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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 24-43 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 24-26, 29, 31-33, 37-40, and 43 are amended.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the Non-Final Rejection dated 2 October 2025.
The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) from the prior office action of “probe sensing element” is withdrawn since “probe sensor” recites the structure of a sensor. The claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) from the prior office action of “capture mechanism” and “hard capture mechanism” are withdrawn as the terms are no longer combined with function language in the claims. The newly added terms “capture device” and “hard capture system” are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see below).
The objections from the prior office action are withdrawn. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2026 regarding the prior art rejections from the prior office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues it would not be obvious to combine Hay with Bock because “the alignment pins of Hay are not a “grapple probe” because the alignment pins are not grappled or captured. The alignment pins are not mechanically retained. The securing of the interface is performed by the latch assembly of Hay, which is physically separate from the alignment pins”. Claim 40 recites “grappling the deflectable probe with the grappling mechanism to constrain motion of the free flyer object in a least one degree of freedom…” (emphasis added). As noted by Applicant, “Figure 23D shows the alignment pins 240…providing both lateral and angular alignment…”; therefore, more than one degree of freedom is constrained on the alignment pins of Hay and they are grapple probes. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that combining Hay with Bock and/or Dobbs (i.e., combinations that results in grappling the probe tip) would make the latch mechanism of Hay redundant and “would frustrate the purpose of Hay which is based on coupling electrical connections by the latch mechanism after alignment has been sensed through a separate alignment feature”. This argument is not persuasive because Hay discloses “the use of more than one latch assembly 500 permits a degree of redundancy should failures occur that leave at least one latch assembly 500 operational”; therefore, these combinations would NOT frustrate the purpose of Hay as Hay already provides motivation for multiple securing mechanisms in order to have redundancy. One of ordinary skill would understand that combining another securing systems could add an additional layer of redundancy, and would not consider this to frustrate the purpose of Hay. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Hay shows one of ordinary skill in the art would have been considering multiple, redundant, securing mechanisms. In response to applicant's argument that “the alignment and coupling actions are merged into a single component in Bock (the rod-cone)”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Applicant argues the “the coarse alignment stage of Hay does not disclose constraining separation of the grapple fixture and the end effector as recited in Claim 31…as the alignment pins are not mechanically retrained”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “constraining the separation” would include the “coarse alignment” of Hay and does not require the alignment pins to be mechanically retained. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993); therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the alignment pins of Hay “are not deflectable at all and are used for an entirely different purpose”. This argument is not persuasive, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “deflect” as “to cause (something) to change direction especially from a straight course”. Figures 23A-23D show alignment pins 240 (together with PIA 200) changing direction to cause alignment. Examiner agrees the deflectable joint is not explicitly disclosed by Hay, but Hay was not used for that limitation. 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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 10 February 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 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:
“capture device” in Claims 24 and 31
“hard capture system” in Claim 31
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“capture device” is a pair of jaws, or equivalents thereof (see at least Claim 38)
“hard capture system” is a system comprising at least an actuator, or equivalents thereof (see at least Claim 32)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to for the following informality:
“wherein the capture mechanism” should be “wherein the capture [[mechanism]] device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W.O. Publication 2019/104448 (Hay et al., hereinafter, Hay) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,588,150 (Bock et al., hereinafter, Bock) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,364,046 (Dobbs et al., hereinafter, Dobbs) in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0249229 (Roberts et al., hereinafter, Roberts).
