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 .
This communication is responsive to amended application filed on 12/16/2025.
Claims 2-4, and 7-8 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim 8 (canceled) have been fully considered and the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
410
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed below, these additional elements are insignificant pre-solution/post-solutions (i.e. data gathering and/or mere data output). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, at most the additional elements are not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions and/or (ii)-printing or downloading generated menus and/or (iii)- presenting offers to potential customers.
Applicant argued:
PNG
media_image2.png
325
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites additional elements of “control device”, and “one or more processors”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Further, in light of applicants specification par [0015], the limitation of “a control law model” is simply a mathematical concept (i.e. formula). Therefore, the “control law model” is not a particular machine as claimed but falls under mathematical concept. Any purported improvement to a technology or technical field as direct consequence of the “mental process and/or mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself” (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Applicant argued:
PNG
media_image3.png
362
679
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
321
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each and every step falls under mathematical concept and/or mental process (i.e. a human using pen and paper as a physical aid). Further, examiner consulted the specification whether the disclosed invention improves technology and to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. However, after carefully examined the claimed solution to a problem recited in applicant argument, the specification nor the claims reflect to cover a particular solution to a problem. Rather, the focus of the claims here is the improved mathematical algorithm to construct a longitudinal dynamic model of hypersonic vehicle using different improved algorithms recited in applicant specification such as pars [0031]-[0065].
Applicant argued:
PNG
media_image5.png
553
641
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
108
643
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited limitations fall into the “mathematical concept and/or mental process and/or data gathering and/or mere data output” group of abstract.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see Remarks pg. 15, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 6 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?):
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1, 5, and 6 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas enumerates in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)):
Claim 1:
A method for global stabilization control of a hypersonic vehicle, comprising:
building a global stabilization control device comprising one or more processors “generic computer components” and a control law model “mathematical concept (in light of applicant specification, par [0015])”, comprising:
acquiring state parameters of the hypersonic vehicle. wherein the state parameters comprise a speed of the hypersonic vehicle, a flight path angle, a pitch rate, an Euler angle and a mass of the hypersonic vehicle “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”;
constructing a longitudinal dynamic model of a non-minimum phase hypersonic vehicle based on the state parameters, wherein the longitudinal dynamic model uses an elevator angle and a throttle opening as input signals, and the speed and the flight path angle of the hypersonic vehicle as output signals [in light of claim 2 the limitation falls under mathematical concept];
translating a non-zero equilibrium point of the hypersonic vehicle to the origin of coordinates by transformation of coordinates to transform the longitudinal dynamic model, wherein the transformed longitudinal dynamic model comprises an output dynamic model and an internal dynamic model [in light of claim 3 the limitation falls under mathematical concept];
performing variable decomposition on the transformed longitudinal dynamic model by state decomposition and constructing an auxiliary system model using decomposed variables, wherein the auxiliary system model comprises output dynamics and internal dynamics [in light of claim 4 the limitation falls under mathematical concept]; and
determining the control law model based on a feedback linearization theory according to the output dynamics [in light of claim 5 the limitation falls under mathematical concept]; and
receiving, by the global stabilization control device, values of the state parameters of the hypersonic vehicle which are measured on the hypersonic vehicle “insignificant extra solution, e.g. mere data-gathering”,
loading the values of the state parameters to the control law model “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”, outputting an elevator angle value and a throttle opening value of the hypersonic vehicle “insignificant extra solution, e.g. output data”, and
adjusting the elevator angle and throttle opening of the hypersonic vehicle based on the elevator angle value and the throttle opening value of the hypersonic vehicle for realizing the global stabilization control of the hypersonic vehicle “mental process i.e. concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation judgement, opinion) and/or mathematical concepts”;
wherein the constructing a longitudinal dynamic model of a non-minimum phase hypersonic vehicle involves the following Formulas: wherein V represents the speed of the hypersonic vehicle, while Y the flight path angle. q the pitch rate. 0 the Euler angle, meeting a relation 0=x+α ==== with a being an angle of attack, [V,γ,Θ,q]⁺ a state vector T,L,D a thrust, a lift, and a drag, respectively. Mᵥ₀ a pitching moment, m the mass of the hypersonic vehicle. 9 the gravitational acceleration, and Iᵥᵥ an inertia moment “mathematical concepts”;
wherein the translating a non-zero equilibrium point of the hypersonic vehicle to the origin of coordinates by transformation of coordinates to transform the longitudinal dynamic model is involves the following Formulas: in = fi 42, In = f2 921 16 162, x₃ = 24, xs = wherein x₁, x₂, Ig. x₁ correspondingly take the place of V, Y. O, and x₂ are output signals, u₁ and U2 are input signals, and f₁, f2, fa, 912, 922, and 932 are coefficients of the transformed longitudinal dynamic model, respectively; and wherein the performing variable decomposition on the transformed longitudinal dynamic model by state decomposition and constructing an auxiliary system model using decomposed variables involves the following Formulas: wherein S₁, S₂ are output signals: N1 and N₂ are designed compensation control signals, with _ and N₂ γ₂N₂, r₁, γ₂, M. and Mo are all constant coefficients, with r₁ and γ₂ being greater than zero and 2, and no meeting a stable polynomial with respect to Z: and g₂₁ and S31 are model coefficients “mathematical concepts”.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (1. Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and 2. Evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application): The claim is directed to the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites additional elements of “control device”, and “one or more processors”. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, claim 1 recites additional elements of “acquiring”, receiving” and “outputting”. These additional elements are insignificant pre-solution/post-solutions (i.e. data gathering and/or mere data output). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No):
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “control device” and “one or more processors” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “acquiring”, “receiving” and “outputting” are insignificant pre/post-solutions (i.e. data gathering and/or mere data output). At most the additional elements are not found to including anything more than data gathering or mere data output. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions and/or (ii)-printing or downloading generated menus and/or (iii)- presenting offers to potential customers.
As per claims 2-4, Canceled.
As per claim 5, the claim falls into “mathematical concept/ formula”.
As per Claim 6, independent claim 6 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1, and as such is similarly rejected.
As per claims 7-8, Canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter (i.e. receiving, by the global stabilization control device, values of the state parameters of the hypersonic vehicle which are measured on the hypersonic vehicle, loading the values of the state parameters to the control law model, outputting an elevator angle value and a throttle opening value of the hypersonic vehicle, and adjusting the elevator angle and throttle opening of the hypersonic vehicle based on the elevator angle value and the throttle opening value of the hypersonic vehicle for realizing the global stabilization control of the hypersonic vehicle) which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, and 6 would be allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Yang et al (S. Yang, Y. Zhang, W. Lin, “Adaptive Regulation of Hypersonic Vehicle Systems with Partial Nonlinear Parameterization”, pgs. 2527-2532, 2018) discloses pgs. 2527-2532, A new partially nonlinearly parameterized hypersonic vehicle system is constructed for longitudinal dynamics using a curve-fitting technique and nonlinear parametrization technique, which can better match the realistic hypersonic vehicle data than existing linearly parameterized models, pg. 2528, A. Rigid-Body Longitudinal Dynamic of Hypersonic Vehicle, equation 1-4; pgs. 2529-2530, A Coordinate Transformation, equations 17-19 and corresponding texts; pg. 2527, refine aerodynamic models with nonlinear parametrization using a curve-fitting technique based on certain on-orbit aerodynamic data and introduce the suitable coordinate transformation such that the hypersonic vehicle system converts into a strict feedback system; pg. 2531, right side column, the actual controller u1 equation 61 and actual controller u2 and the updated law equation 65 and corresponding texts; pg. 2532, sired result. Theorem 1: Under Assumption 1, for the hypersonic vehicle system (1)-(9) with (13)-(15), the designed adaptive state feedback controllers (61) and (65) together with parameter update laws (39), (44), (54), (58), (62) and (66) guarantee that the closed-loop system are bounded and achieve global adaptive non-zero equilibrium point defined in (16) regulation;
Fiorentini et al (L. Fiorentini, A. Serrani, “Nonlinear Robust Adaptive Control of Flexible Air-Breathing Hypersonic Vehicles” pgs. 401-410, 2009) discloses pg. 404, B. Controller Design, The starting point is the decomposition of the equations of motion into functional subsystems, namely, the horizontal translation dynamics (the velocity subsystem), the vertical translation dynamics(the altitude and flight-path angle subsystem), and the rotational dynamics (the angle of attack and pitch rate subsystem). Each subsystem is controlled separately using the available inputs at that level and intermediate virtual control commands, as shown in Fig. 1. In particular, a control law with adaptive drag compensation is derived for the velocity subsystem by controlling thrust from the fuel equivalence ratio input.
However, none of the cited prior art references of record fully anticipate or render obvious the independent claims in particular the limitation of:
PNG
media_image7.png
470
639
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-8571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571 272 3676. 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.
KIBROM K. GEBRESILASSIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/KIBROM K GEBRESILASSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189 02/02/2026