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Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/03/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on claims 1-8 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/03/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It appears that applicant attempted to cite WO-87004992 and WO-94029927, which were cited in the parent application, but instead cited WO-1987004992 and WO-1994029927. Applicant is required to clarify this issue, either correcting these citations or providing such references, in the response to this office action.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schliesing (US 4860975 A).
Regarding claim 1, Schliesing (US 4860975 A) discloses a vehicle capture system for use with a capture vehicle, the vehicle capture system comprising:
a probe assembly including one or more retention elements for engaging with and securing a target vehicle (Schliesing, figure 5, item 42); and
a movable platform coupled to at least a portion of the probe assembly, the movable platform comprising:
a first lateral section coupled with a portion of the capture vehicle (Schliesing, figure 6, item 31b);
a second lateral section coupled with the probe assembly (Schliesing, figure 6, item 31a); and
legs extending between the first lateral section and the second lateral section (Schliesing, figure 6, item 33), the legs being rotationally coupled to at least one of the first lateral section or the second lateral section and configured to rotate relative to the at least one of the first lateral section or the second lateral section (Schliesing, figure 6, item 35, pivot/swivel connection between actuator attenuators and rings), wherein rotation of the legs relative to the at least one of the first lateral section or the second lateral section enables the movable platform to move from an initial position to a displaced position as the second lateral section translates relative to the first lateral section (Schliesing, figure 6, item 33, abstract, actuator attenuators allow relative movement of rings in 6 degrees of freedom allowing for lateral translation between first and section sections).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schliesing (US 4860975 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imai (JP H08143000 A).
Regarding claim 4, Schliesing (US 4860975 A) discloses the vehicle capture system of claim 1, except:
further comprising a biasing mechanism configured to bias the movable platform in the initial position.
Imai (JP H08143000 A) teaches a biasing mechanism configured to bias the movable platform in the initial position (Imai, figures 1-5, item 23, ¶14, spring members provide a biasing force to push support member into a predetermined position).
Schliesing and Imai are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of satellite docking. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the legs of Schliesing with the biasing springs of Imai with a reasonable expectation of success in order to align a docked spacecraft when actuators are released.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schliesing (US 4860975 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Verzain (US 20160114912 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Schliesing (US 4860975 A) discloses the vehicle capture system of claim 1, except:
wherein the legs exhibit a nested configuration where a first set of the legs longitudinally overlaps with a second set of the legs.
Verzain (US 20160114912 A1) teaches a movable platform wherein the legs exhibit a nested configuration where a first set of the legs longitudinally overlaps with a second set of the legs (Verzain, figures 1a-b, items 11 and 114, first legs extend beyond a lower part of the second legs).
Schliesing and Verzain are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of satellite docking. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the legs of Schliesing with the nested legs of Verzain with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the longitudinal length of the assembly.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schliesing (US 4860975 A) in view of Verzain (US 20160114912 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Imai (JP H08143000 A).
Regarding claim 8, Schliesing as modified by Verzain teaches the vehicle capture system of claim 5, except:
further comprising a biasing mechanism configured to bias the movable platform in the initial position.
Imai (JP H08143000 A) teaches a biasing mechanism configured to bias the movable platform in the initial position (Imai, figures 1-5, item 23, ¶14, spring members provide a biasing force to push support member into a predetermined position).
Schliesing as modified by Verzain and Imai are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of satellite docking. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the legs of Schliesing as modified by Verzain with the biasing springs of Imai with a reasonable expectation of success in order to align a docked spacecraft when actuators are released.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 6-7 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 2, Schliesing discloses the vehicle capture system of claim 1, except:
further comprising a floating stop configured to rotate when the legs rotate in one rotational direction relative to the at least one of the first lateral section or the second lateral section.
Thus, the prior art fails to teach the claimed matter alone and it would not have been obvious to meet the claims either without undue hindsight based on the applicant' s disclosure.
Regarding claim 6, Schliesing as modified by Verzain teaches the vehicle capture system of claim 5, except:
further comprising a floating stop configured to rotate when the legs rotate in one rotational direction relative to the at least one of the first lateral section or the second lateral section.
Thus, the prior art fails to teach the claimed matter alone and it would not have been obvious to meet the claims either without undue hindsight based on the applicant' s disclosure.
3. (Original) The vehicle capture system of claim 2, wherein the floating stop is configured to remain stationary when the legs rotate in another rotational direction relative to the at least one of the first lateral section or the second lateral section, the another rotational direction opposing the one rotational direction.
7. (Original) The vehicle capture system of claim 6, wherein the floating stop is configured to remain stationary when the legs rotate in another rotational direction relative to the at least one of the first lateral section or the second lateral section, the another rotational direction opposing the one rotational direction.
Claims 3 and 7 are allowed for depending on an objected to claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (US 20200102102 A1) teaches a probe attached to an intermediate ring and legs attaching intermediate ring to a part of spacecraft
Markcity (US 11643226 B1) teaches a mating mechanism with legs adjusting cooperating platforms
Ghofranian (US 20150266595 A1) teaches a docking system
Isayama (US 20200024011 A1) teaches guides attached to a ring, ring attached to a ring of the spacecraft via legs
Usuku (US 20240022189 A1) a docking system with a probe having its own legs in addition to a middle lateral section’s legs
Ritter (US 20110004717 A1) teaches a docking system with a probe assembly
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642