DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-24 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 2, 6-16, and 21-23 are amended. Claims 3, 17, 19, and 20 are original. Claims 4, 5, 18, and 24 are as previously presented. Claims 25-42 are cancelled. This is a non-final office action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 4/2/2026. 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 4/2/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 11-12), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 12-14), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim interpretation under 112(f) (presented on p. 14-15), the remarks are acknowledged. The remarks recite the structure of the limitations, however this is recited only in the specification and not in the claims. Upon re-evaluation of the claims and terms, the office maintains interpretation of (a) “propulsion element” under 112(f) based on the three-prong test of the claim language (see MPEP 2181 and “Claim Interpretation” below). However, the office agrees that the corresponding structure is provided in the specification and a rejection under 112(b) has not been made based on a lack of corresponding structure, but rather indefiniteness based on the ability to perform the complete function (see the rejection below for complete detail).
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 16-19), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of Publication US2012/0126052A1 (Murakami) as well as the previously relied upon prior art of Publication US2019/0033863A1 (Candido et al.).
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 provide lateral propulsion, in Claims 1 and 14,
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “element” 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.
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 1-24 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 Claims 1 and 14, the limitation that the propulsion element is configured to provide lateral propulsion “to move the atmospheric balloon system into a favorable airstream at the target altitude selected from the altitude search range” renders the claims indefinite. The propulsion element, as understood per the interpretation under 112(f) and based on the specification ¶0028 and arguments on p.15, is an element such as a fan or a propeller. While this structure is capable of providing lateral propulsion, the remaining language “to move the atmospheric balloon system into a favorable airstream at the target altitude selected from the altitude search range” appears to be a function that requires some control circuitry or computer or some other structure capable of logic. Based on the claim construction, it is not clear whether lateral propulsion to move the balloon system into the favorable airstream is merely an intended use of the propulsion element (and therefore receives little patentable weight) or alternatively whether the limitation is describing a function of another structure in the claim such as the onboard balloon control computer system, or propulsion selection computer readable instructions, or whether the propulsion element should be interpreted as having additional structure capable of performing guidance, or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as reciting only intended use, such that any capability to provide lateral propulsion reads on the limitation.
Claims 2-13 and 15-24 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 or 14 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “wherein the propulsion element is configured to provide supplemental propulsion force to better position the atmospheric balloon system within a favorable airstream” renders the claim indefinite. The propulsion element, as understood per the interpretation under 112(f) and based on the specification ¶0028 and arguments on p.15, is an element such as a fan or a propeller. While this structure is capable of providing propulsion, the specific providing of supplemental force to better position the atmospheric balloon system within a favorable airstream appears to be a function that requires some control circuitry or computer or logic. Based on the claim construction, it is not clear whether supplemental propulsion to better position the balloon is merely an intended use of the propulsion element (and therefore receives little patentable weight) or alternatively whether the limitation is describing a function of another structure in the claim such as the onboard balloon control computer system, or propulsion selection computer readable instructions, or whether the propulsion element should be interpreted as having additional structure capable of performing guidance, or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as reciting only intended use, such that any capability to provide propulsion that is supplemental to some other force reads on the limitation.
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 7, the phrase “to decrease a difference between and the target speed” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what the difference is between, as only one speed is recited. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as “to decrease a difference between an actual speed and the speed range.”
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 US2012/0126052A1 (Murakami).
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)); 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. further discloses selection of an airstream based on the course difference and speed difference (see the mapping above, and S352 at [0055]), but,
Candido et al. does not explicitly recite:
a propulsion element configured to provide lateral propulsion to move the atmospheric balloon system into a favorable airstream at the target altitude selected from the altitude search range;
a propulsion selection computer readable instructions in communication with the propulsion element configured to select propulsion values based on the course difference and speed difference to supplement airstream-provided velocity; and
wherein the propulsion element is configured to provide supplemental propulsion force to better position the atmospheric balloon system within a favorable airstream.
However, Murakami teaches a control system for a balloon (see e.g. [0053]), comprising:
a propulsion element (see [0094] propeller) configured to provide lateral propulsion (see [0094] for forward travel) to move the atmospheric balloon system into a favorable airstream at the target altitude selected from the altitude search range (see [0094] capable of providing forward (lateral) propulsion and therefore having capability to move balloon into position of airstream, see also the interpretation based on the rejection under 112(b));
a propulsion selection computer readable instructions (see [0023] implemented with computer) in communication with the propulsion element (see [0094] propeller controlled by controller) configured to select propulsion values based on an airstream to supplement airstream-provided velocity (see [0094] can be used to travel “with an airstream” such that speed is the sum of airstream and driving speed); and
wherein the propulsion element is configured to provide supplemental propulsion force to better position the atmospheric balloon system within a favorable airstream (see [0094] propellers supplement airstream speed, i.e. supplemental lateral speed to position balloon further along airstream compared to balloon without 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 control system of Candido et al. to additionally control lateral propulsion elements as taught by Murakami, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving performance or ecological traveling (see Murakami, [0094]).
Regarding Claim 2, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 1, 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 computer readable code (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, Murakami teaches the control system as above,
wherein the atmospheric balloon system includes an elevation control system (see [0053] buoyant force adjustment for altitude change) and a propulsion system (see [0094], propellers).
The motivation to combine Candido et al. and Murakami 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 are 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 are 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 are 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 and the target speed or a difference between an 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 instructions select 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 instructions decrease one or more of the course difference or the speed difference(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 instructions select a combination of propulsion and elevation control maneuvers to minimize energy consumption of the elevation control system and propulsion system.
However, Murakami teaches the control system as above,
wherein the altitude selection computer readable instructions (see [0023]) select a combination of propulsion and elevation control maneuvers to minimize energy consumption of the elevation control system and propulsion system (see [0058] energy for traveling minimized when increase or decrease of buoyant force is used as opposed to driving force, i.e. combination of more elevation control system and less propulsion to minimize).
The motivation to combine Candido et al. and Murakami 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 are configured to decrease one or more of the course difference or the speed difference (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 readable code 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 are 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 code 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 are configured to select propulsion values (see [0057, 0062] S356 or S376 adjusting altitude – in view of the combination with Murakami 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)) and a speed difference of a measured speed of the atmospheric balloon system relative to a specified speed (see [0052] S334 speed less than threshold or greater);
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 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 a 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. further discloses selection of an airstream based on the course difference and speed difference (see the mapping above, and S352 at [0055]), but,
Candido et al. does not explicitly recite:
a propulsion element configured to provide lateral propulsion to move the atmospheric balloon system into a favorable airstream at the target altitude selected from the altitude search range; and
a propulsion selection computer readable instructions in communication with the propulsion element configured to select propulsion values based on the course difference and speed difference to supplement airstream-provided velocity.
However, Murakami teaches a control system for a balloon (see e.g. [0053]), comprising:
a propulsion element (see [0094] propeller) configured to provide lateral propulsion (see [0094] for forward travel) to move the atmospheric balloon system into a favorable airstream at the target altitude selected from the altitude search range (see [0094] capable of providing forward (lateral) propulsion and therefore having capability to move balloon into position of airstream, see also the interpretation based on the rejection under 112(b)); and
a propulsion selection computer readable instructions (see [0023] implemented with computer) in communication with the propulsion element (see [0094] propeller controlled by controller) configured to select propulsion values based on an airstream to supplement airstream-provided velocity (see [0094] can be used to travel “with an airstream” such that speed is the sum of airstream and driving speed).
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 control system of Candido et al. to additionally control lateral propulsion elements as taught by Murakami, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving performance or ecological traveling (see Murakami, [0094]).
Regarding Claim 15, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 14, wherein the comparator computer readable instructions are 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 or greater);
the altitude selection computer readable instructions are 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)); 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).
Candido et al. further discloses entering an airstream that decreases the speed difference within the altitude search range (see [0062]) but does not explicitly recite:
the propulsion selection computer readable instructions are configured to select the propulsion value that decreases the speed difference within the altitude search range.
However, Murakami teaches the control system as above,
the propulsion selection computer readable instructions are configured to select the propulsion value for travel in a particular airstream (see [0094] propulsion for high speed traveling).
The motivation to combine Candido et al. and Murakami was provided above in the rejection of Claim 14.
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 computer readable code (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, Murakami teaches the control system as above,
wherein the atmospheric balloon system includes an elevation control system (see [0053] buoyant force adjustment for altitude change) and a propulsion system (see [0094], propellers).
The motivation to combine Candido et al. and Murakami 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 code 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 data 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 22, Candido et al. discloses the control system of claim 21, wherein the altitude selection computer readable instructions are 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 code 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
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
Prosecution Insights