DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-24 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 12-15, and 21-23 are amended. Claims 3, 17, 19, and 20 are original. Claims 5, 16, 18, and 24 are as previously presented. Claims 25-42 are cancelled.
This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 9/18/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/9/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 9/18/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 10 under the heading “Claim Objections”), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim interpretation under 112(f) (presented on p. 10-13 under the heading “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112”) it is noted that interpretation under 112(f) is merely a matter of claim interpretation and not a rejection. The arguments and amendments are acknowledged and partially persuasive. Particularly, the arguments regarding the computer readable media/code are persuasive as the medium or code establishes what the parts of the system are. However, no reasoned arguments or amendments have been provided regarding the terms “propulsion element” in Claim 1 or “elevation control system” and “propulsion system” in Claims 5 and 19. Therefore, these terms continue to invoke 112(f).
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 13, ln. 4 – p. 16, ln. 2), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive. For the rejection of Claim 1 based on the language “to decreasing course or speed differences relative to a range,” the amendments have changed “decreasing” to “decrease” however the issue remains that it is not clear whether this is referring to the decreasing of the course difference or the speed difference which was previously recited in the claim, or is referring to some other course or speed differences. No reasoned arguments have been provided regarding this language. For all other previous rejections under 112, the arguments and amendments are persuasive and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 16 under the heading “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103”), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive. The arguments (p. 18) state that the rejection does not consider the structural limitations regarding the computer readable media and code. While these elements are newly added to the claim and were not explicitly mapped before, the reference of US2019/0033863A1 (Candido et al.) is determined to read on the limitations, based on the navigation system and balloon system functions being implemented as software running on computer (see e.g. [0005, 0035], Claim 1, Claim 20). The arguments (p. 18) further state that the motivation to combine Candido et al. and US2019/0086922A1 (Vichik et al.) is not proper because Candido et al. already teaches a comprehensive balloon control system for course and speed control through wind patterns, such that the features of Vichik et al. are not needed. The office respectfully disagrees. Although Candido et al. teaches the ability for altitude control, Vichik et al. teaches a specific implementation for altitude control including a propulsion element and elevation control system such as ballonets (see e.g. Vichik et al., Figure 1). The office maintains that this arrangement provides improved control compared to the recitation of only altitude control in Candido et al., and submits that the ability for lateral propulsion and drift correction would be useful not only with respect to the navigation via airstream, but also in local maneuvers such as landing or docking or position holding. The office maintains that one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would therefore be motivated to combine the reference to implement the goals of Candido et al. with more effectiveness and also to add further functionality to a balloon system. The arguments (p. 18-19) further state that the analysis in the prior rejection does not recognize a specific integrated approach. It is not clear how to respond to these arguments, as the arguments do not point out any particular limitation that is not taught or rendered obvious. The office maintains that the navigation system and onboard system of Candido et al. control elevation to decrease the course and speed difference, and Vichik et al. is relied upon only for a specific propulsion arrangement, which, which combined with the system of Candido et al. renders the claims obvious. Therefore, the rejections are maintained based on the same prior art and the mapping has been updated based on the amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-13, 15, 16, and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “implemention” should instead read “implementation”
In Claim 1, in the phrase propulsion element is configured “to use provide,” the quoted text should instead read “to provide”
In Claim 2, “wherein the atmospheric balloon system” should be removed.
In Claims 2 and 16, “the balloon kinematic monitor” should instead read” the balloon kinematic computer readable code” for consistency with Claim 1.
In Claim 6, “instructions is configured” and “instructions configured” should both instead read “instructions are configured”
In Claims 7, 9-12, and 21-23 “is configured” should instead read “are configured”
In Claim 7, “a difference the actual altitude” should instead read “a difference between an actual altitude”
In Claim 7, the second recitation of “a target speed” should instead read “the target speed”
In Claim 8, “instruction” should instead read “instructions” for consistency with Claim 1.
In Clam 10, “redable” should instead read “readable”
In Claims 10, 12, 21, and 23, “instructions” should instead read “code” for consistency with Claim 1 or Claim 14.
Claim 11 should be labeled “Currently Amended” as it is amended and not original.
In Claim 13, “instruction is configured” should instead read “instructions are configured”
In Claim 15, “instructions is configured” should instead read “instructions are configured”
In Claim 22, “istructions” should instead read “instructions”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a propulsion element” configured to cause the propulsion element to generate propulsion values, in Claim 1,
(b) "an elevation control system" in Claims 5 and 19,
(c) "a propulsion system" in Claims 5 and 19.
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “element” or “system” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) specification ¶0028 states that the propulsion element may be open or closed (ducted) fans, propellers, jets, or mass discharge nozzles.
(b) specification ¶0005, 0026 states that the elevation control system may be ballonets, ballast, or propulsion systems (fans, propellers, jets, discharge nozzles, or the like per ¶0028),
(c) specification ¶0028 states that the propulsion system may be fans, propellers, jets, discharge nozzles, or the like.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 and 21 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase select one or more propulsion values for implemention by the propulsion element “to decrease course or speed differences relative to a range” renders the claim indefinite. The claim previously recites a speed range, and a course range and selecting a target altitude to decrease the speed range or course range. The phrase “relative to a range” would appear to refer to the same speed range and/or course range however it is not clear based on the recitation “a range” whether this is actually the previously recited speed range and course range, or could be some different range. If the phrase is referring to some different range and different differences it is unclear what the differences are between. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as referring to the speed range and course range.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “while the propulsion selection computer readable instruction decreases one or more of the difference between the actual course and the target course or a difference between the actual and a target speed” renders the claim indefinite. There is no antecedent basis for “the difference” or “the actual course” or “the target course” or the actual speed. It is unclear whether these terms are intended to refer to the decreasing of the course difference and the speed difference from Claim 1 (which are relative to a course and speed range as opposed to a single target course or speed), or alternatively whether these are some new difference and targets and actual values. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as referring to the course difference and speed difference from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the phrase “the difference between the actual course and the target course or the difference between the actual speed and the target speed” renders the claim indefinite. There is no antecedent basis for “the difference” or “the actual course” or “the target course” or “the actual speed” or “the target speed.” It is unclear whether these terms are intended to refer to the course difference and the speed difference from Claim 1 (which are relative to a course and speed range as opposed to a single target course or speed), or alternatively whether these are some new difference and targets and actual values. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as referring to the course difference and speed difference from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitation “the objective input one or more indexed times…” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation appears to be missing a word, and it is not clear whether the limitation is intended to say the objective input data includes the one or more indexed times, or is based on the one or more indexed times, or is associated with the one or more indexed times, or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as stating that the objective input data includes one or more indexed times.
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 21 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0033863A1 (Candido et al.) in view of Publication US2019/0086922A1 (Vichik et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Candido et al. discloses a control system for an atmospheric balloon system comprising:
a navigation parameter system (see [0034] computing device 150) having a computer readable media coded with instructions (see [0035] computing device having application 280 which are instructions executed to perform steps/functions) that are configured to generate parameter ranges for balloon operation (see [0042-0043, 0052, 0044, 0064] generating various altitudes, speed ranges, and course ranges for control), the navigation parameter system includes:
a meteorological characteristic input including airstream vectors with associated coordinates (see Figure 3A, [0041], step S306, receiving wind vectors at various altitudes);
a balloon kinematic computer readable code (see [0035, 0038] computing device 150 receiving data) operatively associated with a sensor and configured to monitor balloon kinematics (see Figure 3A, [0038], S302 receiving current location/altitude e.g. from a GPS sensor);
wherein the navigation parameter system is configured to receive an objective input data (see [0040] computing device 150 receiving data regarding objective) which includes one or more of a target balloon position (see [0040] S304 a destination) or the target balloon position and one or more intervening waypoints (see [0045] one or more waypoints may be used); and
a parameter range generator computer readable instructions (see [0035, 0042-0043] computing device 150 determining) that are configured to generate an altitude search range (see [0042-0043] S308-S312, evaluating the various altitudes as part of the heading selection (i.e. the various altitudes define the search range)), a speed range (see [0052] S334 speeds less than a threshold defining a particular range), and a course range (see [0044] S312 determine an optimal heading which [0064] can be a cone/range of courses) for the atmospheric balloon system based on the air stream vectors (see Figures 3A-3D, based on S306), the balloon kinematics (see Figures 3A-3D, based on S302), and one or more of the target balloon position or the target balloon position with one or more intervening waypoints (see Figures 3A-3D, based on S304); and,
an onboard balloon control computer system, associated with the atmospheric balloon system (see Figure 1, [0033] controller 120), wherein the onboard balloon control computer system is in communication with the navigation parameter system (see [0034] controller 120 and computing device 150 may be a unified device, i.e. the controller 120 is in communication with the computing device 150 and functions are performed by both systems), the onboard balloon control computer system includes:
a comparator computer readable instructions (see [0035, 0051] computing device 150 determining) configured to determine a course difference of a balloon course of the atmospheric balloon system relative to the course range (see [0051] S330 difference between the present course and desired path (which [0064] may be the range)) and a speed difference of a balloon speed of the atmospheric balloon system relative to the speed range (see [0052] S334 speed less than threshold (same as the range) or greater (difference relative to the range));
an altitude selection computer readable instructions (see [0035 0054, 0059] computing device 150 determining altitude) configured to select a target altitude within the altitude search range having an air stream that decreases one or more of the course difference (see Figures 3B, 3C, [0051] S330 when vehicle is not moving toward target point (the course from S312), determining a new altitude in S350-S356 (of the various altitudes) to decrease course difference) or the speed difference (see Figures 3B, 3D, [0059-0060] when speed is greater than a threshold (different from the range) determining new altitude in S370-S376 (of the various altitudes) for slower speed (decreased difference));
a propulsion selection computer readable instructions (see [0035, 0057, 0062] computing device 150 and/or controller 120 [0033] a computing device or logic circuit) configured to effect propulsion to decrease course or speed differences relative to a range (see Figures 3B, 3C, 3D, [0057, 0062], adjusting of the altitude (requiring some force/propulsion), with the result of decreasing the course difference or speed difference as mapped above with respect to the altitude selection module); and
a balloon control computer readable instructions (see [0035, 0057, 0062] computing device 150 and/or controller 120 [0033] a computing device or logic circuit) configured to control one or more of a balloon altitude (see [0057, 0062] adjusting altitude) or balloon propulsion based on one or more of the target altitude (see [0057, 0062] to the "new altitude"), course difference (see Figures 3B, 3C, altitude control in S356 based on the course difference in S330) or speed difference (see Figures 3B, 3D, altitude control in S376 based on speed difference in S334).
Candido et al. does not explicitly recite:
a propulsion element capable of moving the balloon system in one of a lateral direction and a longitudinal direction;
a propulsion selection computer readable instructions in communication with the propulsion element configured to select one or more propulsion values for implemention by the propulsion element to decrease course or speed differences relative to a range, and
wherein the propulsion element is configured to use provide supplemental propulsion force to better position the atmospheric balloon system within a favorable airstream.
However, Vichik et al. teaches a technique to control altitude in an aerial vehicle (see [0028], and Claim 1), including:
a propulsion element (see [0034] propeller 118) capable of moving the balloon system in one of a lateral direction (see [0034] which can provide propulsion in a lateral direction and/or vertical direction) and a longitudinal direction;
a propulsion selection computer readable instructions (see [0034] propulsion controller 120 and/or computing devices 104 [0066] instructions in memory) in communication with the propulsion element (see [0034] in communication with propeller 118) configured to select one or more propulsion values for implemention by the propulsion element (see [0034] the propulsion controller 120 controls the propeller 118 to provide propulsion, using commands), and
wherein the propulsion element is configured to use provide supplemental propulsion force (see Figure 1, [0031], propeller supplementing ballonets ) to better position the atmospheric balloon system vertically (see [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the balloon system and control of vertical propulsion of Candido et al. to include a propulsion control system for supplemental propulsion as taught by Vichik et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the control authority and maneuverability of the balloon and adding functionality such as the ability to correct for drift (see Vichik et al., [0028]).
Regarding Claim 2, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the atmospheric balloon system wherein the sensor is a position sensor (see [0038] GPS), and the onboard balloon control computer system is configured to communicate the balloon position to the balloon kinematic monitor (see [0033] GPS sensor coupled to controller 120 and [0038] current location/altitude received by computing device 150).
Regarding Claim 3, Candido et al. further discloses the computing device 150 may be remote relative to the balloon (see Figure 1, [0034] computing device 150 can be remote from the aerial vehicle).
Candido et al. does not explicitly recite the control system of claim 1, wherein the navigation parameter system is remote relative to the atmospheric balloon system.
Examiner's note: That is, Candido et al. does not explicitly recite an embodiment wherein the navigation parameter system and its specified functions (as recited in Claim 1) are remote from the balloon, while the onboard balloon control system and its specified functions are performed onboard.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computing device and controller of Candido et al. to divide the tasks in any manner, including the manner claimed. Candido et al. teaches that functions can be shared between computing device 150 and controller 120 (see Candido et al. [0034]). The specific claimed distribution of functions would have been obvious since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e. combinations of which functions are performed by which hardware) to the recognized need (computing for control) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of balancing the benefits and costs of communication time and power with computing time and power consumption requirements.
Regarding Claim 4, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 1 wherein the onboard balloon control computer system is included with the atmospheric balloon system (see Figure 1, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 5, Candido et al. does not explicitly recite the control system of claim 4, wherein the atmospheric balloon system includes an elevation control system and a propulsion system.
However, Vichik et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the atmospheric balloon system includes an elevation control system (see [0031], ballonets and valves/pumps for air-gas altitude control system / buoyancy mechanism or alternatively [0034, 0044] propeller and controller used for vertical propulsion) and a propulsion system (see [0034], propeller/arm for lateral and/or vertical propulsion).
The motivation to combine Candido et al. and Vichik et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 5, wherein the altitude selection computer readable instructions is configured to be assigned a first control priority (see Figures 3C, 3D, selection of a new altitude in S350 or S370 occurring first (a first priority)) and the propulsion selection computer readable instructions configured to be assigned a second control priority (see Figures 3C, 3D, propulsion selection module function in S356 or S376 occurrent second (second priority relative to altitude selection)).
Regarding Claim 7, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 6, wherein the propulsion selection computer readable instructions is configured to select one or more of a target course (see [0057, 0062], S356, S376, adjusting altitude, by increase or decrease i.e. target course of upward or downward direction of movement) or a target speed to decrease a difference between the actual speed and a target speed or a difference the actual altitude and the target altitude (see [0057] to match the “new altitude”).
Regarding Claim 8, Candido et al. further discloses wherein the altitude selection computer readable instruction selects an altitude to minimize energy consumption (see [0054] minimizing energy by selecting a smaller altitude adjustment or a lower altitude) while the propulsion selection computer readable instruction decreases one or more of the difference between the actual course and the target course or a difference between the actual and a target speed (see Figures 3B-3D, in order to decrease difference of course or speed based on S330 or S334).
Candido et al. does not explicitly recite the control system of claim 5 wherein the altitude selection computer readable instruction selects a combination of propulsion and elevation control maneuvers to minimize energy consumption of the elevation control system and propulsion system.
However, Vichik et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the altitude selection computer readable instruction selects a combination of propulsion and elevation control maneuvers (see Claim 1, causing both the altitude controller and causing lateral propulsion controller to implement the altitude command) to minimize energy consumption of the elevation control system and propulsion system (see [0028], combination of vertical and lateral propulsion to optimize amount of power consumption).
The motivation to combine Candido et al. and Vichik et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the propulsion selection computer readable instructions is configured to decrease one or more of the course difference between the actual course and the target course or the difference between the actual speed and the target speed (see Figures 3B-3D, the adjusting of altitude at S356 or S376 to decrease course or speed difference from S330 or S334) based on the selected target altitude (see Figures 3C, 3D, the adjusted altitude based on the selected new altitude at S350 or S370) and air stream vectors at the selected target altitude (see Figure 3A, [0041] based on the wind vectors at all of the various altitudes (including the selected one)).
Regarding Claim 10, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the balloon kinematic computer redable instructions is configured to monitor the balloon position and time (see [0038] receiving of balloon position at S302 using GPS (which requires a monitoring of time signals)); and
the objective input includes one or more indexed times associated with the target balloon position or one or more intervening waypoints (see [0043] destination associated with a cartogram of times), wherein the one or more indexed times associated with the target balloon position or one or more intervening waypoints include one or more times of arrival (see [0043] map of predicted travel times from the current location to the destination, i.e. intermediate times of arrival).
Regarding Claim 11, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 10, wherein the altitude selection computer readable instructions is configured to select the target altitude within the altitude search range for the atmospheric balloon system at the balloon position (see Figure 3A, 3C, 3D, target altitude selected at S350 or S370 at the present balloon position from S302), the target balloon position or one or more intervening waypoints at the one or more indexed times (see [0041, 0043] the target altitude being a specific altitude at which prevailing winds are present and associated with an indexed time), the target altitudes each having associated air streams at the indexed times (see [0041, 0043], cartogram based on prevailing wind headings at various altitudes) that decrease one or more of the course difference, the speed difference (see Figures 3B-3D, in order to decrease difference of course or speed based on S330 or S334), or energy consumption of the atmospheric balloon system.
Regarding Claim 12, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the balloon kinematic computer readable instructions is configured to monitor one or more of balloon position (see [0038] S302 current location and altitude), course (see [0051] S330 monitoring direction the balloon is moving) or speed (see [0052] S332 current speed).
Regarding Claim 13, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the course range or the speed range includes a plurality of course values (see [0064] the optimal heading being a cone/range of courses) and speed values (see [0052] the range of all speeds less than the threshold), respectively; and
the propulsion selection computer readable instruction is configured to select propulsion values (see [0057, 0062] S356 or S376 adjusting altitude – in view of the combination with Vichik et al. per the rejection of Claim 1) that decrease one or more of the course difference or the speed difference relative to one or more of the course values or speed values within the respective course range or speed range (see Figures 3B-3D, in order to decrease difference of course from the course range or speed from the speed range based on S330 or S334).
Regarding Claim 14, Candido et al. discloses a control system for an atmospheric balloon system (see [0032], Figure 1) comprising:
a navigation parameter system (see [0034] computing device 150) having a computer readable media coded with instructions (see [0035] computing device having application 280 which are instructions executed to perform steps/functions) that are configured to generate one or more parameter ranges for balloon operation (see [0042-0043, 0052, 0044, 0064] generating various altitudes, speed ranges, and course ranges for control), the navigation parameter system includes:
a meteorological characteristic input including airstream vectors with associated coordinates (see Figure 3A, [0041], step S306, receiving wind vectors at various altitudes);
a balloon kinematic computer readable code (see [0035, 0038] computing device 150 receiving data) operatively associated with a sensor and configured to monitor balloon kinematics (see Figure 3A, [0038], S302 receiving current location/altitude e.g. from a GPS sensor);
wherein the navigation parameter system is configured to receive an objective input data (see [0040] computing device 150 receiving data regarding objective) including one or more of a target balloon position (see [0040] S304 a destination) or the target balloon position and one or more intervening waypoints (see [0045] one or more waypoints may be used); and
a parameter range generator computer readable instructions (see [0035, 0042-0043] computing device 150 determining) that are configured to generate an altitude search range for the atmospheric balloon system (see [0042-0043] S308-S312, evaluating the various altitudes as part of the heading selection (i.e. the various altitudes define the search range)) based on the air stream vectors (see Figures 3A-3D, based on S306), balloon kinematics (see Figures 3A-3D, based on S302), and one or more of the target balloon position or the target balloon position with one or more intervening waypoints (see Figures 3A-3D, based on S304); and
an onboard balloon control computer system associated with the atmospheric balloon system (see Figure 1, [0033] controller 120), wherein the onboard balloon control computer system is in communication with the navigation parameter system (see [0034] controller 120 and computing device 150 may be a unified device, i.e. the controller 120 is in communication with the computing device 150 and functions are performed by both systems), the onboard balloon control computer system includes:
a comparator computer readable instructions (see [0035, 0051] computing device 150 determining) configured to determine a course difference of a measured course of the atmospheric balloon system relative to a specified course to the target balloon position or intervening waypoints (see [0051] S330 difference between the present course and desired path (which [0064] may be the range));
an altitude selection computer readable instructions (see [0035 0054, 0059] computing device 150 determining altitude) configured to select a target altitude within the altitude search range having an air stream vector that decreases the course difference (see Figures 3B, 3C, [0051] S330 when vehicle is not moving toward target point (the course from S312), determining a new altitude in S350-S356 (of the various altitudes) to decrease course difference);
a propulsion selection computer readable instructions (see [0035, 0057, 0062] computing device 150 and/or controller 120 [0033] a computing device or logic circuit) configured effect propulsion that decreases the course difference (see Figures 3B, 3C, 3D, [0057, 0062], adjusting of the altitude (requiring some force/propulsion), with the result of decreasing the course difference or speed difference as mapped above with respect to the altitude selection module); and
a balloon control computer readable instructions (see [0035, 0057, 0062] computing device 150 and/or controller 120 [0033] a computing device or logic circuit) configured to control one or more of balloon altitude (see [0057, 0062] adjusting altitude) or balloon propulsion in one of a lateral direction, a longitudinal direction and a rotational direction based on one or more of the target altitude or course difference (see Figures 3B, 3C, 3D, [0057, 0062], adjusting of the altitude, with the result of decreasing the course difference or speed difference as mapped above with respect to the altitude selection module that decreases the course difference).
Candido et al. does not explicitly recite:
a propulsion selection computer readable instructions configured to select a propulsion value that decreases the course difference.
However, Vichik et al. teaches a technique to control altitude in an aerial vehicle (see [0028], and Claim 1), including:
a propulsion selection module (see [0034] propulsion controller 120 and/or computing devices 104) configured to select a propulsion value (see [0034] generation of a propulsion command [0044] e.g. amount/direction of propulsion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the balloon system and control of vertical propulsion of Candido et al. to be used with a propulsion control system capable of lateral and vertical propulsion and generation of propulsion values, as taught by Vichik et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the control authority and maneuverability of the balloon and adding functionality such as the ability to correct for drift (see Vichik et al., [0028]).
Regarding Claim 15, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the comparator computer readable instructions is configured to determine a speed difference of a measured speed of the atmospheric balloon system relative to a specified speed (see [0052] S334 speed less than threshold (same as the specified / range) or greater (difference relative to the specified / range));
the altitude selection computer readable instructions is configured to select the target altitude within the altitude search range having the air stream vector that decreases the speed difference (see Figures 3B, 3D, [0059-0060] when speed is greater than a threshold (different from the specified speed or range) determining new altitude in S370-S376 (of the various altitudes) for slower speed (decreased difference));
the propulsion selection computer readable instructions is configured to select the propulsion value that decreases the speed difference within the altitude search range (see [0062] S376 adjusting altitude, as combined with Vichik et al. in the rejection of Claim 14 above); and
the balloon control interface is configured to control balloon propulsion (see [0057, 0062] adjusting altitude, i.e. controlling a vertical propulsion force) based on one or more of the target altitude (see [0057, 0062] to the "new altitude"), course difference (see Figures 3B, 3C, altitude control in S356 based on the course difference in S330) or the speed difference (see Figures 3B, 3D, altitude control in S376 based on speed difference in S334).
Regarding Claim 16, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the atmospheric balloon system includes a position sensor (see [0038] GPS), and the onboard balloon control computer system is configured to communicate the balloon position to the balloon kinematic monitor (see [0033] GPS sensor coupled to controller 120 and [0038] current location/altitude received by computing device 150).
Regarding Claim 17, Candido et al. further discloses the computing device 150 may be remote relative to the balloon (see [0034] computing device 150 can be remote from the aerial vehicle).
Candido et al. does not explicitly recite the control system of claim 14, wherein the navigation parameter system is remote relative to the atmospheric balloon system.
Examiner's note: That is, Candido et al. does not explicitly recite an embodiment wherein the navigation parameter system and its specified functions (as recited in Claim 14) are remote from the balloon, while the onboard balloon control system and its specified functions are performed onboard.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the computing device and controller of Candido et al. to divide the tasks in any manner, including the manner claimed. Candido et al. teaches that functions can be shared between computing device 150 and controller 120 (see Candido et al. [0034]). The specific claimed distribution of functions would have been obvious since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e. combinations of which functions are performed by which hardware) to the recognized need (computing for control) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of balancing the benefits and costs of communication time and power with computing time and power consumption requirements.
Regarding Claim 18, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 14 further comprising the atmospheric balloon system, and wherein the onboard balloon control computer system is included with the atmospheric balloon system (see Figure 1, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 19, Candido et al. does not explicitly recite the control system of claim 14, wherein the atmospheric balloon system includes an elevation control system and a propulsion system.
However, Vichik et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the atmospheric balloon system includes an elevation control system (see [0031], ballonets and valves/pumps for air-gas altitude control system / buoyancy mechanism or alternatively [0034, 0044] propeller and controller used for vertical propulsion) and a propulsion system (see [0034], propeller for lateral and/or vertical propulsion).
The motivation to combine Candido et al. and Vichik et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 20, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the navigation parameter system includes an airstream indexing module configured to index airstream vectors with coordinates and times (see [0043] winds at various altitudes indexed when generating the cartogram map of points (coordinates) and travel times).
Regarding Claim 21, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the balloon kinematic computer readable instructions is configured to monitor the balloon position and time (see [0038] receiving of balloon position at S302 using GPS (which requires a monitoring of time signals)); and
the objective input one or more indexed times associated with the target balloon position or one or includes more intervening waypoints (see [0043] destination associated with a cartogram of times), wherein the one or more indexed times associated with the target balloon position or one or more intervening waypoints include one or more times of arrival (see [0043] map of predicted travel times from the current location to the destination, i.e. intermediate times of arrival).
Regarding Claim 22, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 21, wherein the altitude selection computer readable istructions is configured to select target altitudes within the altitude search range for the atmospheric balloon system at the balloon position (see Figure 3A, 3C, 3D, target altitude selected at S350 or S370 at the present balloon position from S302), the target balloon position or one or more intervening waypoints at the one or more indexed times (see [0041, 0043] the target altitude being a specific altitude at which prevailing winds are present and associated with an indexed time), the target altitudes each having associated indexed air streams at the indexed times (see [0041, 0043], cartogram based on prevailing wind headings at various altitudes) that decrease the course difference (see Figures 3B-3D, in order to decrease difference of course or speed based on S330 or S334).
Regarding Claim 23, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the balloon kinematic computer readable instructions is configured to monitor one or more of balloon position (see [0038] S302 current location and altitude), course (see [0051] S330 monitoring direction the balloon is moving) or speed (see [0052] S332 current speed).
Regarding Claim 24, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the specified course includes a course range (see [0064] the optimal heading being a cone/range of courses),, and a specified speed includes a speed range (see [0052] the range of all speeds less than the threshold).
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 Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669