DETAILED ACTION
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
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, 2, 4, 10, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yandle et al. (US 2012/0000575).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13:
Yandle discloses a docking system and method comprising:
moving two in-space structures (e.g. Fig 1), the first structure having a first connector including a first housing (54) and an engagement mechanism (generally at 76 and forming space created by 76 and 54), the second structure including a second connector including a second housing including base (38) and connection member (e.g. 46); and
engaging the connection mechanism within the engagement mechanism (e.g. Fig 3, the prong is inserted into the space created by the engagement mechanism), wherein the connection member is fixed in position on the second structure (the housing lacks any springs or other movable mountings relative to the craft).
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Yandle discloses the engagement mechanism configured to engage the connection member when the connection member is in a recess (between 58 and 74) defined by a sleeve (74).
Regarding claim 4, 10, and 18:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 13 is relied upon.
Yandle discloses each connector having fluid valves at the end (as seen in Figs 2 and 3, male valve assembly on the right engages female assembly on the left) to enable fluid transfer (denoted by 72; [0022]) and electrical contacts (48 and 82) for power and data ([0028]).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yandle et al. (US 2012/0000575).
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Yandle discloses engaging two connectors, but does not disclose a biased-ball or actuator-activated engagement mechanism.
The examiner takes Official Notice that such engagement members are well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yandle to use a biased-ball or actuator-actuated engagement mechanism as the examiner takes Official Notice that such engagement members (e.g. detents) are well-known in the art for providing a secure connection to reduce accidental decoupling of components, either in a passive (biased) or active (actuated) manner.
The applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Official Notice renders such notice Admitted Prior Art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yandle et al. (US 2012/0000575) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 5 005 786).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 14-16:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 13 is relied upon.
Yandle discloses a docking system, but does not disclose a latching system on the second structure for engaging a slot in an end plate of the first connector.
Okamoto teaches a docking system having a latch arm (3 or 111), holder (mount), and biasing device (113) projecting outward from the second in-space structure (e.g. Figs 2 or 9) for engaging an end plate of the first connector (e.g. Fig 1) for locking the components together once joined (col 4, lines 30-34).
Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that latches engaging slots are well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yandle to use a latch system as taught by Okamoto for the predictable advantage of locking the components once joined to prevent accidental decoupling, and as the examiner takes Official Notice that latches engaging slots are well-known in the art to provide a more secure locking arrangement by engaging a slot rather than a flat plate.
The applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Official Notice renders such notice Admitted Prior Art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Yandle does not provide an engagement mechanism, the term “engagement mechanism” is given its broadeast reasonable interpreteation. “Engagement” can be in any manner, unless the claim(s) provide(s) for otherwise. Claim 1 however, only requires “operable to engage”, thus leaving open the manner to engage. Further, a “mechanism” is not only a “device”, but may also be “mechanical operation or action”.1 In view of this additional definition, the system of cooperating parts becomes the “mechanism” for engagement. However, it is noted that the primary device for engagement cited is the prong containing 76, et al., which forms the space between it and the housing 54 for engaging the prong 46.
In response to applicant’s traversal of Official Notice, the applicant does not specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art, as required by MPEP 2144.03(c). A statement that the feature(s) are not well-known alone is insufficient.
However, it is noted that rounded engagement members can be seen in at least Tchoryk, Jr et al. (US 2007/0210212; e.g. Fig 5, 32) and Dobbs et al. (US 5 364 046; e.g. Fig 2, 121), and the latch engaging a slot can be seen in at least Dobbs et al. (US 5 429 328; e.g. Figs 9-12), all previously cited.
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 Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
1 Merriam-Webster.com
Prosecution Insights