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 § 102
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN-111791788-A to Wang et al. (for citations to the text refer to the appended machine translation document).
Regarding claim 1: Wang teaches a mobile orbital launcher system (rocket mobile launcher; see page 6, first paragraph under heading, “Specific implementation examples”) comprising:
a launch vehicle (rocket; unnumbered but visible in figs. 2-3, 8 and 11); and
launch related subsystems (page 5, ¶ 2: the invention integrates launching, storing, transporting, erecting and emitting functions, see also page 3, ¶ 1 under heading “Contents of the Invention”; note that other components are used in the process of launching the launch vehicle, such as in steps 1-10 starting at the bottom of page 8: the generator of step 1, the vehicle control system of step 2, the cover opening subsystem of step 4, and emitting table subsystem of steps 5-6, are used in the process of launching the launch vehicle and may be considered as launch related subsystems),
wherein the launch related subsystems will fit on a trailer (chassis 2, shown with the launch related subsystems loaded in figs. 2-3 and 11; see also page 5, ¶ 2: using tractor and trailer, and page 8: rocket storage transfer method) capable of traveling by road or sea (page 5, second paragraph: long-distance transportation; traveling by road using tractor 1, traveling by sea for example, by loading the system on a ship),
wherein the launch vehicle will fit on the trailer in a horizontal position (such as shown in fig. 1 or fig. 11), and
wherein the launch vehicle articulates from the horizontal position to a vertical position (such as shown in fig. 3) on the trailer utilizing a tilt cylinder (page 7, ¶ 3: cylinder 10 of vertical system 4; page 9, ¶ 3: cylinder 10 extends until the rocket is 90 degrees vertical).
Regarding claim 2: Wang teaches the mobile orbital launcher system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the launch related subsystems can travel via road or sea based on a requirement and launch at a required time (page 5, ¶ 2 disclose high speed transport and transmission of the rocket and the methods described in pages 8-10 disclose a mobile launching system which transports and launches a rocket; the launch related subsystems of Wang are disclosed to be capable of traveling via road or sea and launching, including traveling based on a requirement and launching at a required time).
Regarding claim 3: Wang teaches the mobile orbital launcher system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the launch vehicle after reaching a required location will articulate with the help of the tilt cylinder and make it the launch vehicle vertical (page 9, ¶ 3: vertical cylinder 10 extends until the rocket is 90 degrees vertical; rocket is launched later in step 10 of the same method).
Regarding claim 4: Wang teaches the mobile orbital launcher system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the tilt cylinder is hydraulic actuator (page 5, ¶ 1: electro-hydraulic levelling vertical control system; page 7, ¶ 3: vertical oil cylinder 10 of vertical system 4).
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RU 2 092 400 C1 to Klepikov et al. (for citations to the text, refer to the appended machine translation document).
Regarding claim 1: Klepikov teaches a mobile orbital launcher system (¶ 0001) comprising:
a launch vehicle (¶ 0014: launch vehicle 1); and
launch related subsystems (¶ 0019: launch vehicle aiming equipment and other equipment; or ¶ 0014: equipment 5 for controlling the flight and separation of stages 6 and 7),
wherein the launch related subsystems will fit on a trailer (vehicle 8) capable of traveling by road or sea (vehicle shown with wheels for travel by road, considered capable of traveling by sea, for example by boarding a ship),
wherein the launch vehicle will fit on the trailer in a horizontal position (see figure), and
wherein the launch vehicle articulates from the horizontal position to a vertical position (as shown in the figure) on the trailer utilizing a tilt cylinder (¶ 0020: hydraulic jacks 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure of RU 2092400 C1 to Klepikov et al.
Regarding claim 2: Klepikov teaches the mobile orbital launcher system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the launch related subsystems can travel via road or sea based on a requirement and launch at a required time (¶ 0020: the missile system travels to the launch site based on a received launch mission; the disclosed launch related subsystems are considered to be capable of traveling via road or sea and launching, including traveling based on a requirement and launching at a required time).
Regarding claim 3: Klepikov teaches the mobile orbital launcher system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the launch vehicle after reaching a required location will articulate with the help of the tilt cylinder and make it the launch vehicle vertical (¶ 0020: after moving to the launch site, the launch vehicle is moved to a vertical position with the help of hydraulic jacks 9).
Regarding claim 4: Klepikov teaches the mobile orbital launcher system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the tilt cylinder is hydraulic actuator (¶ 0014, 0020: hydraulic jacks 9).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 202010684805 A to Wang et al. (for citations to the text refer to the appended machine translation document) in view of RU 2 179 941 C1 to Solomonov et al. (for citations to the text, refer to the machine translation document appended to the Office action mailed July 29, 2025).
Regarding claim 5: Wang teaches a method of mobile orbital launching comprising the steps of:
transporting the launch vehicle with the launcher via road (page 3, ¶ 1 after heading, “Contents of the Invention”);
placing the launcher at a launch site before articulation (page 8, ¶ 3 from the bottom: after being transported to the designated position, the specific method is as follows; page 9, ¶ 5: step 7 of the method is articulating the launch vehicle);
articulating the launch vehicle (page 9, ¶ 5: step 7 of the method); and
launching the launch vehicle (page 9, ¶ 8: step 10 of the method includes launching the rocket).
Wang discloses a mobile launcher which may travel via road (page 5, ¶ 2: using tractor and trailer) and a launch vehicle which is already assembled, but does not specifically disclose steps of transporting the launch vehicle with the launcher via both road and sea or assembling the launch vehicle at a launcher in an assembly area. Wang is silent to the fuel or propellent of the launch vehicle. However, it is known to transport mobile launchers via road and sea and to assemble a launch vehicle in a separate assembly area.
Solomonov teaches a mobile launcher which can be transported by sea and land (page 18, third paragraph: self-propelled launcher, can be transported by sea, rail and air vehicles), reducing restrictions on available launch sites (page 18, second paragraph), and that the location of the launch site affects the orbital parameters of the payload (page 10, first through sixth paragraphs). The launch vehicle is equipped with propellant (page 7, second to last paragraph; page 13, last paragraph) and at least portions may be refueled (page 8, last paragraph, and page 18, third to last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have transported the launch vehicle with the launcher of Wang by sea and land, using the teachings of Solomonov, for the purpose of increasing the range of available launch sites to include locations not accessible by land.
It would additionally have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have filled the launch vehicle of Wang with propellent, using the teachings of Solomonov, for the purpose of launching the launch vehicle.
Solomonov additionally teaches that there are difficulties in assembling spacecraft at the launch site (page 2, third and second to last paragraphs) and that it is advantageous to assemble the launch vehicle at a launcher in a separate assembly area in order to ensure certain specific conditions such as temperature, humidity and air purity (page 8, second to last paragraph; see also page 14, second to last paragraph, page 15, fourth and sixth paragraphs; see also page 16, second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have assembled the launch vehicle at the launcher of Wang in an assembly area, using the teachings of Solomonov, for the purpose of providing a controlled environment during assembly to protect against mechanical damage and adverse environmental conditions.
Regarding claim 6: Wang, as modified, provides the method of mobile orbital launching as claimed in claim 5 wherein the launch vehicle along with launch related subsystems will be carried out on a single trailer (a single chassis 2 is shown, and the methods set forth in pages 8-10 disclose a rocket mobile launcher having one chassis 2).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 2 092 400 C1 to Klepikov et al. (for citations to the text refer to the appended machine translation document) in view of RU 2 179 941 C1 to Solomonov et al. (for citations to the text, refer to the machine translation document appended to the Office action mailed July 29, 2025).
Regarding claim 5: Klepikov teaches a method of mobile orbital launching comprising the steps of:
placing the launcher at a launch site before articulation (¶ 0020: moves from its base to the launch site);
articulating the launch vehicle (¶ 0020: launch vehicle 1 is moved into a vertical position) and filling the launch vehicle with propellent (¶ 0020: launch vehicle 1 is moved into a vertical position and compressed gaseous fuel components are pumped into containers on the launch vehicle); and
launching the launch vehicle (¶ 0021: launch of the launch vehicle 1 is carried out).
Klepikov teaches a step of transporting the launch vehicle with the launcher, but does not specifically disclose steps of transporting the launch vehicle with the launcher via both road and sea. However, Klepikov does disclose that the mobile launcher comprises a motor vehicle (¶ 0014) and that the mobile launcher makes it possible to deliver the launch vehicle from its base location to virtually any area of the globe (¶ 0022). Further, it is known to transport mobile launchers via road and sea.
Solomonov teaches a mobile launcher which can be transported by sea and land (page 18, third paragraph: self-propelled launcher, can be transported by sea, rail and air vehicles).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have transported the launch vehicle with the launcher of Klepikov by sea and land, using the teachings of Solomonov, for the purpose of ensuring the mobility of the rocket system and the launch of payloads into space at any convenient location without the need for permanent spaceports (Klepikov ¶ 0004), providing high maneuverability and delivering the launch vehicle from its base location to virtually any area of the globe (Klepikov ¶ 0022).
Klepikov discloses a launch vehicle which is already assembled, but does not explicitly discuss assembling the launch vehicle at a launcher in an assembly area.