Regarding Claim 24, Hay discloses A system for robotic capture of a free flyer object (see at least page 4 lines 5-25, Figure 1, and Figure 26: “low mass system for releasably securing one end of a robotic manipulator (or robotic arm, or any other selected object) to a purpose-built attach point on a spacecraft, permitting the robotic arm to be move from one purpose-built attach point location on the spacecraft and to allow the free end of the robotic arm to be secured to any payload also similarly equipped such that this payload may be manipulated by the robotic arm”), the system comprising:
a grapple fixture for mounting to the free flyer object (see at least Figure 1 and Figure 26: PIA 200 is connected to payload 130) and an end effector for interfacing with the grapple fixture to capture the free flyer object (see at least Figure 1 and Figure 26: AIA 400 can be releasably connected to PIA 400);
the grapple fixture (see at least page 5 lines 1-9: passive interface assembly / PIA 200) comprising:
a base (see at least Figure 2 and Figure 3: passive housing 250) having a mounting surface for mounting to the free flyer object (see at least Figure 3: the back surface of passive housing 250 including housing fasteners 270) and a mating surface opposing the mounting surface for mating with the end effector (see at least Figure 2 and Figure 3: the front surface of passive housing 250 including Hirth coupling 210); and
a deflectable probe connected to the base (see at least Figure 2: alignment pins 240 are connected to housing 250);
the end effector (see at least page 5 lines 1-9 and Figure 1: active interface assembly / AIA 400), comprising:
an interface for connecting to and enabling manipulation by a robotic arm or a spacecraft with direct capture enablement capability (see at least Figure 26: the AIA 400 has a permanently connected interface with robotic arm 110);
a probe guiding surface for deflecting or guiding the probe tip of the deflectable probe towards or through an opening in the probe guiding surface and into a grappling position as the end effector is moved towards the grapple fixture and the grapple fixture is within a capture envelope of the end effector (see at least Figure 3, Figure 23C, and Figure 23E: Hirth coupling 430 and alignment sockets 800 have surfaces that guide the tip of alignment probe 240 towards an opening in alignment sockets 800 and then continue to guide the probe tip to a final position);
a probe sensor for sensing when the probe tip is in the grappling position (see at least page 43 lines 20-25, page 45 lines 4-14, and Figure 23E: “As shown in Figures 12 and 23, just before the point of final contact of the two Hirth couplings 210 and 430 the tip of the alignment pin 240 will contact the reaction washer 840 which then compresses the spring 850 which runs within the spring bushing 830. This contact produces a longitudinal force upon the 25 FMA plate 820 that is transmitted to the FMS 810”);
of the grapple fixture from the end effector; (see at least page 44 lines 17-24 and page 45 lines 1-2: “With the alignment pins 240 in contact with the reaction washers 840, the arm subassembly 110 continues to move the AIA 400 closer to the PIA 200 until the two Hirth couplings 210 and 430 come into contact. This contact is sensed by the series of microswitches 440 placed peripherally about the circumference of the forward housing 410. These microswitches 440 indicate contact between the two halves of the interface. Their position around the periphery of the contact surfaces provides sensing that the contact is uniform around the circumference and that the contact is suitable to initiate the latch sequence. At this point the coarse alignment and contact phase is complete.”) and
an actuator configured to (see at least page 24 lines 10-20, page 31 lines 19-25, page 45 lines 4-24, and Figure 24D: “Actuating the latching mechanism are the drive train components”; “Once the coarse alignment and contact phase is complete, the AIA 400 performs the fine alignment and latching sequence to complete the process of mating to the PIA 200.”, “Figure 24D shows the AIA 400 fully structurally latched to the PIA 200.”).
Hay does not explicitly disclose the grapple fixture comprising… a deflectable probe connected to the base via a deflectable joint for enabling deflection of the deflectable probe, the deflectable probe including a probe tip for grappling. Additionally, Hay does not explicitly disclose the end effector comprising… triggering a capture device upon sensing the probe tip in the grappling position,
the capture device configured to grapple the probe tip when triggered by presence of the probe tip, the grappling of the probe tip creating a connection that constrains separation of the grapple fixture from the end effector, and
an actuator configured to retract the capture device along a capture axis to a predetermined position at which the mating surface of the base of the grapple fixture is preloaded against the probe guiding surface to establish a load-bearing interface between the free flyer object and the end effector.
Bock, in the same field of coupling members in space, and therefore analogous art, teaches a deflectable probe connected to the base via a deflectable joint for enabling deflection of the deflectable probe (see at least FIG. 5: rod 14 is connected to vehicle 10 via springs 12 and 13), the deflectable probe including a probe tip for grappling (see at least FIG. 5: head 15). Additionally, Bock provides a way to sense the probe tip is in position and to constrain it in position (see at least FIG. 5: optical sensing device 26 and latch elements 16); therefore, Bock teaches the area to be captured is a probe tip.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the deflectable probe joint of Bock with the system of Hay because “it is of advantage to provide the telescopic rod with an annular centering buffer connected with an impact absorbing cushion for purposes of particularly affecting the alignment as well as for purposes of absorbing the relative kinetic energy between the two space vehicles as they approach each other” (see at least Bock column 1 lines 40-55).
Dobbs, in the same field of coupling members in space, and therefore analogous art teaches triggering a capture device upon sensing the probe tip in the grappling position (see at least column 5 lines 50-55: “Entry of ball 235 into end cylinder 113 trips the capture mechanism.”),
the capture device configured to grapple the probe tip when triggered by presence of the probe tip, the grappling of the probe tip creating a connection that constrains separation of the grapple fixture from the end effector (see at least column 5 lines 20-25: “The capture balls 121 and trip balls 125 cooperate with an outer sliding cylinder 130 and an inner sliding cylinder 140 for capture and release of ball 235”), and
(see at least column 3 lines 20-25, column 4 lines 25-35, column 4 lines 55-65, and FIG-1: “Once ball 235 is secured, cable 230 is retracted. This results in mating of concave cone section 110 and convex cone section 220.”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Hay and Bock combination with the teachings of Dobbs because Dobbs teaches a simple and reliable system capable of recovery of payloads operating during some misalignment (see at least column 1 lines 15-55).
Roberts, in the same field of coupling members in space, and therefore analogous art, teaches an actuator configured to retract the capture device along a capture axis to a predetermined position (see at least [0045], [0046], FIG. 13, and FIG. 14: “FIG. 13 is a cross sectional view of the capture mechanism of FIG. 11 in the sprung position with the clamping jaws gripping and closed on a Marman flange”; “FIG. 14 is a cross sectional view of the capture mechanism of FIG. 11 in the retracted and locked position with the clamping jaws gripping and closed on a Marman flange”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine retracting the end effector of Roberts with the Hay, Bock, and Dobbs combination because it is a simple substitution to replace the method of retracting the cable coupled to the probe tip Bock with the method of retracting on the other side taught by Roberts, the motivation would be to enable the probe-side to be cheaper / easier to manufacture since there are more of them in Hay and because the system of Roberts has benefits for capturing spacecraft tumbling (see at least Roberts [0053]).
Regarding Claim 26, the Hay, Bock, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 24. Furthermore, Hay further discloses wherein the mating surface of the grapple fixture includes a first alignment component (see at least Figure 2: Hirth coupling 210) and the probe guiding surface includes a second alignment component (see at least Figure 3: Hirth coupling 430), wherein the first alignment component and the second alignment component are configured to mate with each other for aligning the connection between the grapple fixture and the probe guiding surface of the end effector (see at least Figure 23E and Figure 24A: Hirth coupling 210 mates to Hirth coupling 430).
Regarding Claim 27, the Hay, Bock, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 26. Furthermore, Hay further discloses wherein the second alignment component is a raised annulus (see at least Figure 6: Hirth coupling 430 is raised with respect to the surface latch assembly 500 extends from) and the first alignment component is a recessed annulus (see at least Figure 18: Hirth coupling 210 is recessed with respect to the tip of alignment pin 240).
Regarding Claim 28, the Hay, Bock, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 26. Furthermore, Hay further discloses wherein the first alignment component comprises a plurality of recesses in the mating surface (see at least Figure 18: Hirth coupling 210 contains a plurality of recesses) and the second alignment component comprises a plurality of protrusions (see at least Figure 6: Hirth coupling 430 contains a plurality of protrusions), wherein each respective one of the plurality of protrusions is configured to mate with a respective one of the plurality of recesses (see at least Figure 24A).
Regarding Claim 29, the Hay, Bock, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 24. Furthermore, as previously discussed, Roberts teaches retracting the capture device. Additionally, Dobbs teaches wherein the end effector constrains linear motion of the free flyer object via the grappling of the probe tip (see at least FIG-1 and FIG-2: after capture the linear motion is constrained to the length of the cable) and removes angular and lateral offsets of the free flyer object relative to the end effector by retracting… and bringing the mating surface of the grapple fixture into mate with the probe guiding surface on the end effector (see at least column 4 lines 55-65, column 7 lines 10-15, and FIG-1: “Cable 230 needs sufficient stiffness to trip the capture mechanism. Once ball 235 is secured, cable 230 is retracted. This results in mating of concave cone section 110 and convex cone section 220.”; when concave cone section 110 and convex cone section 220 mate, lateral and angular offsets will be removed). As these are further clarifications of the same embodiments as Claim 24, the motivations to combine are the same as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 30, the Hay, Bock, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 24. Furthermore, Bock further teaches wherein the deflectable joint is a spring-centered spherical joint (see at least column 2 lines 55-65 and Figure 2: there is a sphere in the center of the joint and there are four springs around it that average to being in the center). As this is a further clarification of the same embodiments as Claim 24, the motivation to combine is the same as Claim 24.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of Bock in further view of Dobbs in further view of Roberts in further view of U.S. Patent No. 4,431,333 (hereinafter, Chandler).
Regarding Claim 25, the Hay, Bock, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 24. Furthermore, Hay further discloses further comprising the robotic arm and a robotic arm controller for controlling the robotic arm (see at least page 38 lines 10-20 and Figure 1: manipulator 100 and computer control system 300), wherein the robotic arm controller is configured to command the robotic arm to move the end effector towards the grapple fixture upon approach (see at least page 39 lines 1-5 and Figure 1: “the computer control system 300 commands the arm subassembly 110 to move the unmated AIA 400 into proximity to the PIA 200”).
Furthermore, Bock teaches “two space vehicles 10 and 11 in an approach phase. It is presumed, that the vehicles are more or less at rest in relation to each other” which suggests maintaining velocity but the Hay, Bock, Dobbs, and Roberts combination does not explicitly teach move the end effector towards the grapple fixture upon approach such that the relative velocity of the end effector and the free flyer object is maintained within a predetermined velocity band known to promote successful grappling of the probe tip by the capture device.
Chandler, in the same field of coupling members in space, and therefore analogous art, teaches capture with a predetermined velocity band (see at least column 3 lines 40-45, column 3 lines 60-67, and column 4 lines 1-5: “The docking system allows remote control of undocking and redocking of the vehicle 2 to the Orbiter flight support station 7 through the use of television as means to guide the vehicle 2 to the docking interface.”; “During the docking maneuver, exact alignment cannot be maintained; therefore, misalignment capability is designed into the docking system. Thus, the following criterion was utilized in designing the docking system of the present invention: (1) axial velocity of 0.1 to 0.5 ft./sec.; (2) radial velocity of 0 to 0.2 ft./sec.; (3) angular velocity of 0 to 1.0 deg./sec.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Hay, Bock, Dobbs, and Roberts combination with the teachings of Chandler to determine move the end effector towards the grapple fixture upon approach such that the relative velocity of the end effector and the free flyer object is maintained within a predetermined velocity band known to promote successful grappling of the probe tip by the capture device because it was known that experienced operators would maintain certain operating bands to guide successful capture (see at least Chandler lines 35-55).
Claims 31-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of Dobbs in further view of Roberts.
Regarding Claim 31, Hay discloses An end effector for performing robotic capture of a free flyer object having a grapple fixture mounted thereon (see at least Figure 26: AIA 400 is permanently coupled to robotic arm 100 and can releasably connected to PIA 400 on payload 130), the end effector comprising:
a probe guiding surface for guiding a probe of the grapple fixture into a grappling position (see at least Figure 3, Figure 23C, and Figure 23E: Hirth coupling 430 and alignment sockets 800 have surfaces that guide the tip of alignment probe 240 towards an opening in alignment sockets 800),
(see at least page 44 lines 17-24 and page 45 lines 1-2: “With the alignment pins 240 in contact with the reaction washers 840, the arm subassembly 110 continues to move the AIA 400 closer to the PIA 200 until the two Hirth couplings 210 and 430 come into contact. This contact is sensed by the series of microswitches 440 placed peripherally about the circumference of the forward housing 410. These microswitches 440 indicate contact between the two halves of the interface. Their position around the periphery of the contact surfaces provides sensing that the contact is uniform around the circumference and that the contact is suitable to initiate the latch sequence. At this point the coarse alignment and contact phase is complete.”); and
a hard capture system for constraining the angular motion of the probe by (see at least page 24 lines 10-20, page 31 lines 19-25, page 45 lines 4-24, and Figure 24D: “Actuating the latching mechanism are the drive train components”; “Once the coarse alignment and contact phase is complete, the AIA 400 performs the fine alignment and latching sequence to complete the process of mating to the PIA 200.”, “Figure 24D shows the AIA 400 fully structurally latched to the PIA 200.”).
Hay does not explicitly disclose a capture device for grappling a probe tip of the probe when the probe is in the grappling position, the grappling constraining the separation of the grapple fixture and the end effector; and
a hard capture system for constraining the angular motion of the probe by retracting the grappled probe until the grapple fixture is preloaded against the probe guiding surface to establish a load-bearing interface between the free flyer object and the end effector.
Dobbs, in the same field of coupling members in space, and therefore analogous art teaches a capture device for grappling a probe tip of the probe when the probe is in the grappling position, the grappling constraining the separation of the grapple fixture and the end effector (see at least column 4 lines 55-60: “Upon reaching end cylinder 113, ball 235 trips a capture mechanism that secures ball 235”); and
a hard capture system for constraining the angular motion of the probe by retracting (see at least column 3 lines 20-25, column 4 lines 25-35, column 4 lines 55-65, and FIG-1: “Once ball 235 is secured, cable 230 is retracted. This results in mating of concave cone section 110 and convex cone section 220.”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Hay with the teachings of Dobbs because Dobbs teaches a simple and reliable system capable of recovery of payloads operating during some misalignment (see at least column 1 lines 15-55).
Roberts, in the same field of coupling members in space, and therefore analogous art, teaches a hard capture system of retracting part of the grappled object (see at least [0045], [0046], FIG. 13, and FIG. 14: “FIG. 13 is a cross sectional view of the capture mechanism of FIG. 11 in the sprung position with the clamping jaws gripping and closed on a Marman flange”; “FIG. 14 is a cross sectional view of the capture mechanism of FIG. 11 in the retracted and locked position with the clamping jaws gripping and closed on a Marman flange”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine retracting the end effector of Roberts with the Hay and Dobbs combination because it is a simple substitution to replace the method of retracting on the probe side taught by Bock with the method of retracting on the other side taught by Roberts, the motivation would be to enable the probe-side to be cheaper / easier to manufacture since there are more of them in Hay and because the system of Roberts has benefits for capturing spacecraft tumbling (see at least Roberts [0053]).
Regarding Claim 32, the Hay, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 31. Furthermore, Hay further discloses further comprising:
a robotic arm interface for connecting to and enabling manipulation of the robotic end effector by a robotic arm or a spacecraft into the grappling position (see at least Figure 26: there is a permanently connected interface between robotic arm 100 and AIA 400);
a probe sensor for sensing when the probe is in the grappling position (see at least page 43 lines 20-25 and Figure 23E: “As shown in Figures 12 and 23, just before the point of final contact of the two Hirth couplings 210 and 430 the tip of the alignment pin 240 will contact the reaction washer 840 which then compresses the spring 850 which runs within the spring bushing 830. This contact produces a longitudinal force upon the 25 FMA plate 820 that is transmitted to the FMS 810”)
wherein guiding the probe into the grappling position further comprises deflecting or guiding a probe tip of the probe towards or through an opening in the probe guiding surface and into the grappling position as the end effector is moved towards the grapple fixture and the grapple fixture is within a capture envelope of the end effector (see at least Figure 3, Figure 23C, and Figure 23E: Hirth coupling 430 and alignment sockets 800 have surfaces that guide the tip of alignment probe 240 towards an opening in alignment sockets 800 and then continue to guide the probe tip to a final position through the opening), and
wherein the hard capture system comprises an actuator configured to (see at least page 24 lines 10-20, page 31 lines 19-25, page 45 lines 4-24, and Figure 24D: “Actuating the latching mechanism are the drive train components”; “Once the coarse alignment and contact phase is complete, the AIA 400 performs the fine alignment and latching sequence to complete the process of mating to the PIA 200.”, “Figure 24D shows the AIA 400 fully structurally latched to the PIA 200.”).
Dobbs further teaches triggering the capture device upon sensing the probe in the grappling position wherein the capture device is configured to grapple the probe tip when triggered by the probe sensor (see at least column 5 lines 50-55: “Entry of ball 235 into end cylinder 113 trips the capture mechanism.”),
(see at least column 3 lines 20-25, column 4 lines 25-35, column 4 lines 55-65, and FIG-1: “Once ball 235 is secured, cable 230 is retracted. This results in mating of concave cone section 110 and convex cone section 220.”). As these are further clarifications of the same embodiments as Claim 31, the motivations to combine are the same as Claim 31.
Roberts further teaches wherein the hard capture device comprises an actuator configured to retract the capture device along a capture axis (see at least [0045], [0046], FIG. 13, and FIG. 14: “FIG. 13 is a cross sectional view of the capture mechanism of FIG. 11 in the sprung position with the clamping jaws gripping and closed on a Marman flange”; “FIG. 14 is a cross sectional view of the capture mechanism of FIG. 11 in the retracted and locked position with the clamping jaws gripping and closed on a Marman flange”). As this is a further clarifications of the same embodiment as Claim 31, the motivations to combine is the same as Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 33, the Hay, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 32. Furthermore, Hay further discloses wherein the mating surface of the grapple fixture includes a first alignment component (see at least Figure 2: Hirth coupling 210) and the probe guiding surface includes a second alignment component (see at least Figure 3: Hirth coupling 430), wherein the first alignment component and the second alignment component are configured to mate with each other for aligning the connection between the grapple fixture and the probe guiding surface of the end effector (see at least Figure 23E and Figure 24A: Hirth coupling 210 mates to Hirth coupling 430).
Regarding Claim 34, the Hay, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 33. Furthermore, Hay further discloses wherein the second alignment component further comprises a plurality of protrusions disposed on the probe guiding surface (see at least Figure 6: Hirth coupling 430 contains a plurality of protrusions) for, during capture, mating with complementary recesses of the first alignment component disposed on the mating surface of the grapple fixture (see at least Figure 18: Hirth coupling 210 contains a plurality of recesses) to align the connection between the grapple fixture and the probe guiding surface of the end effector (see at least Figure 24A).
Regarding Claim 35, the Hay, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 34. Furthermore, Hay further discloses wherein each respective one of the plurality of protrusions include a rounded surface to promote sliding of the protrusion along a side alignment surface of a respective one of the complementary recesses and further into the respective complementary recess (see at least Figure 23E and Figure 24A: the rounded surfaces can be seen on each protrusion of Hirth coupling 430 and promote sliding down the side surfaces).
Regarding Claim 36, the Hay, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 33. Furthermore, Hay further discloses wherein the probe guiding surface includes a raised annulus of the second alignment component (see at least Figure 6: Hirth coupling 430 is raised with respect to the surface latch assembly 500 extends from) for mating to a complementary recessed annulus of the first alignment component on the mating surface of the grapple fixture (see at least Figure 18: Hirth coupling 210 is recessed with respect to the tip of alignment pin 240).
Regarding Claim 37, the Hay, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 33. Furthermore, Dobbs teaches loading the grapple fixture and end effector against each other after retracting (see at least column 4 lines 25-30: ”Convex cone section 220 mates with concave cone section 110 of first spacecraft 100.”). Additionally, Roberts teaches wherein the hard capture system includes a spring-based compliant member, and wherein the actuator is configured to further retract the capture device to compress the spring-based compliant member to provide the preload to the interface between the object being grappled and the end effector (see at least [0045]-[0046], [0056], [0148], Fig 13, and Fig 14: “FIG. 13 is a cross sectional view of the capture mechanism of FIG. 11 in the sprung position with the clamping jaws gripping and closed on a Marman flange”; “FIG. 14 is a cross sectional view of the capture mechanism of FIG. 11 in the retracted and locked position with the clamping jaws gripping and closed on a Marman flange”; “The mechanism keeps pulling backwards until a pre-established preload is reached at which point the target is considered suitably rigidised to the capture mechanism.”; “Once the cams are as far forward as possible (limited by the flexibility of the jaws, the wedge angle that the closed jaws make and the forward force on the cams) the rigidisation actuator starts to pull the entire capture mechanism (jaws, frames and cams) and the captured Marman flange 39 aft via the trigger plunger 4. The motor continues to pull the Marman flange aft until the surface of the Marman flange contacts the front face of the two rigidisation brackets 7. Once contact has been made, the motor 9 continues to pull the quick grasp mechanism in housing 1 aft until the control system senses, in this case, via current sensing and counting the number of drive shaft turns, that the Marman flange 39 has been drawn against the rigidisation brackets 7 with the specified amount of force. The mechanism is now considered fully rigidised with the Marman bracket 39 and spacecraft 40 rigidised against the brackets 7.”). The motivations to combine are the same as those previously introduced as this is a further clarification of the same embodiments of the previous substitution of the retraction type of Roberts into the Dobbs and Hay combination.
Regarding Claim 38, the Hay, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 31. Hays discloses a force-sensing solution for the probe sensor (see at least page 43 lines 20-25, page 45 lines 4-14, and Figure 23E: “As shown in Figures 12 and 23, just before the point of final contact of the two Hirth couplings 210 and 430 the tip of the alignment pin 240 will contact the reaction washer 840 which then compresses the spring 850 which runs within the spring bushing 830. This contact produces a longitudinal force upon the 25 FMA plate 820 that is transmitted to the FMS 810”). Dobbs teaches the grapple probe tip triggers the capture device to close (see at least column 5 lines 50-55: “Entry of ball 235 into end cylinder 113 trips the capture mechanism”) and the area to be grappled is the probe tip (see at least FIG-3: ball 235 is grappled). Furthermore, Roberts further teaches wherein the capture device includes a pair of jaws connected to the probe sensor and configured to move from an open position to a closed position to grapple the area to be grappled when the area to be grappled triggers the capture device to close (see at least [0007] and Fig. 1B: jaws 5 and 6 are “a quick grasp mechanism mounted for movement in a housing, said quick grasp mechanism configured to clamp said feature when said feature is in close proximity to, and triggers, said quick gasp mechanism to soft capture the feature”). The motivations to combine are the same as those previously introduced as this is a further clarification of the same embodiments of the previous substitution of the retraction type of Roberts into the Dobbs and Hay combination.
Regarding Claim 39, the Hay, Dobbs, and Roberts combination teaches the limitations of Claim 32. Furthermore, Dobbs explicitly teaches a concave insert component which forms part of the probe guiding surface including the opening when the capture device is positioned fully forward along the capture axis (see at least FIG-1: concave cone section 110). Additionally, Dobbs teaches that the convex cone section 220 will mate with the concave cone section 110 when retraction is complete. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, in view of Hay, Roberts, and Dobbs to try, wherein the capture mechanism includes a concave insert component which forms part of the probe guiding surface including the opening when the capture device is positioned fully forward along the capture axis and which is retracted with the capture device during retraction with the motivation of replacing the retraction cable of Dobbs with the actuator for retraction of Roberts, while maintaining the surface interfaces for contact to provide the motion constraint of Dobbs and with the known market pressure of cheaper / less complicated / easier to replicate probes of Hay (i.e., having the moving components off the grapple fixture with the probe and onto the end effector). The finite options would be to move different combinations of the mating surfaces with the retractions to determine the best way to find strong contact and cheaper, easily replicable probes.
Claims 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of Dobbs.
Regarding Claim 40, Hay discloses A method of robotic capture of a free flyer object (see at least page 39 lines 1-15 and Figure 1), the method comprising:
moving an end effector towards a grapple fixture on the free flyer object such that the grapple fixture is within a capture envelope of the end effector (see at least page 21 lines 15-25, page 22 lines 1-9, page 30 lines 5-10, page 35 lines 15-20, page 39 lines 1-25, and Figure 1: the robotic arms moves the AIA 400 (i.e., end effector) into proximity of the PIA 200 (i.e., grapple fixture) so that “a final structural and electrical mating of the two subassemblies may be accomplished by mechanisms within the AIA 400”);
guiding a deflectable probe of the grapple fixture towards and through an opening in the probe guiding surface into a grappling position via the probe guiding surface of the end effector (see at least Figure 23B and Figure 23C);
sensing the deflectable probe is in the grappling position and triggering a grappling mechanism (see at least page 43 lines 20-25, page 44 lines 17-24, page 45 lines 1-2, and Figure 23E: “As shown in Figures 12 and 23, just before the point of final contact of the two Hirth couplings 210 and 430 the tip of the alignment pin 240 will contact the reaction washer 840 which then compresses the spring 850 which runs within the spring bushing 830. This contact produces a longitudinal force upon the 25 FMA plate 820 that is transmitted to the FMS 810”; “With the alignment pins 240 in contact with the reaction washers 840, the arm subassembly 110 continues to move the AIA 400 closer to the PIA 200 until the two Hirth couplings 210 and 430 come into contact. This contact is sensed by the series of microswitches 440 placed peripherally about the circumference of the forward housing 410. These microswitches 440 indicate contact between the two halves of the interface. Their position around the periphery of the contact surfaces provides sensing that the contact is uniform around the circumference and that the contact is suitable to initiate the latch sequence. At this point the coarse alignment and contact phase is complete.”);
(see at least Figure 23E: motion is constrained);
(see at least Figure 24E: Hirth coupling 210 mates to Hirth coupling 430); and
rigidizing the interface between the grapple fixture and the end effector by(see at least page 50 lines 1-10: “Once the latch sequence is complete no further power is required to maintain the structural and electrical connection between the AIA 400 and PIA 200 because the shape of the latch cam surface 350 is such that at that point the forces generated by the preload mechanism are in equilibrium and do not act to cause the connector plate 630 to retract or reduce the preload”).
Hay does not explicitly disclose grappling the deflectable probe with the grappling mechanism to constrain motion of the free flyer object in a least one degree of freedom upon sensing the deflectable probe is in the grappling position,
retracting the grappled deflectable probe along a capture axis to a predetermined position to remove angular and lateral offsets of the free flyer object relative to the end effector and to bring a mating surface of the grapple fixture into contact with the probe guiding surface,
rigidizing the interface between the grapple fixture and the end effector by retracting the grappling mechanism to a point at which the grapple fixture is preloaded against alignment features on the probe guiding surface.
