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 document is responsive to applicant’s amendments filed 3/2/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20190002169, hereinafter 169.
Regarding claim 1, 169 discloses:
A stage of a rocket, comprising: a body (see fig 2), and at least 3 foldable propulsion units spaced evenly around a circumference of the body (see fig 2), wherein each propulsion unit comprises: a folding beam; at least one motor mounted to the folding beam, and at least one propeller mounted to the at least one motor, and configured to generate a thrust to propel the rocket (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 13, 169 discloses:
A rocket system, comprising: a payload (see at least Background); a first stage comprising: a body; and at least 3 foldable propulsion units evenly spaced around a circumference of the body (see fig 2), and a second stage (see at least Background).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2, 4, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 20190002169, hereinafter 169.
Regarding claim 2, 169 discloses:
The rocket stage of claim 1 further comprising a plurality of foldable airbrakes spaced around a circumference of the body (3), wherein each airbrake comprises at least one airbrake actuator (inherent), configured to actuate the plurality of foldable airbrakes.
Although folding covers 3 are not explicitly disclosed as airbrakes controlled by actuators, the covers inherently function as airbrakes and necessarily would require actuators to achieve the step of “outer drone cover of the rocket booster is opened”. If one does not consider the above to be inherent, then one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have taken the disclosure as a whole to make obvious controlling the covers that deploy perpendicularly from the rocket body with actuators to achieve the disclosed function and action.
Regarding claim 4, 169 discloses:
The rocket stage of claim 1, wherein each foldable propulsion unit further comprises at least one beam actuator, configured to unfold the folding beam (actuators are inherent to the disclosed function of “the folded arm of the drone is unfolded”).
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to achieve the disclosed function via actuators.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 4.
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 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 of this title, 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 2, 3, 5-11, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20190002169, hereinafter 169 in view of Nawojczyk (US PG Pub 2021/0047058).
Regarding claim 2, 169 discloses the device of claim 1 and discloses an airbrake device (see fig 2, ref 3), but does not specifically disclose: plurality of foldable airbrakes spaced around a circumference of the body, wherein each airbrake comprises at least one airbrake actuator, configured to actuate the plurality of foldable airbrakes.
Nawojczyk teaches a similar device having a plurality of foldable airbrakes spaced around a circumference of the body, wherein each airbrake comprises at least one airbrake actuator, configured to actuate the plurality of foldable airbrakes (see at least paragraphs 0009 and 0348). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the specific airbrake system taught by Nawojczyk with the rocket of 169 yielding the predictable result of providing reusable braking with less fuel burn than firing active propulsion (see paragraph 0348).
Regarding claim 3, utilizing an altitude sensor to deploy the airbrake device of Nawojczyk is considered inherent to the operation of the airbrakes as described by Nawojczyk for the purpose of a controlled descent.
Regarding claim 5, 169 as modified discloses:
The rocket stage of claim 3, further comprising at least one second sensor configured to sense at least one flight characteristic of the rocket (see GPS of 169).
Regarding claim 6, in order for the device of 169 to operate as intended in figure 2 and the disclosure and/or as described by Nawojczyk, the actuator would necessarily be configured to unfold the folding beam as claimed and such an operation is obvious if not inherent.
Regarding claim 7, 169 as modified discloses:
The rocket stage of claim 5, wherein the at least one second sensor is selected from: an altimeter (a GPS senses altitude), a pressure sensor, an accelerometer, a gyroscope,and a magnetometer.
Regarding claim 8, 169 discloses the function of moving the vehicle to arrive at a destination via the arms and make obvious that the controller is configured to control the folding and unfolding of each foldable propulsion unit based on measurements received from the second sensor or the first sensor for the purpose of the vehicle functioning as described.
Regarding claim 9, 169 discloses the function of moving the vehicle to arrive at a destination via the arms and make obvious that the controller is configured to control the plurality of foldable propulsion units for the purpose of the vehicle functioning as described.
Regarding claim 10, 169 discloses the function of moving the vehicle to arrive at a destination via the arms and make obvious that the controller is configured to control the plurality of foldable propulsion units to change at least one of pitch, roll, and yaw for the purpose of the vehicle functioning as described.
Regarding claim 11, 169 discloses the device of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose: wherein each foldable propulsion unit further comprises at least one servo, and the controller is configured to control the at least one servo to change a pitch of the at least one propeller. The examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a variable pitch propeller (and associated servo) instead of a fixed pitch propeller for the purpose of controlling thrust via pitch instead of speed. Both means of thrust control are common and well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art of aerospace.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, see the rejections of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 10.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20190002169, hereinafter 169 in view of Argemi Samso et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0017242).
Regarding claim 12, 169 discloses the rocket of claim 1, but does not disclose:
further comprising a plurality of stabilizer fins, spaced around a circumference of the body.
Samso teaches a similar device having control surfaces for stability (see paragraph 0074). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the control surfaces of Samso with the rocket of 169 for the purpose of providing stability and control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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 is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
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 G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm EST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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 G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644