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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 10/31/2025, the following has occurred: claim 1 has been amended; claims 1-9 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hypersoar, as evidenced by Parker (“Space Hopping Science”, First Science 2014) and LLNL/DARPA Hypersoar (information page from simplerockets.com), in view of Usuki (US 20210349474 A1), Boelitz (US 20100314497 A1), D’Alto et al. (EP 2151730 A1), hereinafter D’Alto, Miller et al. (“Motion Sickness Susceptibility Under Weightless And Hypergravity Conditions Generated By Parabolic Flight”), hereinafter Miller, and Kobayakawa et al. (US 20190161214 A1), hereinafter Kobayakawa.
Regarding Claim 1
Hypersoar teaches a hypersonic transport system for transport of passengers in a commercial flight (Parker: “Space Hopping Hyperplane) comprising: an aircraft (Parker: “HyperSoar”), wherein the aircraft comprises a secondary propulsion device (Parker: “combined-cycle engines”); a main propulsion device (LLNL/DARPA Hypersoar: “Rocket-assisted takeoff is advised”); and a control unit which is configured to control the aircraft (Parker: implicit, Examiner notes that a control unit is required in order to fire and shut off engines during flight as described on Page 2) so as to perform the following stages while keeping a positive load factor less than 1.5 G (Parker: “Passengers would feel 1.5 times the force of gravity at the bottom of each skip, and weightlessness out in space”): a take-off and climb stage until reaching, at the end of the latter, an altitude greater than or equal to 30 km and a speed greater than or equal to 3,000 m/s (“Using special combined-cycle engines that are air-breathing but based on rocket technology, it would ascend to 40 kilometers”, “Flying at Mach 10 (3 kilometers per second)”), a stage of cruising by bouncing off the earth's atmosphere (Parker: “As the aircraft descends into denser air, it would be pushed up by the increased aerodynamic lift. The engines then fire briefly, propelling the plane back into space. Outside the atmosphere, the engines shut off and the process repeats”), wherein the secondary propulsion device is activated by the control unit (Parker: implicit, Examiner notes that a control unit is required in order to fire and shut off engines during flight as described on Page 2); a descent and landing stage during which the control unit performs a dissipative descent (Parker: Figure on Page 2 shows dissipative descent before landing), the control unit then controlling the secondary propulsion device to perform a rollover and an active slowing down of the aircraft after the dissipative descent (rollover and landing shown in Fig. 2), wherein the control unit is configured to adjust acceleration and trajectory to keep a positive load factor less than 1.5 G (Parker: implicit, Page 2 states “passengers would feel 1.5 times the force of gravity at the bottom of each skip, and weightlessness out in space” and Examiner notes that the control unit controls movement of the aircraft), but is silent on:
wherein the aircraft comprises position sensors
a main propulsion device which is removably attached to the aircraft, the main propulsion device being separated from the aircraft at the end of the take-off and climb stage
wherein the aircraft also comprises a variably shaped aerodynamic surface
keeping a positive load factor more than 0.7 G, the control unit configured to adjust acceleration and trajectory to keep a positive load factor more than 0.7 G
wherein during the stage of cruising, the control unit controls the secondary propulsion device to maintain the speed of the aircraft and maintain a predefined trajectory of the aircraft, wherein the secondary propulsion device is activated by the control unit, and the control unit monitors bounce size, speed, and the predefined trajectory, and operates the secondary propulsion device to maintain the predefined trajectory
a descent and landing stage during which the control unit controls the modification of the shape of the variably shaped aerodynamic surface of the aircraft to perform a dissipative descent such that the secondary propulsion device is not active during the dissipative descent.
Usuki teaches:
wherein the aircraft comprises position sensors (Para. [0046] “The inertial measurement unit 210 is configured to measure the location, velocity, and altitude of the glide vehicle 200”)
a main propulsion device (flying body (100) including propulsion device (113)) which is removably attached to the aircraft (Para. [0059] “The propulsion device 113 is controlled such that the flying body 100 achieves a level flight at an altitude at which the glide vehicle 200 is released”), the main propulsion device being separated from the aircraft at the end of the take-off and climb stage (Para. [0059] “the glide vehicle 200 is released (hereinafter, referred to as “release altitude”.) The release altitude may be 30 km or higher, for example”, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hypersoar with position sensors with a reasonable expectation of success, and with the motivation of providing crucial information regarding the vehicle’s position during flight. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have launched Hypersoar with a detachable main propulsion device as taught by Usuki with a reasonable expectation of success, and with the motivation of providing additional thrust to get the vehicle to its required height. It is recommended that Hypersoar, as evidenced by LLNL/DARPA Hypersoar, takeoff with the assistance of a rocket, but it is not clear whether or not this rocket is detached after reaching the desired altitude. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that detaching the rocket after reaching takeoff/climb would have the benefit of decreased weight, thereby increasing speed and range.
Further, Boelitz teaches:
wherein the aircraft also comprises a variably shaped aerodynamic surface (control surfaces (106))
a descent and landing stage during which the control unit controls the modification of the shape of the variably shaped aerodynamic surface of the aircraft to perform a dissipative descent such that the secondary propulsion device is not active during the dissipative descent (Para. [0032] “transition from re-entry-based on aerodynamic control surfaces to a landing based on propulsion (e.g., engine) control”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hypersoar vehicle, in view of Usuki, with the features of Boelitz with a reasonable expectation of success, and with the motivation of providing control surfaces that enhance stability and perform essential maneuvers during different phases of flight. Additionally, while Hypersoar is silent to whether the dissipative descent is performed with or without the use of the secondary propulsion device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not use a propulsion device since it is typical for atmospheric re-entry to occur passively as described by Boelitz, as any additional velocity would increase the aerodynamic heating of the aircraft, leading to safety issues for the aircraft itself and the passengers aboard.
Further, D’Alto teaches:
a control unit that controls a secondary propulsion device to maintain the speed of the aircraft and maintain a predefined trajectory of the aircraft (Abstract “methods of controlling the flight path of an aircraft to follow as closely as possible to a predetermined four-dimensional flight path”, Para. [0021] “any throttle setting may be modified so as to ensure that the airspeed of the aircraft stays within safe or approved limits, for instance to avoid overspeed, underspeed or stall conditions arising”), wherein the secondary propulsion device is activated by the control unit (Para. [0009] “a method of controlling an aircraft… using the aircraft's throttle to correct deviations”), and the control unit monitors speed and the predefined trajectory, and operates the secondary propulsion device to maintain the predefined trajectory (Fig. 2, Para. [0009] “the present invention resides in a method of controlling an aircraft to follow a predetermined four-dimensional flight path, comprising: monitoring the actual along-track position and the actual vertical position of the aircraft relative to the corresponding desired positions on the predetermined flight path; using the aircraft's elevators to correct deviations of the actual along-track position of the aircraft from the desired along-track position; and using the aircraft's throttle to correct deviations of the actual vertical position of the aircraft from the desired vertical position by altering the throttle setting from a nominal value to an adjusted value when the actual vertical position differs from the desired vertical position by more than a threshold.”, Examiner notes that monitoring the along-track position corresponds to the ground speed of the aircraft)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Hypersoar, in view of Usuki and Boelitz, with the guidance and control features of D’Alto with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to monitor and correct the flight path of the vehicle, thereby, for example, ensuring compliance with air traffic control and efficient use of air space (D’Alto: Para. [0003]).
Additionally, Examiner notes that D’Alto teaches the monitoring of vertical position of the aircraft, and that when the guidance and control system of D’Alto is applied to the modified Hypersoar vehicle, it would have been obvious to also have the control unit monitor the bounce size as claimed, since bounce size is a function of vertical position of the aircraft and provides necessary insight into the flight characteristics and trajectory at a given time.
However, none of the above references teach:
keeping a positive load factor more than 0.7 G, the control unit configured to adjust acceleration and trajectory to keep a positive load factor more than 0.7 G.
Hypersoar teaches that “Passengers would feel 1.5 times the force of gravity at the bottom of each skip, and weightlessness out in space” (Parker) but is silent to a load factor of specifically more than 0.7 G. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Miller, for example, teaches that the oscillations of g-load encountered in parabolic maneuvers can cause motion sickness (Page 3). With the teachings of Hypersoar (Parker) and Miller, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be aware that the load factor can affect passenger comfort. Consequently, the load factor is considered to be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the flight to have a load factor of at least 0.7 G for the purpose of reducing the feelings of weightlessness for passengers and as a matter of routine optimization of load factor, with predictable results.
Examiner further notes that applicant has not provided any particular criticality to this feature, and maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the load factor range of Hypersoar, in view of Usuki, Boelitz, and D’Alto, to ensure passenger comfort, as described above.
Examiner believes that Hypersoar (Parker) depicts the performance of a rollover and an active slowing down of the aircraft after the dissipative descent in the figure on page 2. However, this maneuver is not explicitly discussed. In order to promote compact prosecution, an additional reference is being brought in to explicitly teach this landing maneuver.
Kobayakawa teaches:
the control unit then monitoring the secondary propulsion device to perform a rollover and an active slowing down of the aircraft (Para. [0047] “The spacecraft 10 changes the attitude to take a target attitude angle (most typically, 90°) in case of the vertical landing. After that, the spacecraft 10 descends while controlling a position of the spacecraft 10 in a horizontal plane, and lands vertically on the desired landing point.”, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Hypersoar vehicle, in view of Usuki, Boelitz, D’Alto, and Miller, with the landing maneuver of Kobayakawa with a reasonable expectation of success, and with the motivation of improved operability of the vehicle, reduced scale of the facilities to be provided for the landing point, and decreased fuel consumption (Kobayakawa: Para. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 3
Hypersoar, in view of Usuki, Boelitz, D’Alto, Miller, and Kobayakawa, teaches the transport system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to monitor the aircraft and the main propulsion device to ensure a vertical descent during the descent and landing stage (see §112(b) rejection, as best understood by Examiner, Kobayakawa teaches the claimed vertical descent of the transport system as evidenced by Fig. 4 and Para. [0028] “the present invention can be applied to the spacecraft of various types which carry out vertical landing”).
Regarding Claim 4
Hypersoar, in view of Usuki, Boelitz, D’Alto, Miller, and Kobayakawa, teaches the transport system according to claim 1, wherein the main propulsion device is a liquid propellant rocket engine (Usuki: Para. [0035] “the booster 110 may include one or more rocket engines”, Examiner notes that the rocket engines are not specified to use liquid propellant, but Hypersoar is known to use “kerolox rocket engines” (LLNL/DARPA Hypersoar), which are liquid propellant engines).
Regarding Claim 7
Hypersoar, in view of Usuki, Boelitz, D’Alto, Miller, and Kobayakawa, teaches the transport system according to claim 1, wherein the secondary propulsion device is a re-ignitable propulsion device (Hypersoar (Parker): Page 2 “The engines then fire briefly, propelling the plane back into space. Outside the atmosphere, the engines shut off and the process repeats”).
Regarding Claim 8
Hypersoar, in view of Usuki, Boelitz, D’Alto, Miller, and Kobayakawa, teaches the transport system according claim 1, wherein the aircraft comprises wings, each of the wings comprising a movable end which forms a variably shaped aerodynamic surface (Boelitz: control surfaces (106, 108)).
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hypersoar, as evidenced by Parker (“Space Hopping Science”, First Science 2014) and LLNL/DARPA Hypersoar (information page from simplerockets.com), in view of Usuki (US 20210349474 A1), Boelitz (US 20100314497 A1), D’Alto (EP 2151730 A1), Miller (“Motion Sickness Susceptibility Under Weightless And Hypergravity Conditions Generated By Parabolic Flight”) , and Kobayakawa (US 20190161214 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 above, and further in view of Boelitz et al. (US 8729442 B2), hereinafter Boelitz ‘442.
Regarding Claim 2
Hypersoar, in view of Usuki, Boelitz, D’Alto, Miller, and Kobayakawa, teaches the transport system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the control unit is configured to monitor the aircraft and the main propulsion device to ensure a vertical climb during the take-off and climb stage.
Boelitz ‘442 teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to monitor the aircraft and the main propulsion device to ensure a vertical climb during the take-off and climb stage (Col. 3 Lines 16-17 “In various embodiments, the RLV can lift off and land vertically”, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the control unit of the modified Hypersoar vehicle ensure a vertical climb during the take-off and climb stage as taught by Boelitz ‘442 with a reasonable expectation of success, and with the motivation of reaching the edge of Earth’s atmosphere as quickly as possible, thereby minimizing fuel consumption. Examiner notes that while the primary references do not explicitly teach vertical take-off and climb, Usuki does show what appears to be substantially vertical take-off in Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 5
Hypersoar, in view of Usuki, Boelitz, D’Alto, Miller, and Kobayakawa, teaches the transport system according to claim 4, wherein the main propulsion device is a liquid propellant rocket engine (Usuki: Para. [0035] “the booster 110 may include one or more rocket engines”, Examiner notes that the rocket engines are not specified to use liquid propellant, but Hypersoar is known to use “kerolox rocket engines” (LLNL/DARPA Hypersoar), which are liquid propellant engines), but is silent on:
wherein the main propulsion device is reusable.
Boelitz ‘442 teaches:
wherein the main propulsion device is reusable (Col. 4 Lines 57-59 “mission profile 200 of a reusable launch vehicle”, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the main propulsion device of the modified Hypersoar vehicle be reusable as taught by Boelitz ‘442 with a reasonable expectation of success, and with the motivation of reducing launch costs and materials, as well as waste.
Regarding Claim 6
Hypersoar, in view of Usuki, Boelitz, D’Alto, Miller, and Kobayakawa, teaches the transport system according to claim 1, wherein the secondary propulsion device comprises on the other hand a rear propulsion unit located at a rear end of the aircraft opposite to the front end (Hypersoar (Parker): “combined-cycle engines”), the control unit being configured to monitor the secondary propulsion device to roll over the aircraft during the descent and landing stage (Kobayakawa: Para. [0047] “The spacecraft 10 changes the attitude to take a target attitude angle (most typically, 90°) in case of the vertical landing. After that, the spacecraft 10 descends while controlling a position of the spacecraft 10 in a horizontal plane, and lands vertically on the desired landing point.”, Fig. 4), but does not teach:
wherein the secondary propulsion device comprises on the one hand a front propulsion assembly located at a front end of the aircraft.
Boelitz ‘442 teaches:
a plurality of propulsion devices on various surfaces of the vehicle (Col. 3 Lines 46-52 “The RLV can include multiple propulsion devices 104 (not illustrated). Some propulsion devices can be larger or smaller than other propulsion devices. The propulsion devices can be attached to various surfaces and can be moveable (e.g., as moveable thrusters, engines, or motors that can vector thrust in various directions)”).
While the disclosure of Boelitz ‘442 does not explicitly show thrust vectors on the front end of the vehicle, the disclosure states that moveable thrusters can be placed on any surface in order to vector thrust in various directions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added thrusters to the front of end of the modified Hypersoar vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success, and with the motivation of providing additional thrust vector control for maneuvering the aircraft during landing, as well as providing a means for attitude and directional control that cannot be achieved solely by the rear propulsion device. Therefore, the modified Hypersoar vehicle, further in view of Boelitz ‘442, teaches wherein the secondary propulsion device comprises a front propulsion assembly located at a front end of the aircraft.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hypersoar, as evidenced by Parker (“Space Hopping Science”, First Science 2014) and LLNL/DARPA Hypersoar (information page from simplerockets.com), in view of Usuki (US 20210349474 A1), Boelitz (US 20100314497 A1), D’Alto et al. (EP 2151730 A1), Miller (“Motion Sickness Susceptibility Under Weightless And Hypergravity Conditions Generated By Parabolic Flight”), and Kobayakawa (US 20190161214 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 above, and further in view of Chaudhary et al. (US 20180339793 A1), hereinafter Chaudhary.
Regarding Claim 9
Hypersoar, in view of Usuki, Boelitz, D’Alto, Miller, and Kobayakawa, teaches the transport system according to claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the main propulsion device further comprises a rollover thruster disposed on a front end of the main propulsion device.
Chaudhary teaches:
wherein the main propulsion device further comprises a rollover thruster disposed on a front end of the main propulsion device (orientation thrusters (230), Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transport system of modified Hypersoar with the rollover thruster of Chaudhary with a reasonable expectation of success. While Hypersoar, evidenced by LLNL/DARPA, teaches rocket-assisted takeoff, the disclosure is silent to any of the specifics of the rocket. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add rollover thrusters to the rocket as taught by Chaudhary with the motivation of providing additional attitude control of the rocket, specifically beneficial for landing and reusing the rocket to launch future hypersonic aircraft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 7-9) that none of the cited prior art teach the amended claim 1 limitation “wherein the secondary propulsion device is activated by the control unit, and the control unit monitors bounce size, speed, and the predefined trajectory, and operates the secondary propulsion device to maintain the predefined trajectory”. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20180118370 A1 – “Vehicle Guidance System And Method That Uses Air Data From Surface-Mounted Pressure Sensors For Vehicle Orientation Control” teaches adjusting the orientation of a vehicle based on current flight characteristics and based on a predetermined flight trajectory
US 20220107160 A1 – “Glide Trajectory Optimization For Aerospace Vehicles” teaches in-flight trajectory steering a vehicle by an optimal path to either a preplanned or in-flight commanded destination
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Richard Green can be reached on (571) 270-5380. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647