Dobbs, in the same field of coupling members in space, and therefore analogous art, teaches grappling the deflectable probe with the grappling mechanism to constrain motion of the free flyer object in a least one degree of freedom upon sensing the deflectable probe is in the grappling position (see at least column 4 lines 50-60 and FIG-1: “Upon reaching end cylinder 113, ball 235 trips a capture mechanism that secures ball 235”),
retracting the grappled deflectable probe along a capture axis to a predetermined position to remove angular and lateral offsets of the free flyer object relative to the end effector and to bring a mating surface of the grapple fixture into contact with the probe guiding surface (see at least column 4 lines 55-65: “Once ball 235 is secured, cable 230 is retracted. This results in mating of concave cone section 110 and convex cone section 220”),
rigidizing the interface between the grapple fixture and the end effector by retracting the grappling mechanism to a point at which the grapple fixture is preloaded against alignment features on the probe guiding surface (see at least column 4 lines 55-65: “Once ball 235 is secured, cable 230 is retracted. This results in mating of concave cone section 110 and convex cone section 220”).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the method of Hay with the teachings of Dobbs because Dobbs teaches a simple and reliable system capable of recovery of payloads operating during some misalignment (see at least column 1 lines 15-55).
Regarding Claim 41, the Hay and Dobbs combination teaches the limitations of Claim 40. Furthermore, Hay further discloses wherein guiding the deflectable probe further comprises:
contacting the deflectable probe with the probe guiding surface (see at least Figure 23C); and
deflecting the deflectable probe towards the opening with the probe guiding surface by continuing to move the end effector towards the free flyer object (see at least Figure 23D).
Regarding Claim 42, the Hay and Dobbs combination teaches the limitations of Claim 40. Furthermore, Hay further discloses wherein moving the end effector towards the grapple fixture further comprises detecting a machine vision target on the free flyer object via a machine vision system and tracking the machine vision target with the machine vision system as the robotic arm moves the end effector towards the grapple fixture (see at least page 15 lines 5-15, page 39 lines 1-15, page 40 lines 1-15, page 41 lines 14-24, and Figure 30: “The camera system 160 is electronically connected to machine vision software that forms part of the computer control system 300 (see Figure 25) and is used in conjunction with a target 180 that is configured to convey information about the relative positions of the camera system 160 and the target 180 when within the field of view 170 of the camera 160. The machine vision software within the computer control 10 system 300 uses the relative positions of the camera system 160 and the target 180 to compute the commands necessary to manoeuver the AIA 400 into the capture envelope of the PIA 200”).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of Dobbs in further view of Chandler.
Regarding Claim 43, the Hay and Dobbs combination teaches the limitations of Claim 40. Furthermore, Hay further discloses wherein moving the end effector towards the grapple fixture on the free flyer object is via a robotic arm (see at least page 39 lines 1-5 and Figure 1: “the computer control system 300 commands the arm subassembly 110 to move the unmated AIA 400 into proximity to the PIA 200”) and includes maintaining via a robotic arm controller… an approach speed or a trajectory of the end effector or the free flyer object… (see at least page 38 lines 10-20,page 39 lines 1-5, and Figure 1: “the computer control system 300 commands the arm subassembly 110 to move the unmated AIA 400 into proximity to the PIA 200”; there is a manipulator 100 and a computer control system 300).
The Hay and Dobbs combination does not explicitly teach maintaining … a relative approach velocity …within a predetermined velocity band known to promote successful grappling of the deflectable probe.
Chandler, in the same field of coupling members in space, and therefore analogous art, teaches capture with a predetermined velocity band (see at least column 3 lines 40-45, column 3 lines 60-67, and column 4 lines 1-5: “The docking system allows remote control of undocking and redocking of the vehicle 2 to the Orbiter flight support station 7 through the use of television as means to guide the vehicle 2 to the docking interface.”; “During the docking maneuver, exact alignment cannot be maintained; therefore, misalignment capability is designed into the docking system. Thus, the following criterion was utilized in designing the docking system of the present invention: (1) axial velocity of 0.1 to 0.5 ft./sec.; (2) radial velocity of 0 to 0.2 ft./sec.; (3) angular velocity of 0 to 1.0 deg./sec.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the Hay and Dobbs combination with the teachings of Chandler to determine maintaining … a relative approach velocity …within a predetermined velocity band known to promote successful grappling of the deflectable probe because it was known that experienced operators would maintain certain operating bands to guide successful capture (see at least Chandler lines 35-55).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658