operable to receive the inertia disk (16, 12).
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder discloses:
The reaction wheel assembly of claim 7, wherein the enclosure is at least partially made of aluminum (¶ 0047).
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder discloses:
The reaction wheel assembly of claim 7, wherein the aluminum has a melting point of less than about 1000 degrees Celsius (¶ 0035).
Re claim 19 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder discloses:
A spacecraft comprising: a motor; a reaction wheel assembly including: an inertia disk including: a body including an inner portion and a lip, the inner portion being proximate a center of the body such that the inner portion spans from the center to the lip, the lip having a thickness greater than a thickness of the inner portion, wherein the body is at least partially made of aluminum; an enclosure operable to receive the inertia disk;
(Claim 19 above is similar in scope to Claims 1 and 7; therefore, Claim 19 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claims 1 and 7).
and a motor driver coupled with the center of the inertia disk such that rotation of the inertia disk causes the motor driver to rotate, wherein the motor driver is coupled with the motor (¶ 0040).
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(s) 2, 4, 12, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roder.
Re claims 2, 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder, discloses the claimed invention except for the aluminum is aluminum 7075-T7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the aluminum is aluminum 7075-T7 has a low melting point, low cost, and high machinability, 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.
Re claims 4, 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder, discloses the claimed invention except for the aluminum has a melting point between about 477 degrees Celsius and about 635 degrees Celsius. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the aluminum has a melting point between about 477 degrees Celsius and about 635 degrees Celsius to have a the inertia disk that efficiently demise, 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.
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder, discloses:
a motor driver coupled with the center of the inertia disk such that rotation of the inertia disk causes the motor driver to rotate (¶ 0040),
However, Roder, discloses the claimed invention except for the motor driver is coupled with a motor so that the motor driver is operable to provide between 120 watts and about 300 watts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the motor driver is coupled with a motor so that the motor driver is operable to provide between 120 watts and about 300 watts to provide a sufficient inertia to the disk, 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.
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder, discloses the claimed invention except for the motor driver is operable to provide between about 120 watts and about 300 watts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include for the motor driver is operable to provide between about 120 watts and about 300 watts to provide a sufficient inertia to the disk, 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(s) 5. 6, 15, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roder and further in view of Bialke.
Re claims 5, 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder fails to teach as disclosed by Bialke: The inertia disk of claim 1, wherein the body is operable to rotate about the center at a rotational speed to provide a predetermined momentum storage (¶ 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Bialke teachings of the body is operable to rotate about the center at a rotational speed to provide a predetermined momentum storage into the Roder, to achieve the required the predetermined momentum storage necessary for the safe performance.
Re claims 6, 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder, as modified above, discloses: The inertia disk of claim 5, wherein the rotational speed is less than or equal to about 4000 rotations per minute (Bialke ¶ 0042).
Re claim 20 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder fails to teach as disclosed by Bialke: The spacecraft of claim 19, wherein the spacecraft includes a satellite (¶ 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Bialke teachings of the spacecraft includes a satellite into the Roder, to provide better momentum control.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roder and further in view of Marshall.
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder fails to teach as disclosed by Marshall: The reaction wheel assembly of claim 7, wherein the enclosure includes a vacuum chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Marshall teachings of the enclosure includes a vacuum chamber into the Roder, to prevent air resistance to affect the reaction wheel.
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder, as modified above, discloses: The reaction wheel assembly of claim 8, wherein the enclosure includes a vacuum fitting operable to be coupled with a vacuum pump (Marshall ¶ 0012, items 23, 27).
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Roder, as modified above, discloses: The reaction wheel assembly of claim 8, wherein the enclosure is integrated with the vacuum chamber (Marshall ¶ 0012).
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
