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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendments/remarks dated 10/16/2025 has been received, entered, and fully considered. Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 are amended. d. Claims 11-12 are newly added. Claims 1-12are currently under examination.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 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. The limitation of claim 12 do not seem to be supported by the specification. It seems the limitation seem to be obtained from Fig. 3. The limitation obtained from Fig. 3 does not seem to be in line with what is disclosed in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. In Figs 1 and Fig. 2, the axis of the rotor assembly (33A) and the recoil propulsion unit (36A) seem to be parallel, but they seem perpendicular in Fig. 3. Therefore, the limitation of claim 12 from Fig. 3 do not align with the disclosure in the specification and considered new matter. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 8 of claim 8 and line 2 of claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It’s not clear if the claim is referring to a parallel or perpendicular relationship between the axis or not. The claim is considered indefinite. Appropriate correction required.
It is also not clear how the limitation of claim 12 obtained from Fig. 3 be possible in light of the disclosure in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The limitation of claim 12 do is not clear. The limitation obtained from Fig. 3 does not seem to be in line with what is disclosed in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. In Figs 1 and Fig. 2, the axis of the rotor assembly (33A) and the recoil propulsion unit (36A) seem to be parallel, but they seem perpendicular in Fig. 3. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
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) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NakaMats (US 2021/0372291) in view of Argemi Samso et al. (US 2022/0017242).
Regarding Claim 1, NakaMats discloses a propulsion stage for a launch rocket (Fig. 4), the propulsion stage comprising:
a rocket body (2, Fig. 4) having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 4);
at least one recoil propulsion unit (4, Fig. 4) acting substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis; and
a plurality of rotor assemblies (31, Fig. 4) respectively including a rotor axis oriented substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis, each rotor assembly mechanically driven by a rotor drive (32, Fig. 4).
NakaMats do not explicitly disclose, but Argemi Samso in the same field of endeavor teaches a launch rocket wherein a liquid propellant is supplied to the at least one recoil propulsion unit from at least one propellant tank (21, 22 , Fig. 1B and para. [0048]) through at least one fuel pump(para. [00 25], "propellant pump", para. [0109]). NakaMats also teaches at least one motor that mechanically drives the rotor drive (para. [0025], [0059], inherently the electric ducted fans have motors) and wherein the at least one motor of at least one of the rotor drives is configured to selectively drive at least one of the rotor assemblies mechanically (para. [0025], [0059]) and/or drive the at least one fuel pump of the at least one recoil propulsion unit mechanically.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recoil propulsion unit; and rotor drive of rotor assemblies disclosed in NakaMats with the liquid propellant supplied to the at least one recoil propulsion unit from at least one propellant tank through at least one fuel pump; and least one motor that mechanically drives the rotor drive, respectively, as taught in Argemi Samso with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows to controllably direct propellant to the recoil propulsion unit from propellant tanks; and use motors to electrically drive the rotor drive of the rotor assemblies.
Regarding Claim 8, modified NakaMats discloses a launch rocket (Fig. 4), comprising: the propulsion stage according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, modified NakaMats discloses a method for operating the launch rocket(Figs. 4-5) according to claim 8, wherein the propulsion stage (3, Fig. 5-6) is driven in an ascent phase by the at least one recoil propulsion unit (Fig. 5), wherein the propulsion stage plunges back to earth without drive in a fallback phase after the end of the ascent phase (3 landing to landing site, Fig. 6), and wherein the propulsion stage is transferred into a landing phase shortly before reaching the earth's surface, in which it heads for a landing position in controlled flight and lands in a controlled manner (Fig. 6), wherein at least some of the motors (Argemi Samso, para. [0059] “…The electric ducted fans may be powered by one or more batteries…”, there exists a device to convert the electrical energy into mechanical energy. i.e. a motor) are coupled to a respectively assigned fuel pump(Argemi Samso, para. [00 25], "propellant pump") in the ascent phase, and at least some of the motors are coupled to a respective associated rotor assembly in the landing phase and drive the associated rotor assembly in a controlled manner (NakaMats, Fig. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 10, modified NakaMats discloses a method for operating the launch rocket (Figs. 4-6) wherein at least some of the motors configured as electric motors are coupled to a respectively assigned rotor assembly in the fallback phase(Fig. 6). NakaMats is silent, but Argemi Samso further teaches a method for operating the launch rocket wherein motors are configured as electric motors are coupled to a respectively assigned rotor assembly in the fallback phase (10 falling back in the fall back stage after 30 separation, Fig. 2) and are operated in a generator mode, the respectively assigned rotor assembly driving the assigned motor acting as a generator by autorotation of its rotors and wherein the electrical energy generated thereby is fed back into a respectively associated electric current storage device and stored there (para. [0076], i.e. ‘generator mode’ by converting mechanical energy into electrical energy).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the motors launch rocket operation disclosed in the modified NakaMats with the generator mode, as taught in Argemi Samso with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows to generate electricity by converting the energy of the autorotation.
Claim(s) 2-6, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified NakaMats (US 2021/0372291) in view of Hoffjann et al. (US 2009/0293494).