However, Solomonov teaches that there are difficulties in assembling spacecraft at the launch site (page 2, third and second to last paragraphs) and that it is advantageous to assemble the launch vehicle at a launcher in a separate assembly area in order to ensure certain specific conditions such as temperature, humidity and air purity (page 8, second to last paragraph; see also page 14, second to last paragraph, page 15, fourth and sixth paragraphs; see also page 16, second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have assembled the launch vehicle at the launcher of Klepikov in an assembly area, using the teachings of Solomonov, for the purpose of providing a controlled environment during assembly to protect against mechanical damage and adverse environmental conditions.
Regarding claim 6: Klepikov, as modified, provides the method of mobile orbital launching as claimed in claim 5 wherein the launch vehicle along with launch related subsystems will be carried out on a single trailer (the launch vehicle and the launch related subsystems are transported on the same vehicle 8).
Regarding claim 7: Klepikov, as modified, provides the method of mobile orbital launching as claimed in claim 5 wherein during transportation the launch vehicle will be in horizontal position (¶ 0014: the transport position is a horizontal position) and the launch vehicle will be in a completely dry condition (¶ 0017: advisable to transport without fuel).
Regarding claim 8: Klepikov, as modified, provides the method of mobile orbital launching as claimed in claim 5 wherein the launch vehicle is filled with the propellant (¶ 0020: liquid oxygen and liquid methane are pumped into tanks 13, 14).
Klepikov does not disclose specifically filling the launch vehicle with pressurant, however the fuels may be cryogenic (¶ 0018, 0020).
In the Office action mailed July 29, 2025 (page 9, regarding claim 8), the examiner has taken official notice that it is known in the art to use pressurants in launch vehicles, and when using cryogenic fuels. As applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion of official notice, it is considered to be admitted prior art, see Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420; MPEP 2144.03, subsection C.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the launch system of Klepikov to also fill the launch vehicle with pressurant, for the purpose of ensuring stable and consistent flow of propellent during launch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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.
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026, which are relevant to the new ground of rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued (Remarks, page 5) that the claimed invention mounts the launch vehicle directly on the trailer without any enclosing container. However, the claims do not require the launch vehicle to be mounted directly on the trailer or to not be enclosed by a container.
Applicant has argued (Remarks, page 6) that the system set forth in claim 1 articulates the launch vehicle into a vertical position while the launch vehicle remains on the trailer and then launches conventionally from the trailer. Claim 1 does recite the limitation, “wherein the launch vehicle articulates from the horizontal position to a vertical position on the trailer”, but claim 1 does not require the launch vehicle to launch, conventionally or otherwise.
Applicant has argued (Remarks, page 6) that in the system set forth in claim 3, the launch vehicle itself is articulated into a vertical position on the trailer using only a tilt cylinder, in contrast with the hydraulic jacks of Petrakova which tilt the entire container. However, claim 3 does not require that only the launch vehicle is articulated, or that the launch vehicle is articulated without being enclosed by a container.
Applicant asserts a distinction (Remarks, page 6) between transporting a launch vehicle inside a container and transporting a launch vehicle on a trailer,
Applicant provides further arguments (Remarks, page 7) that the prior art fails to teach eliminating the container or articulating the launch vehicle directly on the trailer (page 7, first full paragraph) and states (page 7, second full paragraph; underlining present in the original), “Neither reference teaches or suggests removing the protective container, mounting the launch vehicle directly on a trailer, or articulating the launch vehicle on the trailer without container ejection.” The claims do not require the launch vehicle to be mounted directly on a trailer or to articulate directly on a trailer, and do not specifically require removing or eliminating a protective container, articulating without container ejection, or otherwise address the presence or absence of a container.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the launch vehicle mounted directly on the trailer without any enclosing container, the launch vehicle launching conventionally from the trailer, that only the launch vehicle is articulated or that the launch vehicle is articulated directly on the trailer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant has argued (Remarks, page 7) that a container-dependent architecture of Petrakova or Solomonov cannot achieve the benefit of a system having no constraints in the path to launching location due to the ability to travel by both road and sea routes, however Solomonov discloses that ability to travel by road and sea (Solomonov page 18, third paragraph: all means of a transportable space rocket complex are made in a mobile version and can be transported by sea, rail and air vehicles; see also page 6, sixth paragraph or page 25, last paragraph before the claims) and states that one task of the invention is to increase the efficiency of services for launching spacecraft from anywhere in the world (page 5, fourth paragraph).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 109178342 A to Zhu et al. teaches a mobile launch vehicle launcher which articulates the launch vehicle from a horizontal position to a vertical position, see figs. 2-3.
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 Richard Green whose telephone number is (571)270-5380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00 to 7:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights