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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 and 12 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 7,431,242).
Regarding claim 1, Brown et al. discloses an atmospheric re-entry vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising: a body defining a first end of the vehicle (aft); and a heat shield at a second end (fore) of the vehicle opposite the first end, the heat shield including a heat shield outer surface that is configured to be exposed to a high enthalpy flow during atmospheric re-entry; wherein a centerline of the heat shield is offset relative to a centerline of the body (the fore-body heatshield of Brown et al. is offset relative to a centerline of the body, Fig. 1); and wherein at least a portion of the heat shield outer surface (the outer edge of the base of the fore-body) is at least substantially axisymmetric relative to the centerline of the heat shield.
Regarding claim 2, Brown et al. discloses that the body includes a body outer surface that is at least substantially axisymmetric relative to the centerline of the body (Figs. 1, 6c).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Brown et al. discloses that the body includes a body outer surface; wherein the centerline of the body is perpendicular to a tangent of the body outer surface at the first end of the vehicle; and wherein the centerline of the heat shield is perpendicular to a tangent of the heat shield outer surface at the second end of the vehicle (Brown et al. teaches this feature since the fore-body heat shield is asymmetrically arranged relative to the centerline of the body).
Regarding claim 4, Brown et al. discloses that the centerline of the heat shield is offset relative to the centerline of the body by an offset angle within a range of 1 degree to 10 degrees (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Brown et al. inherently teaches that the heat shield outer surface is configured such that net aerodynamic forces acting on the heat shield outer surface during atmospheric re-entry are at an angle relative to the centerline of the body.
Regarding claim 6, Brown et al. discloses that the heat shield outer surface is configured such that net aerodynamic forces acting on the heat shield outer surface generate lift during atmospheric re-entry at a zero angle of attack (Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 12 – 16, the discussion of claims above is relied upon.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. in view of Buehler et al. (US 2006/0145020).
Regarding claim 7, Brown et al. fails to teach that the heat shield is actively cooled. However, Buehler et al. discloses a reentry vehicle with a heat shield that is actively cooled through pores (330) by injecting a cool layer of gas (320). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include the active cooling taught by Beuhler et al. in the reentry vehicle of Brown et al. in order to prevent overheating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While Applicant has annotated Fig. 1 of Brown with an arbitrary line passing through XL to indicate the “alleged” centerlines of the body and the heat shield, Brown explicitly discloses at col. 3, lines 37 – 38 that the shape is not generally rotationally symmetric about the axis Lx. The equations (2-1 and 2-2) in col. 3, lines 51 – 57 illustrate that the forebody generating ellipses C5 and C6 have geometric centers Z5 and Z6 that are explicitly offset from the longitudinal body axis Lx (z = 0). Therefore, Examiner maintains that Brown inherently and explicitly discloses a centerline of the forebody/headshield being offset relative to a centerline of the body.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 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, 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.
/VALENTINA XAVIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights