Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/577,503

Docking Structure

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jan 08, 2024
Examiner
ROJAS, BERNARD
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Astroscale LTD
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1064 granted / 1284 resolved
+14.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1314
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
§102
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1284 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 13-15 are 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. Claim 13 appears to be incomplete. The claim recites “wherein the inner face of the magnetic plate is in contact with a or the base plate of the housing”. It is unclear what the structure the magnetic plate is in contact with. For Examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “wherein the inner face of the magnetic plate is in contact with the base plate of the housing”. Claims 14 and 15 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, deficiency from parent claim 13. 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. Claims 1-8, 10-15, 19-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Monford [US 5,145,227]. Claim 1, Monford discloses a docking structure [20] for a satellite, the docking structure comprising: a magnetic plate [65]; and a housing [60/62] for mounting and constraining the magnetic plate [figure 7]; wherein the magnetic plate comprises an outer face [top; figurer 7] and an inner face [bottom; figure 7]; wherein the magnetic plate comprises a soft magnetic material [col. 6 line 52-53 and col. 7 lines 9-20]; and wherein the housing extends around at least part of a perimeter of the magnetic plate, over at least part of the outer face of the magnetic plate and over at least part of the inner face of the magnetic plate to mount and constrain the magnetic plate [col 7 lines 6-8]. Claim 2, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the magnetic plate [65] comprises a step [created by the reduced height portions between 66; figure 7] around at least part of the perimeter of the magnetic plate [figure 7]. Claim 3, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the magnetic plate comprises a lip [defined by raised areas 66] around at least part of the perimeter of the magnetic plate [65; figure 7]. Claim 4, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the magnetic plate comprises a step and a lip [defined by raised areas 66] around at least part of the perimeter of the magnetic plate, wherein the lip extends towards the perimeter of the magnetic plate from the step [figure 7]. Claim 5, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the magnetic plate comprises a non-permanent magnetic material [col. 7 lines 9-12]. Claim 6, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the housing [60/62] comprises an aperture [68], wherein the outer face [top; figure 7] of the magnetic plate [65] is mounted in the aperture of the housing [figure 7]. Claim 7, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the housing [60/62] comprises an outer rim [60] arranged to retain the magnetic plate [65], and a base plate [62] adjacent the inner face [bottom of 65; figure 7] of the magnetic plate [65; figure 7]. Claim 8, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 7, wherein the outer rim [60] projects inwards from the perimeter of the housing; and/or wherein the housing comprises one or more fasteners [154] to connect the base plate to the outer rim [figure 7]. Claim 10, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the housing [60/62] comprises a groove [64] that receives at least a part [66] of the perimeter of the magnetic plate [65; figure 7]. Claim 11, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the housing comprises a groove [recess formed by the vertical walls and the horizonal member if 62] that is formed between the base plate and the outer rim of the housing, wherein the groove receives at least a part of the perimeter of the magnetic plate [figure 7]. Claim 12, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the docking structure comprises one or more fasteners [not shown, bolts associated with bolt holes 63; col. 6 lines 48-50] that connect the magnetic plate to the housing [figure 7]. Claim 13, as best understood, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inner face [bottom of 65] of the magnetic plate [65] is in contact with the base plate [62] of the housing [60/62]. Claim 14, as best understood, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 13, wherein the base plate [62] of the housing [60/62] comprises one or more projections [side walls between 69] that contact the inner face of the magnetic plate [figure 7]. Claim 15, as best understood, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 14, wherein the one or more projections comprise one or more ridges [side walls between 69; figure 7]. Claim 19, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the docking structure comprises an attachment member [69] connected to the housing [60/62] for attaching the docking structure to a satellite. Claim 20, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the docking structure comprises one or more l18 and fiducial markers [18/19]. Claim 21, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 20, wherein the docking structure comprises a plurality of fiducial markers [18/19/67], wherein the plurality of fiducial markers are a plurality of different shapes and/or sizes; and/or wherein one or more of the one or more fiducial markers [18/19/67] comprises a pattern [crosshair 19] and/or is reflective [mirror 67]. Claim 22, Monford discloses the docking structure as claimed in claim 21, wherein one of the fiducial markers [67] substantially surrounds another [19] of the fiducial markers; and/or wherein the magnetic plate comprises a plurality of concentrically arranged fiducial markers and a plurality of circular fiducial markers. Claim 25, Monford discloses a magnetic plate [65] for a satellite comprising a plurality of fiducial markers [18/19/67] for detecting by a remote spacecraft [by camera 31], wherein the plurality of fiducial markers comprise: one or more reflective fiducial markers [mirror 67] for reflecting light incident from the remote spacecraft; and one or more fiducial markers [19] having a geometry and/or a pattern [crosshair pattern of 19] for determining an orientation and/or position of the magnetic plate relative to the remote spacecraft; wherein the one or more reflective fiducial markers are configured to be detected by the remote spacecraft from a distance between the remote spacecraft and the magnetic plate that is greater than a distance between the remote spacecraft and the magnetic plate at which the geometry and/or the pattern of the other fiducial marker(s) are configured to be detected [col. 8 lines 57-63]. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 17 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm. 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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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. /BERNARD ROJAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 08, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603240
ELECTRICAL SWITCHING DEVICE WITH LOCKING FUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603204
BOBBIN AND SOLENOID
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592330
R-T-B BASED PERMANENT MAGNET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586702
HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTOR MAGNET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580142
VARIABLE FIELD MAGNETIC COUPLERS AND METHODS FOR ENGAGING A FERROMAGNETIC WORKPIECE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+7.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1284 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month