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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/13/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 4/13/26 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the improper use of shading. Shading is permitted under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m) if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility; “Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings.” The drawings do not appear to follow these guidelines for shading. Furthermore, solid black shading areas are only permitted when used to represent bar graphs or color.
However, the drawings appear to be the grayscale conversion of color drawings or photographs. In the event that photographs or color drawings are the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention, 37 C.F.R. 1.84(a)(2) and (b)(1,2) set forth the requirements for submitting color drawings and photographs. No petition under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(a)(2) has been received or granted to accept color drawings. It does not appear that photographs or color drawings are the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention, nor do the drawings appear to be of sufficient quality such that all details are reproducible in black and white. “Note that good quality copies are acceptable if the lines are uniformly thick, black, and solid” MPEP 608.02, section V. “If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph” 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 state “small satellite docking adapter”. How small is small? And is it the satellite which is small or the docking adapter?
Claim 4 states “wherein allows the adapters to mate despite any x-y translational or z rotational misalignment”. It seems something might be missing between “wherein” and “allows”. Also, what adapters are being referenced here? There is one docking adapter, which comprises a probe adapter and a cone adapter. Further, how can the adapters mate despite “any” misalignment. There is a limit to how much misalignment can be accounted for.
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carrier et al (US 6126115 A).
For claim 1, Carrier discloses a small satellite docking adapter, the small satellite docking adapter comprising:
a probe adapter Fig. 5-6: 54, the probe adapter including:
one or more latches 100/102;
one or more springs 76/78; and
a cone adapter 60/64, which adapts the cone shaped member 110 (and could be used to adapt a cone shaped payload), the cone adapter including:
one or more grooves grooves at the top of spherical end 64, wherein:
the one or more latches are configured to couple to the one or more grooves Fig. 6; and
the one or more springs are configured to cause the one or more latches to engage with the one or more grooves to lock the probe adapter to the cone adapter Fig. 6, and to disengage with the one or more grooves to unlock the probe adapter and the cone adapter Fig. 5.
For claim 2, Carrier discloses the small satellite docking adapter of claim 1, wherein the one or more springs are comprised of a Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) material SMA springs 76/78.
For claim 4, Carrier discloses the small satellite docking adapter of claim 1, wherein the docking adapter is configured to mate despite some x-y translational or z rotational misalignment Fig. 5: there is some room for 64 to move while docking.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrier in view of Nygren (US 6769830 B1).
For claim 3, Carrier discloses the small satellite docking adapter of claim 2, wherein the one or more springs are compressed by heating the SMA material.
However, Nygren teaches an SMA spring that is compressed by heating Col 4, lines 44-45: “when the wire is heated, the wire shortens”. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Carrier by using the spring in the reverse manner, such that they compress when heated as disclosed by Nygren. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be able to use springs which pull the latches since it would have been a simple substitution of one known element (expanding SMA springs) for another (compressing SMA springs) to produce predictable results (using SMA springs for applying loads).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights