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 .
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, 4, 7, 10, 14-16, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non-Patent Literature titled, “Comparison of Microgravity Analogs to Spaceflight in Studies of Plant Growth and Development” (herein Kiss).
Regarding claim 1, Kiss teaches A microgravity simulation system, comprising:
a plurality of platforms (three random positioning machines, Fig. 3, p. 5), each platform comprising:
an outer rotating element having a first end opposite a second end, the outer rotating element having a first axis extending along a length from the first end to the second end, wherein the outer rotating element is configured to rotate about the first axis (see independently driver perpendicular frame in Fig. 3, with axis extending in left-right direction);
an inner rotating element having a second axis perpendicular to the first axis of the outer rotating element, the inner rotating element configured to rotate about the second axis (see independently driver perpendicular frame in Fig. 3, with axis extending in up-down direction);
wherein the inner rotating element is disposed in an interior volume delimited by the outer rotating element when the outer rotating element rotates around the first axis (see inner square that rotates along axis in up-down direction being delimited by outer frame that rotates along left-right direction in Fig. 3);
wherein the outer rotating elements of each of the plurality of platforms are rotated by an outer rotating element motor (p. 5 states rotation axes are independently driven; p. 3 cites precise motor control).
Regarding claim 3, Kiss teaches wherein the plurality of platforms are capable of operating independently of each other (Fig. 3 teaches axes are driven independently, and p. 4 notes they are capable of rotating randomly).
Regarding claim 4, Kiss teaches a first sample station connected to the inner rotating element (Pedtri dish, p. 5, Fig. 3); wherein a rotation of the outer rotating element and the inner rotating element capable of generating a simulated microgravity effect in the first sample station (RPM provides the generation of partial gravity, p. 5, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Kiss teaches wherein the plurality of platforms are located on a stand that supports the plurality of platforms (see table in Fig. 3 which all RPMS are mounted).
Regarding claim 10, Kiss teaches wherein the first sample station extends perpendicular to the second axis of the inner rotating element (see position and extension of petri dish in Fig. 3); and
wherein the first sample station is located toward a first side of the inner rotating element, and a second plate is located toward a second side of the inner rotating element, wherein the first side is opposite the second side (Fig. 3 teaches two petri dishes on each side of disk denoted by asterisk).
Regarding claim 14, Kiss teaches wherein the outer rotating element motor is operatively connected to an outer rotating element drive shaft (p.3 teaches motor; Fig. 3 teaches drive shaft that is independently driven inherently by motor control from p. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Kiss teaches a frame supporting the plurality of platforms (see table in Fig. 3 which all RPMS are mounted); a first drive chain operatively connected to the outer rotating element drive shaft (see belt on lefthand side of full-sized RPM A in Fig. 3); and a first outer rotating element axle operatively connected to the first drive chain (see axle of outer frame of full-sized RPM A in Fig. 3); wherein the first outer rotating element axle is operatively connected to at least one of the outer rotating elements (Fig. 3 teaches outer frame of RPM A attached to axle of outer frame of RPM A).
Regarding claim 16, Kiss teaches an inner rotating element motor operatively connected to an inner rotating element drive shaft (see motor attached to drive shaft of inner frame of RPM A); and an inner rotating element transfer shaft (see element in corner of outer frame of RPM A in Fig. 3) operatively connected to the inner rotating element drive shaft (see shaft of inner frame of RPM A in Fig. 3) by an inner axle drive chain (see belt at top of Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Kiss teaches A method of simulating microgravity, comprising:
rotating an outer rotating element of each of a plurality of platforms of a microgravity simulation device (see outer frames of RPMs A, B, Fig. 3); and
rotating an inner rotating element of each of the plurality of platforms (see inner frames of RPMs A, B, Fig. 3),
wherein the inner rotating element is disposed in an interior volume delimited by a rotation of the outer rotatable element (see inner square that rotates along axis in up-down direction being delimited by outer frame that rotates along left-right direction in Fig. 3); and
wherein a simulated microgravity effect is generated in a sample station of each of the plurality of platforms (RPMs provide generation of partial gravity, p. 5, 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) 2, 9, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss as applied to claims 1 and 24 above in further view of CN 107161360 A (herein Jia).
Regarding claim 2, Kiss does not explicitly teach, “wherein the plurality of platforms are capable of operating synchronously.” However, Jia teaches it is known in the art to synchronize a microgravity to coincide with spacecraft motion (see p. 4 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to synchronize, taught by Jai, the plurality of RPMs taught by Kiss.