Regarding Claims 2, modified NakaMats discloses a propulsion stage for a launch rocket with at least one rotor assembly and at least one fuel pump (see claim 1). NakaMats is silent, but Hoffjann teaches an aircraft propulsion wherein a first switchable clutch (11, Fig. 3) configured to couple to a drive shaft of the at least one rotor assembly (Fig. 3) and a motor (3, fig. 3) and a second switchable clutch (10, Fig. 3) configured to couple to a drive shaft of the at an engine (2, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one motor disclosed in modified NakaMats with the first and second switchable clutches as taught in Hoffjann with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows to switchably operate the rotor assembly and the fuel pump of NakaMats with a single motor; as a single propeller is switchably operated either by the engine or a motor as shown in Fig. 3 of Hoffjann.
Regarding Claims 3, modified NakaMats discloses a propulsion stage for a launch rocket wherein the first switchable clutch (11, Fig. 3) and the second switchable clutch (10, Fig. 3) are configured to cooperate with the at least one motor and are switchable alternatively, so that either the first switchable clutch or the second switchable clutch is engaged (i.e. the modified motor of NakaMats in claim 2 would have the arrangement of claim 3) .
Regarding Claim 4, modified NakaMats discloses a propulsion stage for a launch rocket wherein the at least one motor (modified motor of claim 2, Fig. 3) includes an output shaft (shaft, Fig. 3)which is connected or connectable at its first end to the first switchable clutch (11, Fig. 3) and is connected or connectable at its second end to the second switchable clutch ((Hoffjann, 10, Fig. 3) ((i.e. the modified motor of NakaMats in claim 2 would have the arrangement of claim 4).
Regarding Claim 5, modified NakaMats discloses a propulsion stage for a launch rocket wherein the at least one motor is an electric motor (para. [0059] “…The electric ducted fans may be powered by one or more batteries…”, there exists a device to convert the electrical energy into mechanical energy. i.e. a motor)). Modified NakaMats, but Argemi Samso teaches at least one current storage device(para. [0059]-[0060]) is provided for storing electrical energy and for supplying the at least one motor with the electrical energy.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the propulsion stage in modified NakaMats with the least one current storage device as taught in Argemi Samso with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows to store electric power for future usage for running the motor and other equipment on the propulsion stage.
Regarding Claim 6, modified NakaMats discloses a propulsion stage for a launch rocket wherein the at least one motor (Argemi Samso, para. [0059] “…The electric ducted fans may be powered by one or more batteries…”, there exists a device to convert the electrical energy into mechanical energy. i.e. a motor)) coupled to the at least one of the rotor drives and driven by the at least one rotor assembly, is operable in a generator mode in which electrical energy is generated, and wherein the at least one motor is configured to return generated electrical energy to the at least one current storage device (Argemi Samso, para. [0076], i.e. ‘generator mode’ by converting mechanical energy into electrical energy).
Regarding Claim 11, modified NakaMats discloses a propulsion stage for a launch rocket with at least one rotor assembly and at least one fuel pump (see claim 1). NakaMats is silent, but Hoffjann teaches an aircraft propulsion wherein a first switchable clutch (11, Fig. 3) configured to couple to a drive shaft of the at least one rotor assembly (Fig. 3) and a motor (3, fig. 3) and a second switchable clutch (10, Fig. 3) configured to couple to a drive shaft of the at an engine (2, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one motor disclosed in modified NakaMats with the first and second switchable clutches as taught in Hoffjann with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows to switchably operate the rotor assembly and the fuel pump of NakaMats with a single motor; as a single propeller is switchably operated either by the engine or a motor as shown in Fig. 3 of Hoffjann. The new modified motor with the first and second switchable clutches would configure the at least one motor of at least one of the rotor drives (i.e. motor) to drive at least one of the rotor assemblies mechanically when the at least one motor of the at least one of the rotor drives is decoupled from the at least one fuel pump of the at least one recoil propulsion unit mechanically (i.e. switchable/in alternative, Hoffjann para. [0048]; “… a specific first drive energy and/or second drive energy may be provided to the drive unit 1 alternately via the second and third clutch apparatuses 10, 11”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified NakaMats discloses the claimed invention except axes of the rotor assemblies are oriented substantially perpendicular to an axis of the at least one fuel pump. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make axes of the rotor assemblies orient substantially perpendicular to an axis of the at least one fuel pump, since applicant has not disclosed that orienting axes of the rotor assemblies substantially perpendicular to an axis of the at least one fuel pump solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with orientation of the axes of the rotor assemblies inn relation to the axis of the at least one fuel pump.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified NakaMats (US 2021/0372291) in further view of Spirov et al. (US 2006/0144994).
Regarding Claim 7, modified NakaMats discloses a propulsion stage with controllable individual fans (Argemi Samso, para. [0052], [0059], [0078]). modified NakaMats is silent, Spirov teaches a power of the at least one motor is controllable or regulatable via a speed control (Fig. 5, para. [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one motor in the propulsion stage disclosed in modified NakaMats with the motor speed control as taught in Spirov with a reasonable expectation of success when driving the at least one of the rotor assemblies and when driving the fuel pump because it allows optimal operation under varying loads, leading to significant energy savings and reduced wear and tear.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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
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 ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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 Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642