DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/17/26 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-47 of U.S. Patent No. 12066677. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the present claims are found in the claims of the subject patent.
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) 1,2,4,5,7-10,17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher(US4976163) in view of Tian(US10135519).
[claim 1] Schumacher teaches an assembly(fig 4), comprising: a payload(42); at least one rotational actuator(51,70,75); and a rotation sensor(50) coupled to detect a rotation of the payload; wherein a controller(computer fig 3, C3 L28-43) is coupled to a sensor(41) and an associated rotational actuator and the controller is operable to adjust the rotational actuator based on the position of the payload detected by the sensor, and wherein the rotation sensor is an inertial measurement unit(C3 L49-50) spaced away from the rotational actuator(fig 4). While Schumacher does disclose a rotation sensor in the form of an inertial measurement unit(50) attached to the payload, Schumacher does not specifically state that the controller is coupled to the rotation sensor and that the controller adjusts the rotational actuator based on the rotation of the payload detected by the rotation sensor, or what the rotation sensor is used for. Tian teaches a similar assembly with a payload(108) having an attached rotation sensor in the form of an inertial measurement unit(1090) which is coupled to a controller(128), with the controller operable to adjust a rotational actuator(1082, 118) based on rotation of the payload detected by the rotation sensor(C6 L4-19), the arrangement allowing the controller to compensate for sudden movements of the payload(C6 L10-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use to couple the rotation sensor of Schumacher to the controller of Schumacher, and configure the controller to adjust the rotational actuator based on the rotation of the payload detected by the rotation sensor, as this would allow the controller to compensate for sudden movements of the payload, as taught by Tian.
[claim 2] further comprising: a first member(72) operable to attach to the payload; and a second member(41) coupled to support the first member rotatably around an axis of rotation(44).
[claim 4] wherein at least one of the first member and the second member includes a flywheel(71,52).
[claim 5] wherein the flywheel is coupled to the rotational actuator that is operable to rotate the flywheel(fig 4).
[claim 7] further comprising: a rotational support(41) including a gimbal, hinge or a ball joint that defines a rotational axis(44).
[claim 8] wherein the rotational actuator(70) is located above the rotational support(fig 4).
[claim 9] wherein the rotational actuator(75) is located below the rotational support(fig 4).
[claim 10] wherein the rotational actuator(70) is located between the rotational support and the payload(fig 4).
[claim 17] Schumacher in view of Tian when arranged as above further teaches a method comprising detecting a rotation of the payload(42) of the assembly of claim 1 with the rotation sensor(50) and based on the detected rotation of the payload, adjusting the rotational actuator(C6 L4-19 of Tian).
[claim 18] wherein the inertial measurement unit is spaced radially away from a rotational axis(44) of the rotational actuator and is outside a housing of the rotational actuator(fig 4).
Claim(s) 3,6,11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher in view of Tian as applied to claims 1,2 and 4 above, and further in view of Loewenthal(US5751078).
[claim 3,11] Schumacher in view of Tian teaches an apparatus as detailed above, and further teaches the apparatus is for supporting instruments in space applications(C1 L9-19). However Schumacher and Tian may not teach that the second member is coupled to a robot or robot arm that can control a position of the payload. Loewenthal teaches a similar assembly, and further teaches that the assembly can be coupled to a robot or robot arm that can control a position of the payload(fig 7 of Loewenthal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the assembly of Schumacher in view of Tian coupled to a robot or robot arm, as this would merely be using known elements for their known functions.
[claim 6] Schumacher in view of Tian teaches an apparatus as detailed above, however Schumacher and Tian may not teach that the flywheel is coupled to a brake that is operable to inhibit rotation of the flywheel. As noted above, Loewenthal teaches a similar apparatus, and further teaches the use of brakes operable to inhibit rotation of flywheels(C8 L39-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use brakes, such as taught by Loewenthal, to further control the motion of the flywheels of Schumacher, as this would provide greater control over the motion of the flywheels in the apparatus.
[claim 12] when arranged as above, the assembly further comprising: a first member(72) operable to attach to the payload; a second member(41) coupled to support the first member rotatably around an axis of rotation(44), wherein at least one of the first member and the second member includes a flywheel(71,52); and wherein the controller is operable to adjust the flywheel to reduce a payload vibration(ABS) in response to translating by the robot arm.
[claim 13] Schumacher in view of Tian teaches an assembly as detailed above and discloses the assembly is used in space applications(C1 L9-12), Schumacher however may not teach that the assembly further comprising a drone that can control a position of the payload. As noted above, Loewenthal teaches a similar assembly, where when the assembly is attached to aircraft(fig 8, C9 L65-67). Loewenthal however does not specifically state that the aircraft could be a drone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the assembly Schumacher with any known aircraft, such as a drone, as a matter of obvious design choice, as one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select from known aircraft to make use of the assembly.
[claim 14] when arranged as above, further comprising: a first member(72) operable to attach to the payload; and a second member(41) coupled to support the first member rotatably around an axis of rotation(44), wherein at least one of the first member and the second member includes a flywheel(71,52); and a controller operable to adjust the flywheel to reduce a payload vibration(ABS) in response to translating by the drone.
[claim 15,16] Schumacher in view of Tian teaches an assembly as detailed above, wherein the payload is an optical element, such as a telescope(C1 L30-35) used in a space application. Schumacher and Tian however may not teach that the payload includes a portion of an optical beam system, or an optical beam source, or an optical element that is operable to receive and direct an optical beam to a target. Loewenthal teaches a similar assembly as detailed above for optical elements in a space application(Loewenthal C1 L6-10) and further teaches that the supported payload can be a portion of an optical beam system(C5 L4-5), including an optical element operable to receive and direct an optical beam to a target(laser instrument at C4 L4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the assembly of Schumacher in view of Tian with an optical element including an optical element operable to receive and direct an optical beam to a target, as taught by Loewenthal, as this would merely be using known elements for their known functions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights