DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 33’, 33’A, and 33’B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rail array forming a ring around the longitudinal axis must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 should include a line indentation where each new step is recited; 37 CFR 1.75(i).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the dominant directional component case, does not reasonably provide enablement for the right-angle plane case. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 2 recites the device displaceable in a direction at an angle between 90° and 60°/75° relative the longitudinal axis. This would render a dominant directional component in the radial direction, per claim 1. However, claim 2 does not specify that it is only provided for the dominant component case, and the claim must be enabled for each case provided by claim 1. Claim 1 also recites the option of displacement in a plane oriented at a right angle relative to the longitudinal axis. Displacement at an angle between 90° and 60°/75° (e.g. 80°) would not provide for displacement at a right angle (i.e. 90°). Accordingly, it would require undue experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the device to have a right-angle displacement and an angled displacement simultaneously.
Likewise, claim 8 recites the rail array forming a ring around the longitudinal axis. This would indicate a revolving mass, rather than a radially displaced mass, and would contract the radial requirement of the dominant component of the second case.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Argemi Samso et al. (US 2022/0017242).
Argemi Samso discloses a method for controlling a propulsion stage comprising:
modifying a position of the center of mass by displacing at least one current storage device to adjust flight attitude ([0026]).
Note: the claim does not adequately “breathe life” into the preamble recitation of the “stage according to claim 1”, as the method step is substantially generic to CG displacement.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argemi Samso et al. (‘242) in view of Kiesewetter (EP 3 594 113).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9 (and 10 in the alternative):
Argemi Samso discloses a launch rocket propulsion stage comprising:
a rocket body (10);
at least one recoil propulsion unit (11) substantially parallel the longitudinal axis (Fig 3);
a plurality of rotor assemblies (18), each drivable by an electric rotor drive ([0052]) including at least one electric motor (inherent to operate the electric fans) electrically connect toe at least one current storage device ([0059]).
Argemi Samso discloses a rotor-propelled craft with a displaceable storage device for stability and orientation control ([0026]), but does not disclose displacement in a plane oriented at a right angle to the longitudinal.
Kiesewetter teaches a rotor-propelled craft comprising a battery arrangement (generally 20, etc.) that is displaceable at a right angle (transversely) to the longitudinal (vertical) (as seen in Figs 2A-B and 9), to provide proper balance control for stability ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Argemi Samso to use a right-angled displacement as taught by Kiesewetter as this is a predictable manner for providing proper balance control for stability of the craft.
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
The claim refers to an alternative embodiment to that provided, and is anticipated by Argemi Samso as optional.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Argemi Samso as modified renders a radial rail array (Kiesewetter, 52) and drive and control devices (necessary for operation, but also provided by Kiesewetter, 100 and implied by 210, respectively).
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 5 is relied upon.
Argemi Samso discloses the control device as part of a flight attitude control device of the stage/rocket (as it permits attitude control, [0026], it is considered a component thereof).
Regarding clam 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 3 is relied upon.
Argemi Samso discloses a radial displacement arrangement, but does not disclose a ring rail.
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Argemi Samso to use a ring rail for the predictable advantage of increasing the central interior space for fuel tanks, etc., and since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619