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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 7/18/2025 and 9/02/2025 have been entered.
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.
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) 23-28 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the NPL titled “A novel Gravity Compensation System for Space Robots” (hereinafter Brown) in view of Garner et al. (US 3531963 A, hereinafter Garner), Metelski (US 20020121577 A1), Takanashi et al. (US 20010016090 A1, hereinafter Takanashi) and Dirisio et al. (US 20110249807 A1, hereinafter Dirisio).
As to claim 23, Brown teaches a low gravity simulator configured to place an object under a simulated low gravity force (see section “1.0” of Brown on pgs. 1-3, which teach a “boom” system for the recited low gravity simulation for placing an object, such as a robot, under a simulated low gravity force; sections 1.2, 2.0 and 3.0 on pgs. 5-8 discuss the aforementioned “boom” system), the low gravity simulator comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (DE)][AltContent: textbox (PE)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (R)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
346
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a boom “Boom” (fig. 7), and wherein the boom is rotatable about a vertical axis (see the fourth paragraph of pg. 5; see the last paragraph of pg. 7; see fig. 8), wherein cables are used on both sides of the boom at a distal end to support the boom evenly on each side (the cables are not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus and are directed to an intended use of the claimed apparatus; accordingly, cables are able to be used on both sides of the boom at a distal end to support the boom evenly on each side) and wherein the boom extends longitudinally in a radial direction R (fig. 7 above) from a proximal end PE (fig. 7 above) or the boom extends horizontally (along direction R) from the proximal end to the distal end DE (fig. 7 above);
a carriage “CARRIAGE (1)” (fig. 4; the 2nd paragraph of pg. 5 teaches that the boom system uses the same carriage and track as the gantry system, illustrated in fig. 4), the carriage translatably mounted on the boom so that the carriage is, in use, movable backwards and forwards along the boom (via one or two of the DC motors as described in the second paragraph of pg. 5);
a cable supported by the carriage and connectable at one end, in use, to the object (wherein the object is a robot – pg. 3, lines 1-8; figs. 7-8 illustrate the attachment of the cable to the robot; also see the 4th paragraph of pg. 5); and
a counterweight (pg. 3, lines 1-8; 4th paragraph of pg. 5) attached to the cable at an opposing end to apply a biasing force (being the “constant force for counterbalancing” and “balancing force” on lines 1-8 in pg. 8) to the cable.
Brown does not teach a substantially vertically extending support column, wherein the support column comprises an air bearing;
wherein the boom is mounted to the support column and the support column is rotatable about a vertical axis,
wherein the counterweight is restrained by the support column, and wherein the airbearing is configured to facilitate the motion of the counterweight with respect to the support column,
wherein the support column comprises an inner column and an outer column, and
the inner column comprises perforations.
Garner teaches a boom 20 mounted to a substantially vertically extending support column 22, and
a counterweight 28 is configured to move along the support column (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Brown such that the boom is mounted on a substantially vertically extending support column, as taught by Garner since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method for supporting a boom for another for the benefit that a support column is an easy way to support a boom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Brown as modified such that the counterweight is configured to move along the support column, as taught by Garner, so as to maximize the compactness of the apparatus since Brown does not specify where the counterweight is, in comparison with the rest of the apparatus.
As to the limitation of wherein the counterweight is restrained by the support column,
Metelski teaches (fig. 11, ¶77) a carrier arm 2b supported on a substantially vertically extending support column 21, 29, wherein the carrier arm is mounted to the support column, and
a counterweight AGb, restrained by the support column (¶66 and ¶69-70 teach that the counterweight is inside of the support column and concentric with the support column, since the “balance weight AGb is distributed symmetrically about the vertical axis 1 of the support column”; the Examiner notes that the counterweight counters, via the cable 24d, the weight of the arm 2b, per se, and not the load G, as shown in fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Brown as modified wherein the support column is hollow and the counterweight is restrained by the support column by being located inside of the support column as taught by Metelski so as to protect the counterweight.
As to the air bearing,
Takanashi teaches (fig. 1) a fluid pressure cylinder, wherein an object 12/13 moving inside a hollow structure 2/3 (here, the object of Takanashi is analogous to the counterweight of the modified Brown, and the hollow structure of Takanashi is analogous to the hollow support column of the modified Brown since, in the modified Brown, the counterweight moving in the column is an object moving inside of a hollow structure) is configured to be supported with respect to the hollow structure by an air bearing (element 6/9 in combination with an inherent source of compressed air taught in ¶26 of Takanashi; the Examiner notes that claim 4 requires the claimed air bearing to comprise a flow generator for the pressurized air, so Takanashi’s air bearing is considered to include the inherent source of compressed air) wherein the air bearing receives pressurized air from a port 16c in the hollow structure (¶26), wherein the pressurized air passes through perforations in the air bearing and to an inner cavity of the air bearing that supports the object such that the object is in a floating state wherein the object is not substantially in contact with the bearing surfaces (¶26), and wherein the air is exhausted to the outside via at least one discharge port 18/19 in the hollow structure (¶27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Brown as modified such that the object (corresponding to the counterweight) moving inside hollow structure (corresponding to the support column) is configured to be supported relative to the hollow structure via an air bearing, wherein compressed air is provided via at least a supply port and then exhausted via at least an exhaust port, as taught by Takanashi, so as to minimize any sliding resistance (¶3 of Takanashi) that may occur between the object and hollow structure.
As to the limitation of wherein the support column is rotatable about a vertical axis,
Dirisio teaches a collapsible column movement apparatus (title) comprising a boom 70 supported on a support column 30, wherein the boom and support column are rotatable about a vertical axis (¶49 and fig. 3; the Examiner notes that while Dirisio teaches a cable and counterweight in figs. 15A-B, they are used for raising/lowering the boom and are not connected to the object carried by the boom, meaning Garner is more appropriate for providing the teaching of the claimed counterweight that is attached to a cable attached to the object carried by the boom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Brown as modified such that the boom is rotated by rotating the boom and support column together, as taught by Dirisio, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of rotating the boom for another for the predictable result that low gravity simulations are still successfully carried out (abstract of Brown).
Brown as modified teaches wherein the support column 21 (Garner) comprises an air bearing (of Takanashi);
wherein the counterweight is restrained by the support column (at least via the air bearing), and wherein the air bearing is configured to facilitate the motion of the counterweight with respect to the support column (¶26, Takanashi),
wherein the support column comprises an inner column (a porous hollow element in view of element 6/9 of Takanashi) and an outer column (corresponding to the column of Garner modified in view of Metelski, and further modified in view of Takahashi to cooperate with the inner column; in the modified Brown, the support column comprises the outer column and an air bearing that comprises the inner column, meaning that the support column comprises the inner and outer columns), and
the inner column comprises perforations (¶26 of Takanashi teaches perforations in the inner column 6/9 that allow compressed air to pass through; Brown as modified has these perforations in the inner column).
As to claim 24, Brown as modified teaches wherein the counterweight is located within the support column (as taught by Metelsky), and wherein the air bearing is configured to facilitate the motion of the counterweight within the support column (¶26, Takanashi).
As to claim 25, Brown as modified teaches wherein the cable is attached to the counterweight (Brown teaches, in lines 1-8 of pg. 3, that the counterweight generates a constant force for counterbalancing and that the cable transfers the balancing force of the counterweight to the robot) to be concentrically arranged with the support column about the vertical axis (¶70 of Metelsky).
As to claim 26, Brown as modified teaches wherein the air bearing (in light of Takanashi) comprises a flow generator (source of compressed air in ¶26 of Takanashi) to provide, in use, air at a positive pressure, relative to the atmosphere, to the support column.
As to claim 27, Brown as modified teaches wherein the flow generator supplies air (as taught in fig. 1 and ¶26 of Takanashi) to a cavity (in which the counterweight is located, as taught by Metelsky) of the support column, and wherein the air bearing comprises the perforations (as described in ¶26 of Takanashi).
As to claim 28, Brown as modified teaches wherein the counterweight 28 (Garner) is located within the cavity, and wherein the perforations allow air to flow over the surface of the counterweight (¶26 of Takanashi).
As to claim 33, Brown as modified teaches wherein the support column extends substantially vertically from a geometrically adaptable base platform on which the object may be evaluated in use (the base platform is not positively recited as part of the claimed simulator; accordingly, the prior art simulator is capable of use with such a base platform in the claimed manner).
As to claim 34, Brown as modified teaches wherein the low gravity simulator comprises one or more controllers to control the functions of the low gravity simulator (lines 1-8 on pg. 3 teach that the simulator has a PC-based servocontrolled system).
Claim(s) 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Garner, Metelski, Takanashi and Dirisio as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Qin et al. (CN 112357132 A, hereinafter Qin).
As to claim 29, Brown teaches wherein the low gravity simulator comprises a force control system (fig. 8 and the last paragraph of pg. 8 teach that the simulator comprises a force control system to minimize horizontal disturbance forces).
Brown as modified does not teach wherein the force control system is configured to, in response to a detected variance in the biasing force, apply a controlling force to the cable to return the simulated low gravity force to a pre-determined level.
Qin teaches a weightlessness simulator (¶2) comprising a pulley system (fig. 2), a load sensor 12 connected to a pulley 8 that applies a load to the load sensor (¶34), a cable 11 for supporting an object under test (¶34), and a motor 13 to adjust the tension in the cable to keep the object in a weightless state (¶34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Brown as modified be configured to use a load sensor, a pulley that applies a load to the load sensor, and a motor for adjusting cable tension, as taught by Qin, so as to assist the simulator in returning a tested object to a weightless state during more vigorous testing in which the tested object is more rapidly pulled/bumped along the vertical direction.
Brown as modified teaches wherein the force control system is configured to, in response to a detected variance in the biasing force, apply a controlling force to the cable to return the simulated low gravity force to a pre-determined level (¶22 and ¶34-35 of Qin).
As to claim 30, Brown teaches wherein the low gravity simulator comprises a force feedback sensor 12 (Qin) connected to the counterweight (all parts of the apparatus are connected to each other), and wherein the force feedback sensor is configured to detect a variance in the biasing force (¶22 and ¶34-35 of Qin).
As to claim 31, Brown as modified teaches wherein the force feedback sensor comprises a load cell 12 (Qin) connected to the counterweight (all parts of the apparatus are connected to each other).
As to claim 32, Brown as modified wherein the load cell is connected to a driven pulley 8 (Qin; the pulley is driven by a cable as taught in Qin) configured to apply a variable force to the load cell (¶34, Qin).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that “To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, all claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See, In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974); see also, In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991).1 If the prior art reference(s) do not teach or suggest all of the claim limitations, Office personnel must explain why the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141). Applicant submits that no proper combination of the applied art teaches or suggests each and every feature of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The explanations are provided in the rejections above. Additionally, the prior art combination teaches all the limitations of the claims cited by Applicant.
Applicant requests, on pg. 6, the withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-10 and 19-20.
Applicant’s request is moot due to these claims being cancelled.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that new claim 23 includes features not taught by the applied references.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The applied references render claim 23 obvious. More specifically, the apparatus of Brown as modified in the office action mailed 3/20/2025 includes all the limitations of claim 23.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
MPEP 706.07(b) states “For an application in which an RCE has been filed, claims may be finally rejected in the first action following the filing of the RCE (with a submission and fee under 37 CFR 1.114 ) when all the claims in the application after the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and any entered supplemental amendments (A) are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (in other words, restriction (including lack of unity of invention) would not have been proper if the new or amended claims had been entered prior to the filing of the RCE), and (B) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to the filing of the RCE under 37 CFR 1.114.” Accordingly, the Examiner notes that even though Applicant filed new claims via a supplemental amendment on 9/02/2025, final rejection is still proper.
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 RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853