Regarding claim 9, Kiss does not explicitly teach, “wherein the plurality of platforms are capable of rotating at the same rate of rotation.” However, Jia teaches it is known in the art to synchronize a microgravity to coincide with spacecraft motion (see p. 4 of translation).
Regarding claim 25, Kiss does not explicitly teach, “wherein the outer rotating element of each of a plurality of platforms rotate synchronously.” However, Jia teaches it is known in the art to synchronize a microgravity to coincide with spacecraft motion (see p. 4 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to synchronize, taught by Jai, the outer frame of the RPMs taught by Kiss.
Regarding claim 26, Kiss does not explicitly teach, “wherein the inner rotating element of each of a plurality of platforms rotate at the same rate.” However, Jia teaches it is known in the art to synchronize a microgravity to coincide with spacecraft motion (see p. 4 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to synchronize, taught by Jai, the inner frame of the RPMs taught by Kiss.
Regarding claim 27, Kiss does not explicitly teach, “wherein the microgravity simulation device is capable of generating the same microgravity effect in a sample station of each of the inner rotating elements.” However, Jia teaches it is known in the art to synchronize a microgravity to coincide with spacecraft motion (see p. 4 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to synchronize, taught by Jai, the same microgravity in the RPMs taught by Kiss.
For the above claims 2, 9, and 25-27, one would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of simulating on-orbit spacecraft tasks (Abstract).
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Kiss does not explicitly teach, “wherein the inner rotating elements of each of the plurality of platforms are rotated by a single motor shared by the inner rotating elements.” However, Kiss teaches presence of motor (p. 3) to drive axes. Though Kiss does not explicitly teach a single motor driving all inner rotating elements, even if Kiss used different motors for each element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art make integral the action of several similarly-functioning motors into a single motor. Based on MPEP 2144.04 V B, the use of one piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larsen, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Regarding claim 6, Kiss does not explicitly teach, “wherein each of the inner rotating elements of each of the plurality of platforms are rotated by a different motor.” However, Kiss teaches presence of motor (p. 3) to drive axes. Though Kiss does not explicitly teach a several motors driving all inner rotating elements, even if Kiss used a single motors for each element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art make the action of a single motor separable. Based on MPEP 2144.04 V C, separable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over prior art unless there are new or unexpected results. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss as applied to claim 7 and 24 above, in further view of CN-112441263-A (herein Ding).
Regarding claim 8, Kiss does not teach, “wherein a six degree-of-freedom inertial measurement unit is disposed on the sample station.” However, Ding teaches it is known in the art to include a six-axis acceleration sensor MPU6050 in a micro-gravity simulation device (see p. 2 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the MPU6050 of Ding into the disk of Kiss. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of compensation and counteraction of constant gravity for data acquisition (see p. 2 translation).
Claim(s) 11-13 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss as applied to claim 1 and 24 above, in further view of Non-Patent Literature titled, “Customized Science Carrier Modules and Accessories Developed for Microgravity Simulation Devices” (herein Zhang).
Regarding claim 11, Kiss does not teach, “wherein the second plate has at least one lighting element.” However, Zhang teaches it is known in the art to incorporate LED light systems into microgravity simulation device (p. 8, Sec. 3.0 A).
Regarding claim 12, Kiss does not teach, “wherein the at least one lighting element is a multi-spectral lighting element.” However, Zhang teaches it is known in the art to use light modified for encompassing wavelengths from UV to far-red light with the addition of different LEDs (p. 10, Sec. 3.0 B).
Regarding claim 13, Kiss does not teach, “wherein the multi-spectral lighting element comprises a plurality of lights, the plurality of lights comprising at least a first light and a second light; wherein the first light is a different color from the second light.” However, Zhang teaches it is known in the art to use light modified for encompassing wavelengths from UV to far-red light with the addition of different LEDs (p. 10, Sec. 3.0 B).
Regarding claim 28, Kiss does not teach, “wherein the microgravity simulation device further comprises at least one lighting element.” However, Zhang teaches it is known in the art to incorporate LED light systems into microgravity simulation device (p. 8, Sec. 3.0 A).
Regarding claim 29, Kiss does not teach, “wherein the wherein the at least one lighting element is a multi-spectral lighting element.” However, Zhang teaches it is known in the art to use light modified for encompassing wavelengths from UV to far-red light with the addition of different LEDs (p. 10, Sec. 3.0 B).
For the above claims 11-13 and 28-29, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the lighting systems of Zhang into the RPM of Kiss. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of supporting a plant circadian rhythm for plant growth (p. 8-9).
