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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: engagement mechanism in claims 1, 7, 9, 12-15, 19 and 20, connection member in claims 1, 7, 9, 11-15 and 18-19, and ejection mechanism in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-19 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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 11-15 and 18-19 the limitation “connection member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the disclosure is devoid of any structure or components that performs the connection function Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-14, preamble recites “A docking system”. It is unclear is each claim is intended to recite a new docking system or if it is referred to the docking system in claim 1. For the purposes of examination “a docking system” has been interoperated as -the docking system-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16-19, preamble recites “A method in accordance”. It is unclear is each claim is intended to recite a new method or if it is referred to the method in claim 15. For the purposes of examination “A method” has been interoperated as -the method-. Appropriate correction is required
Claims 16-19 method claims are currently dependent on claim 14, an apparatus claim. Claim 15 is an independent method claim. It is unclear if 16-19 are in error concerning their dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20120000575 A1 Yandle; Tom et al.
Regarding claim 1, Yandel teaches, a docking system for use with in-space structures, the docking system comprising: a first connector (element 56) attached to a first in-space structure (element 22), the first connector including a first housing, a sleeve (element 54), and an engagement mechanism (element 58); and a second connector (element 32) attached to a second in-space structure (element 20), the second connector including a second housing and a connection member (element 34), wherein the second housing is received within the first housing (figs. 2 and 3), wherein the sleeve defines a recess sized to receive the connection member (fig. 3), and wherein the engagement mechanism is configured to engage the connection member when the connection member is in the recess (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Yandel teaches, a docking system in accordance with claim 1, further comprising electrical contacts positioned along the first housing (element 82) and the second housing (element 48) and configured to provide an electrical connection between the first in-space structure and the second in-space structure (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Yandel teaches, a docking system in accordance with claim 2 further comprising an actuator connected to the electrical contacts on one of the first housing or the second housing and configured to move the electrical contacts into engagement with the electrical contacts on the other of the first housing or the second housing when the second housing is received within the first housing (element 78).
Regarding claim 8, Yandel teaches, a docking system in accordance with claim 1, further comprising a fluid dispenser extending through the connection member (element 36) and a fluid inlet positioned within the sleeve and arranged to receive fluid dispensed from the fluid dispenser when the connection member is secured in the recess (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Yandel teaches, a docking system in accordance with claim 8, further comprising a valve connected to the fluid dispenser (element 34) and configured to regulate fluid flow from the fluid dispenser, wherein the valve is configured to move from a closed position to an open position when the engagement mechanism engages the connection member (figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, Yandel teaches, a docking system in accordance with claim 1, further comprising an actuator configured to move the connection member between a first position and a second position (element 42), where the connection member is stowed within the second in-space structure in the first position and is arranged to connect with the first connector in the second position (figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, Yandel teaches, a docking system in accordance with claim 1, further comprising an actuator (element 68) configured to move the first housing between a first position and a second position, wherein the engagement mechanism is configured to engage the connection member when the connection member is positioned in the recess and the first housing is in the second position.
Regarding claim 13, Yandel teaches, a docking system in accordance with claim 12, wherein the engagement mechanism is configured to disengage from the connection member when the first housing is in the second position and the connection member is moved relative to the first connector (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Yandel teaches, a docking system in accordance with claim 13, further comprising an ejection mechanism configured to move the connection member relative to the first connector and cause the connection member to be released from the engagement mechanism (element 66).
Regarding claim 15, Yandel teaches, a method of connecting in-space structures, the method comprising: moving a first in-space structure relative to a second in-space structure (para 0022), the first in-space structure including a first connector including a first housing, a sleeve (element 56), and an engagement mechanism (element 58), the second in-space structure including a second connector including a second housing (element 32) and a connection member (element 34); positioning the connection member in a recess defined by the sleeve (fig. 3); engaging with the engagement mechanism the connection member within the recess defined by the sleeve; and positioning the second housing within a recess defined by the first housing (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Yandel teaches, a method in accordance with claim 14, further comprising connecting first electrical contacts on the first housing with second electrical contacts on the second housing when the first housing is positioned within the recess defined by the second housing (elements 82 and 48).
Regarding claim 17, Yandel teaches, a method in accordance with claim 14, further comprising connecting a fluid dispenser extending through one of the first connector or the second connector (element 36) to a fluid inlet extending through the other of the first connector or the second connector such that the fluid inlet receives fluid dispensed by the fluid dispenser (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Yandel teaches, a method in accordance with claim 14, further comprising moving, using an actuator, the connection member between a first position and a second position, where the connection member is stowed within the second in-space structure in the first position and is arranged to connect with the first connector in the second position (element 42).
Regarding claim 19, Yandel teaches, a method in accordance with claim 14, further comprising moving, using an actuator, the first housing between a first position and a second position (element 68), wherein the engagement mechanism is configured to engage the connection member when the connection member is positioned in the recess and the first housing is in the second position (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Yandel teaches, a docking system for use with in-space structures, the docking system comprising: a first connector (element 56) attached to a first in-space structure (element 22), the first connector including a first housing defining a recess (element 56); a second connector (element 34) attached to a second in-space structure (element 32), the second connector including a second housing that is received within the recess of the first housing (fig. 3); an engagement mechanism (element 58) configured to secure the second housing in the recess; a fluid dispenser extending through one of the first connector or the second connector (element 36); and a fluid inlet extending through the other of the first connector or the second connector, wherein the fluid inlet is configured to engage with the fluid dispenser and receive fluid dispensed from the fluid dispenser when the second housing is secured in the recess (fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yandle as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 4500057 A Duwelz; Alain J.
Regarding claim 5 Yandel teaches, a docking system in accordance with claim 1, but fails to teach, further comprising a proximity sensor configured to detect a position of the first connector relative to the second connector.
However Duwelz teaches, further comprising a proximity sensor configured to detect a position of the first connector relative to the second connector (element 46 and 48).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking system taught by Yandle with the proximity sensor taught by Duwelz with a reasonable expectation of success to allow the boom to “be controlled from the data on distance furnished by these detectors”, (col. 5, lines 28-38).
Regarding claim 6, Yandle teaches, a docking system in accordance with claim 1, but fails to teach, further comprising a sensor coupled to at least one of the first housing and the second housing and configured to provide a signal related to a force between the first housing and the second housing.
However Duwelz teaches, further comprising a sensor coupled to at least one of the first housing and the second housing (col 1 lines 60-66) and configured to provide a signal related to a force between the first housing and the second housing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the docking system taught by Yandle with the proximity sensor taught by Duwelz with a reasonable expectation of success to allow “the boom 8 extending towards the craft 2, the means 19 may engage in the centering cone 24 without touching the walls thereof” (col. lines, 24-27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, and 10 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art Yandle and Duwelz teach docking systems, but they fail to teach “shear connector pin configured to secure the first housing to the second housing when the second housing is received within the first housing”, or motivation to combine “wherein the first and second housing are cones”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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 J. 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642