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 .
Election/Restrictions
New claims 102 and 103 depend from withdrawn claims 72 and 85 so are therefore also withdrawn.
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.
Claim 99 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 99, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) {MPEP § 2173.05(p)}.
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.
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) 50-55, 75-76, 96, and 99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambert WO 2014195468 in view of Spence US 9120583.
Regarding claim 50, Chambert teaches a capture system adapted to capture a target space object, comprising a plurality of articulated arms configured to be deployable from a stowed configuration to a deployed configuration to perform capture of the target space object (abstract),
wherein each articulated arm includes a plurality of articulated arm segments (as shown in figures 10-14) including a first articulated arm segment (near indicator 7 in figure 14) coupled at a first proximal end to a spacecraft (3 of figure 10) or to a platform deployable from said spacecraft,
the first articulated arm segment being coupled at the first proximal end via a first pivoting joint (shown between figures 10-14),
wherein the plurality of articulated arm segments further includes at least a second articulated arm segment coupled at a second proximal end to a first distal end of the first articulated arm segment via a second pivoting joint (82 figures 12-13),
but does not specify wherein the plurality of articulated arm segments are nestable one within the other, in the stowed configuration, such that the first and second articulated arm segments are intertwined.
Spence; however, does teach similar frame elements nestable one within the other in a stowed configuration (as shown in Figure 7 and described in at least column 11 line 57-column 8 line 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a nested arrangement, in order to save space and weight within the launch vehicle, etc.
Regarding claim 51, the references teach the capture system according to claim 50, wherein, Spence further teaches in the stowed configuration, the second articulated arm segment is received within an accommodating space of the first articulated arm segment (as shown in figure 7). Where, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide various order of nesting, in order to accommodate design preferences; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 52, the references teach the capture system according to claim 51, wherein Spence further teaches the first articulated arm segment includes a longitudinal frame element with a U-shaped cross- section (column 11 lines 64-65), the first longitudinal frame element being configured and dimensioned to receive the second articulated arm segment in the stowed configuration (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 53, the references teach the capture system according to claim 52, wherein the longitudinal frame element is produced from a planar sheet or plate of material that is shaped by folding or moulding to exhibit the U-shaped cross-section (see previous rejections; where even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.).
Regarding claim 54, the references teach the capture system according to claim 52, wherein each one of the articulated arm segments includes a longitudinal frame element with a U-shaped cross-section (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 55, the references teach the capture system according to claim 54, wherein each longitudinal frame element is produced from a planar sheet or plate of material that is shaped by folding or moulding to exhibit the U-shaped cross-section (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 75, the references teach the capture system according to claim 50, wherein each articulated arm further includes a third articulated arm segment coupled at a third proximal end to a second distal end of the second articulated arm segment via a third pivoting joint (as shown in figures 10-14), and wherein both the second and the third articulated arm segments are nestable, in the stowed configuration, such as to be intertwined with the first articulated arm segment (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 76, the references teach the capture system according to claim 75, wherein the third articulated arm segment is received, in the stowed configuration, within an accommodating space of the second articulated arm segment (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 96, the references teach a spacecraft comprising a capture system in accordance with claim 50 (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 99, the references teach a method of capturing a space object by means of a capture system comprising a plurality of articulated arms configured to be deployable from a stowed configuration to a deployed configuration to perform capture of the target space object, wherein each articulated arm includes a plurality of articulated arm segments including a first articulated arm segment coupled at a first proximal end to a spacecraft or to a platform deployable from said spacecraft, the first articulated arm segment being coupled at the first proximal end via a first pivoting joint, wherein the plurality of articulated arm segments further includes at least a second articulated arm segment coupled at a second proximal end to a first distal end of the first articulated arm segment via a second pivoting joint, and wherein the plurality of articulated arm segments are nestable one within the other, in the stowed configuration, such that the first and second articulated arm segments are intertwined, the method comprising the following steps:- deploying the articulated arms from the stowed configuration to an open deployed configuration; - positioning of the capture system with respect to the space object to be captured so that the space object is brought within operating range of the capture system; - closing the articulated arms around at least part of the space object; and - locking the articulated arms onto the space object so as to prevent any relative movement between the capture system and the space object (see previous rejections where if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or made obvious by the prior art device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the 112(b) rejection are not convincing since the amendment recites the same limitations previously presented which recite both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus (see rejection above).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Chambert teaches folding arms used for object capturing and Spence teaches a particular shape that enables a more compact folded arrangement.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644