Claim(s) 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss in view of Jia.
Regarding claim 18, Kiss teaches A microgravity simulation device (Fig. 3), comprising: a first rotatable element, having a first sample station (RPM A with Petri dish, Fig. 3); a second rotatable element, having a second sample station (RPM B with Petri dish, Fig. 3); and a first motor operatively connected to the first rotatable element (p. 5 states rotation axes are independently driven; p. 3 cites precise motor control). Kiss does not explicitly teach, “wherein the first rotatable element and the second rotatable element are capable of rotating synchronously.” However, Jia teaches it is known in the art to synchronize a microgravity to coincide with spacecraft motion (see p. 4 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to synchronize, taught by Jai, the plurality of RPMs taught by Kiss. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of simulating on-orbit spacecraft tasks (Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Kiss teaches wherein a second motor is operatively connected to the second rotatable element (p. 5 teaches independent control and Fig. 3 shows each RPM with their own motor).
Regarding claim 20, Kiss does not explicitly teach “wherein the first motor is operatively connected to both the first rotatable element and the second rotatable element such that the first rotatable element and second rotatable element are capable of rotating synchronously.” Jia teaches synchronous rotation is known in the art at presented in claim 18, above. Kiss does not explicitly teach a single motor driving RPMs A and B, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art make integral the action of several similarly-functioning motors into a single motor. Based on MPEP 2144.04 V B, the use of one piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larsen, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Regarding claim 21, Kiss teaches wherein the first rotatable element is a first inner rotatable element, and the second rotatable element is a second inner rotatable element (see inner frames of RPMs A and B). Kiss does not explicitly teach “wherein the first motor is operatively connected to both the first inner rotatable element and the second inner rotatable element such that the first inner rotatable element and second inner rotatable element are capable of rotating synchronously.” Jia teaches synchronous rotation is known in the art at presented in claim 18, above. Kiss does not explicitly teach a single motor driving inner frames of RPMs A and B, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art make integral the action of several similarly-functioning motors into a single motor. Based on MPEP 2144.04 V B, the use of one piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larsen, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Regarding claim 22, Kiss teaches wherein the first inner rotatable element is coupled to a first outer rotatable element, and the second inner rotatable element is coupled to a second outer rotatable element; wherein the inner rotatable element is disposed in an interior volume delimited by a rotation of the outer rotatable element (see inner square that rotates along axis in up-down direction being delimited by outer frame that rotates along left-right direction in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 23, Kiss teaches wherein the first rotatable element is a first inner rotatable element, and the second rotatable element is a second inner rotatable element (see inner frames of RPMs A and B). Kiss does not explicitly teach “wherein the first motor is operatively connected to both the first inner rotatable element and the second inner rotatable element such that the first inner rotatable element and second inner rotatable element are capable of rotating synchronously.” Jia teaches synchronous rotation is known in the art at presented in claim 18, above. Kiss does not explicitly teach a single motor driving inner frames of RPMs A and B, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art make integral the action of several similarly-functioning motors into a single motor.
For the above claims 18-23, based on MPEP 2144.04 V B, the use of one piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larsen, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17, 23, and 30 are 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.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach, “a floating double sprocket operatively connected to the inner rotating element transfer shaft by a transfer shaft drive chain; a gearbox having a gearbox input shaft and a gearbox output shaft, the gearbox input shaft operatively connected to the floating double sprocket by a double sprocket drive chain; and an inner frame axle operatively connected to the inner rotating element, wherein the gearbox is operatively connected to the inner frame axle by a gearbox drive chain.” Kiss teaches a means of transferring motion from motors to the frames but not in the same configuration claimed in the present invention.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art does not teach, “wherein a second motor is operatively connected to both the first outer rotatable element and the second outer rotatable element such that the first outer rotatable element and second outer rotatable element are capable of rotating synchronously.” Fig. 3 of Kiss teaches motors for each RPM unit that may drive independently, but it does not teach a first motor driving inner rings and second motor driving outer rings.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art does not teach, “wherein the outer rotating element of each of a plurality of platforms is rotated by a first motor shared among each of the outer rotating elements such that the first motor rotates each of the outer rotating elements synchronously; and wherein the inner rotating element of each of the plurality of platforms is rotated by a second motor shared among each of the inner rotating elements such that the second motor rotates each of the inner rotating elements synchronously.” Fig. 3 of Kiss teaches motors for each RPM unit that may drive independently, but it does not teach a first motor driving inner rings and second motor driving outer rings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights