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 .
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 9, 15, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goff et all. (US 2019/0341721), in view of Raven (US 11,084,710).
Examiner notes that US 2019/0341721 names a joint inventive entity different than that of the present application, and is therefore eligible as prior art.
Regarding Claim 9, Goff et al. discloses a system configured with a first spacecraft, the system comprising:
a control circuit (a computer configured to control a "typical robotic arm is controlled by a computer by activating individual stepper motors or actuators connected at each joint" (see para 4), control circuit 1016, used to control associated electropermanent magnets (see at least para 94), and "driver assembly 216, which controls operation of the electropermanent magnet surface 212, EPM ring 316, and EPM modules 404" (see at least para 91) ;
a docking system operable to dock the first spacecraft with a second spacecraft (the Goff reference teaches servicing spacecraft 104, comprising "one or more robotic manipulators 108, which are able to capture and service client objects 112" via grappling interfaces 124, shown at Fig 1 and para 46. Item 112 is further shown to be "an inactive or out-of-service spacecraft having an engine and several thrusters" per para 46. The teachings of the Goff reference further describes "docking" at least at paras 46-49 and 117, wherein "the client object 112 is securely captured...and there is a rigid connection between the client object 112 and the servicing spacecraft 104".
PNG
media_image1.png
816
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 9, the Goff reference additionally discloses:
- (para 49) “…the servicing spacecraft 104 may utilize a secondary robotic manipulator 108 to perform service operations. The service operations involve direct interaction between the servicing spacecraft 104 and the client object 112, and may include any form of data transfer, high or low pressure fluid transfer, or gas transfer.”
- (para 53) “Referring now to FIG 2, a diagram illustrating a modular service interface 200 in accordance with a first embodiment of the present invention is shown. The modular service interface 200 is a separable interface including two parts: a first section or active section 204A and a second section or passive section 204B. The active section 204A is permanently and rigidly attached to another structure that is independently movable such as a robotic manipulator 108, or a module to be installed onto a client object 112 on the ground or in-space. The passive section 204B is permanently and rigidly attached to another structure that may not be capable of independent movement, and may generally be considered to be a client object 112.”
Examiner interprets these above disclosures (along with the additional citations below) as describing additional requirements of Claim 9, to include:
- first and second fluid transfer apparatuses operable to respectively mate with the first and second spacecrafts (the Goff reference teaches "connector interface 208", further comprising "active section 204A", "passive section 204B" (see at least para 57), and "fluid connector interface 208B", wherein item 208B is introduced at para 56 and further described at paras 78-79, comprising "active and passive sides", interpreted by Examiner to be "first and second fluid transfer apparatuses"), capable of transferring fluid from a fluid reservoir of the first spacecraft to the second spacecraft (paras 53, 78-79),
- each fluid transfer apparatus (208, 204A, 204B, and 208B) comprising: a plurality of electropermanent magnets (EPMs), (the use of EPMs is taught extensively as components of the interface throughout the Goff reference; see at least Figs 2, 3A, 9A, and 10E, and paras 53-57)
- wherein the control circuit (the computer system as described above) is operable:
- to direct the docking system to dock the first spacecraft with the second spacecraft (via the robotic arm and EPMs as described above),
- to direct pulses of electric current to the EPMs of the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses to magnetize the EPMs and respectively couple the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses to the first and second spacecrafts after docking (electric current flow described at least at para 84 and 93), and
- to transfer fluid from the first spacecraft to the second spacecraft through the tubing and the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses (as described at para 78).
Further regarding Claim 9, Goff et al. teaches the elements of Claim 9, to include the ability to transfer fluids and gases between docking spacecraft by “posing” the robotic manipulator 108 (equipped with the active fluid transfer interface components described above).
However, Goff et al. does not explicitly describe such transfer as occurring through “a posable hose comprising tubing”, as also required in Claim 9. Here, the term “posable hose” is broadly interpreted by Examiner as any flexible hose or tubing capable of fluid transfer between two spacecraft.
However, such hoses are known, as evidenced by Raven et al., who teaches a posable hose comprising tubing. Specifically, the Raven reference (see Col 11, lines 4-7) teaches the use of "A flexible hose mated to the RT 150 of the tool 170 permits media transfer to a Client satellite 110 when the FDV 200 is open". The reference further teaches use of a military standard hose refueling arrangement at Col 4, line 66- Col 5, line 4).
The Goff and Raven references each teach fluid transfer between spacecraft. The Raven reference additionally teaches the use of a flexible hose using currently available standard technology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the flexible (e.g. “posable”) hose as taught by Raven within the manipulator/fluid transfer interface of Goff et al., to take advantage of using known, standard components.
Regarding Claim 15, Goff et al. as modified above teaches a system configured with a first spacecraft, further comprising another posable hose comprising: another tubing; third and fourth transfer apparatuses operable to respectively mate with the first and second spacecrafts, and to transfer another fluid from another fluid reservoir of the first spacecraft to the second spacecraft through the other tubing, each of the third and fourth transfer apparatuses comprising another plurality of EPMs.
The combined apparatus of the Goff and Raven references teach a single posable hose and first and second transfer apparatuses. However, it would be a simple matter of duplication of the parts as described above in the rejection of Claim 9 to arrive at the apparatus of Claim 15, with the predictable result of greater control and the transfer of different fluids through multiple sets of components. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 16, Goff et al. discloses a method operable with a first spacecraft (through the normal operation of the apparatus as described above in the rejection of Claim 1), the method comprising:
- directing a docking system (see the above rejection of Claim 1, wherein a "docking system" includes items 104, 108, 208, and their related subsystems) to dock the first spacecraft (servicing spacecraft 104) with a second spacecraft (client object 112);
- directing pulses of electric current to a plurality of electropermanent magnets (EPMs) of each of first and second fluid transfer apparatuses
- transferring fluid from a fluid reservoir of the first spacecraft to the second spacecraft through the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses
Further regarding Claim 16, as shown above, and in the rejection of Claim 9 above, The Goff reference teaches the claimed invention, but does not explicitly recite fluid transfer as occurring through “a posable hose” as required in Claim 16. Please see Examiner’s interpretation for the term “posable hose” in the rejection of Claim 9 above.
However, such hoses are known, as evidenced by Raven et al., who teaches a posable hose comprising tubing. Specifically, the Raven reference (see Col 11, lines 4-7) teaches the use of "A flexible hose mated to the RT 150 of the tool 170 permits media transfer to a Client satellite 110 when the FDV 200 is open". The reference further teaches use of a military standard hose refueling arrangement at Col 4, line 66- Col 5, line 4).
The Goff and Raven references each teach fluid transfer between spacecraft. The Raven reference additionally teaches the use of a flexible hose using currently available standard technology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the flexible (e.g. “posable”) hose as taught by Raven within the manipulator/fluid transfer interface of Goff et al., to take advantage of using known, standard components.
Regarding Claim 22, Goff et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions (Goff et al. discloses computer control of the overall apparatus at least at para 94; such control would require this medium) that, when executed by a control circuit of a first spacecraft, direct the control circuit to:
- direct a docking system (see the above rejection of Claim 1, wherein a "docking system" includes items 104, 108, 208, and their related subsystems) to dock the first spacecraft (servicing spacecraft 104) with a second spacecraft (client object 112);
- direct pulses of electric current to a plurality of electropermanent magnets (EPMs) of each of first and second fluid transfer apparatuses
- transfer fluid from a fluid reservoir of the first spacecraft to the second spacecraft through the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses
Further regarding Claim 22, as shown above, and in the rejection of Claim 9 above, The Goff reference teaches the claimed invention, but does not explicitly recite fluid transfer as occurring through “a posable hose” as required in Claim 16. Please see Examiner’s interpretation for the term “posable hose” in the rejection of Claim 9 above.
However, such hoses are known, as evidenced by Raven et al., who teaches a posable hose comprising tubing. Specifically, the Raven reference (see Col 11, lines 4-7) teaches the use of "A flexible hose mated to the RT 150 of the tool 170 permits media transfer to a Client satellite 110 when the FDV 200 is open". The reference further teaches use of a military standard hose refueling arrangement at Col 4, line 66- Col 5, line 4).
The Goff and Raven references each teach fluid transfer between spacecraft. The Raven reference additionally teaches the use of a flexible hose using currently available standard technology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the flexible (e.g. “posable”) hose as taught by Raven within the manipulator/fluid transfer interface of Goff et al., to take advantage of using known, standard components.
Claims 10-11, 17-18, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goff et al. as modified by Raven, and in further view of Clark (US 4,273,505).
Regarding Claims 10-11, 17-18, and 23-24, the claims are drawn to components of the “posable hose” of the independent claims, namely an elbow joint operable by a control circuit (Claims 10, 17, 23), and a wrist joint (Claims 11, 18, and 24).
As shown above in the rejections of Claims 9, 16, and 22, Goff et al. as modified by Raven above teaches a “posable hose” and a control circuit. However, neither reference explicitly mentions the utilization of an elbow joint and/or a wrist joint.
Clark et al., however, teaches the utilization of an elbow joint (see Fig 1, elbow joint 12b and Col 2, lines 26-34) and a wrist joint (12c).
Additionally, the Clark reference incorporates U.S. Pat. No. 3,268,091, which further describes control of manipulator arm 12 (including elbow joint 12b) via electric motors, winches 22, 24, and 26, control panel 54, and "several switch or control mechanisms 36, 38 and 40 and conductor cables collectively denoted by the reference numeral 42". Examiner interprets this teaching as a "control circuit", that would be operable to send a control signal to the posable hose to position the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses proximate to the first and second spacecrafts.
PNG
media_image2.png
908
936
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Goff and Clark references each teach apparatuses to enable the docking of spacecraft. The Clark reference additionally teaches the use of elbow and wrist joints, and related control mechanisms, thereby allowing greater flexibility for maneuvering a robotic arm in space for docking purposes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the elbow and wrist joints as taught by Clark et al., along with the related circuit control system, into the manipulator/fluid transfer interface of Goff et al., in order to take advantage increased flexibility in maneuvering a robotic arm in space during docking operations.
Therefore,
Regarding Claim 10, Goff et al. as modified above teaches a system configured with a first spacecraft, wherein the posable hose (of Goff et al. as modified by Raven; see the rejection of Claim 9 above) further comprises an elbow joint (Fig 1, 12b) coupled to the tubing between the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses; and the control circuit (as described above) is further operable to send a control signal to the posable hose to open the posable hose at the elbow joint.
Regarding Claim 11, Goff et al. as modified by the Clark reference teaches a system configured with a first spacecraft, wherein
- the posable hose (of Goff et al. as modified by Raven; see the rejection of Claim 9 above) further comprises first and second wrist joints (Fig 1, 12c) coupled to the tubing and respectively coupled to the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses (although the Clark reference appears to disclose a single wrist joint, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to duplicate the joint as many times as desired, with the predictable result of greater flexibility in the posable hose/boom arm. See MPEP 2144.04, wherein the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced);
- the control circuit (as described above) is further operable to send a control signal to the posable hose to position the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses proximate to the first and second spacecrafts.
Regarding Claim 17, Goff et al. as modified above teaches a method operable with a first spacecraft, wherein the posable hose (of Goff et al. as modified by Raven; see the rejection of Claim 16 above) further comprises an elbow joint (Fig 1, 12b) coupled to the tubing between the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses; and the method further comprises sending a control signal (as described above) to the posable hose to open the posable hose at the elbow joint (12b).
Regarding Claim 18, Goff et al. as modified above teaches a method operable with a first spacecraft, wherein
- the posable hose (of Goff et al. as modified by Raven; see the rejection of Claim 16 above) further comprises first and second wrist joints (Fig 1, 12c) coupled to the tubing and respectively coupled to the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses (although the Clark reference appears to disclose a single wrist joint, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to duplicate the joint as many times as desired, with the predictable result of greater flexibility in the posable hose/boom arm. See MPEP 2144.04, wherein the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced);
- the method further comprises sending a control signal (as described above) to the posable hose to position the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses proximate to the first and second spacecrafts.
Regarding Claim 23, Goff et al. as modified above teaches a computer readable medium (Goff et al. discloses computer control of the overall apparatus at least at para 94; such control would require this medium), wherein: the posable hose (of Goff et al. as modified by Raven; see the rejection of Claim 22 above) further comprises an elbow joint (Fig 1, 12b) coupled to the tubing between the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses; and the computer readable medium further comprises instructions that direct the control circuit (as described above) to send a control signal to the posable hose to open the posable hose at the elbow joint.
Regarding Claim 24, Goff et al. as modified above teaches a computer readable medium (Goff et al. discloses computer control of the overall apparatus at least at para 94; such control would require this medium), wherein:
- the posable hose (of Goff et al. as modified by Raven; see the rejection of Claim 22 above) further comprises first and second wrist joints (Fig 1, 12c) coupled to the tubing and respectively coupled to the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses (although the Clark reference appears to disclose a single wrist joint, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to duplicate the joint as many times as desired, with the predictable result of greater flexibility in the posable hose/boom arm. See MPEP 2144.04, wherein the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced);
- the computer readable medium further comprises instructions that direct the control circuit (as described above) to send a control signal to the posable hose to position the first and second fluid transfer apparatuses proximate to the first and second spacecrafts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27 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.
Specifically, the apparatus resulting from the combination of the Goff, Raven and Clark references above in the rejections of the claims describe a robotic manipulator comprising first and second fluid transfer apparatuses and a plurality of electropermanent magnets, and further comprising a “posable hose” with a robotic manipulator.
However, the subject matter of Claims 12, 19, and 25 further require a robotic manipulator separate from the posable hose, and further configured to “grasp the posable hose in space at one or more grapple points of the posable hose.”
Furthermore, the subject matter of Claims 14 and 27 additionally require “a mounting frame configured with a flanged ring that guides the fluid connector to the spacecraft, wherein the EPMs are configured with the mounting frame about the flanged ring; and a plurality of linear actuators that, when directed by the control circuit, are operable to move the fluid connector through the flanged ring to an interface portion of a respective spacecraft.”
The Goff, Raven and Clark references are silent on these limitations, and Examiner concludes it would amount to impermissible hindsight to further modify any or all of the above references to arrive at the subject matter of Claims 12, 14, 19, 25 and/or 27, there being no reason to do so.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20130153710 A1 teaches fluid transfer between spacecraft utilizing a robotic arm, but is also silent on the novel aspects of Claims 12, 14, 19, 25 and/or 27, as detailed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights