Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed November 18th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 17-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 18th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 18-19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2012/0069464) in view of Sercel (US 2018/0051914).
Regarding claims 1, Murakami ‘464 teaches (figures 1-2) a balloon system for mitigating solar radiation comprising:
a high-altitude balloon/light shielding device (1) having a round and outwardly curving outer surface at least partially defined by material configured to reflect solar radiation, the ballon configured to set location in a path of solar radiation from the Sun toward the Earth (Para 0032; disc shaped balloons have round and outwardly curving outer surface; light shielding device has sunlight shield function thus have material configured to reflect solar radiation)
but it is silent about the ballon system wherein the balloon is configured to orbit at a set orbital location; and
an orbital launching system configured for launching the balloon to the set orbital location.
Sercel ‘914 teaches (figures 1-6) optical mining experiment module (OMEM) launched to ISS/orbital location as an external payload on a carrier (550) comprising inflatable solar reflector/balloon (20) wherein a small (~5 cc) high pressure carbon dioxide gas storage bottle with valves and regulators provide controlled inflation gas for the inflatable solar reflector (20) (Para 0109, 0114-0115; inflatable solar reflector/balloon is placed in ISS/orbital location)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murakami ‘464 to incorporate the teachings of Sercel ‘914 to configure the ballon system wherein the balloon is configured to orbit at a set orbital location; and
an orbital launching system configured for launching the balloon to the set orbital location.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable gravity-assisted travel of balloons and allowing balloons to stay up long-term.
Regarding claim 2, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system wherein the balloon is inflated with carbon dioxide (as modified by Sercel ‘914).
Regarding claim 7, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system wherein the ballon comprises a plurality of balloon, each one of the plurality of balloons configured to reflect solar radiation (Para 0056).
Regarding claim 18, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system wherein the material of the outer surface of the balloon comprises a reflective metallic material (Para 0031).
Regarding claim 19, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system wherein the orbital launching system is a rocket (as modified by Sercel ‘914).
Regarding claim 23, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system wherein the balloon further comprises a thruster/electric propellers to correct misalignment with the set orbital location (Para 0032).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2012/0069464) and Sercel (US 2018/0051914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eldridge et al. (US 5,345,238).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system of claim 1 but it is silent about the balloon system wherein the material of the outer surface of the balloon comprises mylar; and
wherein the material of the outer surface of the balloon comprises polyethylene.
Eldridge et al. ‘238 teaches (figure 1) satellite (12) deployed in an orbit with the balloon shield (10) wherein the balloon material comprises Kapton (polyimides manufactured by DuPont) or Mylar (polyethylene terephthalates manufactured by DuPont) (Col. 4 Lines 29-33, 56-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Murakami ‘464 to incorporate the teachings of Eldridge et al. ‘238 to configure the balloon system wherein the material of the outer surface of the balloon comprises mylar; and
wherein the material of the outer surface of the balloon comprises polyethylene.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide extremely flexible, thin, strong and durable balloons.
Regarding claim 4, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system of claim 1 but it is silent about the balloon system wherein the material of the outer surface of the balloon comprises polyimide.
Eldridge et al. ‘238 teaches (figure 1) satellite (12) deployed in an orbit with the balloon shield (10) wherein the balloon material comprises Kapton (polyimides manufactured by DuPont) or Mylar (polyethylene terephthalates manufactured by DuPont) (Col. 4 Lines 29-33, 56-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Murakami ‘464 to incorporate the teachings of Eldridge et al. ‘238 to configure the balloon system wherein the material of the outer surface of the balloon comprises polyimide.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance thermal stability, mechanical toughness and chemical resistance of balloons.
Claim(s) 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2012/0069464) and Sercel (US 2018/0051914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carney (US 2020/0017240).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 8, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system of claim 1 but it is silent about the balloon system wherein the set orbital location is defined near the Lagrange stability point L1, positioned between the Earth and the Sun,
wherein the set orbital location is spaced apart from the Lagrange stability point L1 in a direction toward the Sun and away from the Earth, and
wherein at the set orbital location, the Earth’s gravitational force and solar pressure imparted on the balloon counter balance the Sun’s gravitational force on the balloon.
Carney ‘240 teaches (figures 1-6d) a plurality of cooling system objects (301) positioned near Lagrange Point One (L1) Prime to mitigate global warming wherein the L1 Prime is defined as a point nearer to the Sun than Lagrange Point L1 (Para 0005, 0040, 0049-0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Murakami ‘464 to incorporate the teachings of Carney ‘240 to configure the balloon system wherein the set orbital location is defined near the Lagrange stability point L1, positioned between the Earth and the Sun,
wherein the set orbital location is spaced apart from the Lagrange stability point in a direction toward the Sun and away from the Earth (L1 Prime is a point nearer to the Sun than Lagrange Point L1), and
wherein at the set orbital location, the Earth’s gravitational force and solar pressure imparted on the balloon counter balance the Sun’s gravitational force on the balloon (at Lagrange Point One (L1) Prime the Earth’s gravitational force and solar pressure imparted on the balloon counter balance the Sun’s gravitational force on the balloon).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance stability and reduce fuel/power consumption to maintain ballon system’s position.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2012/0069464) and Sercel (US 2018/0051914) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Pohl et al. (US 3,366,345) and French et al. (US 2005/0006523).
Regarding claim 20, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system of claim 19 above but it is silent about the balloon system wherein the balloon stored within the orbital launching system is in a partially inflated state prior to being released by the orbital launching system.
Pohl et al. ‘345 teaches (figure 1-2) storing and releasing a container or capsule (11) from within the launch craft/rocket (10) wherein the mother balloon (17) is deployed/inflated after it is launched from the launch craft/rocket (Col. 2 Lines 39-44, 56-63; mother balloon is launched with the container).
French et al. ‘523 teaches automated balloonsode launcher comprising a control module and one or more launch modules linked to the control module wherein launch module comprises a protective cover and a local controller for inflating a balloon at least partially within said protective cover (Para 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Murakami ‘464 to incorporate the teachings of Pohl et al. ‘345 and French et al. ‘523 to configure the balloon system wherein the balloon stored within the orbital launching system is in a partially inflated state prior to being released by the orbital launching system.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would easily and quickly inflate the balloon once released by the orbital launching system.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2012/0069464) and Sercel (US 2018/0051914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pohl et al. (US 3,366,345) and French et al. (US 2005/0006523).
Regarding claim 21, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system of claim 1 above but it is silent about the balloon system wherein the balloon stored within the orbital launching system is in a partially inflated state prior to being released by the orbital launching system.
Pohl et al. ‘345 teaches (figure 1-2) storing and releasing a container or capsule (11) from within the launch craft/rocket (10) wherein the mother balloon (17) is deployed/inflated after it is launched from the launch craft/rocket (Col. 2 Lines 39-44, 56-63; mother balloon is launched with the container).
French et al. ‘523 teaches automated balloonsode launcher comprising a control module and one or more launch modules linked to the control module wherein launch module comprises a protective cover and a local controller for inflating a balloon at least partially within said protective cover (Para 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Murakami ‘464 to incorporate the teachings of Pohl et al. ‘345 and French et al. ‘523 to configure the balloon system wherein the balloon stored within the orbital launching system is in a partially inflated state prior to being released by the orbital launching system.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would easily and quickly inflate the balloon once released by the orbital launching system.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2012/0069464) and Sercel (US 2018/0051914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pohl et al. (US 3,366,345).
Regarding claim 22, modified Murakami ‘464 (figures 1-2) the balloon system of claim 19 but it is silent about the balloon system wherein the balloon is inflated after it is launched from the orbital launching system.
Pohl et al. ‘345 teaches (figure 1-2) storing and releasing a container or capsule (11) from within the launch craft/rocket (10) wherein the mother balloon (17) is deployed/inflated after it is launched from the launch craft/rocket (Col. 2 Lines 39-44, 56-63; mother balloon is launched with the container).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Murakami ‘464 to incorporate the teachings of Pohl et al. ‘345 to configure the balloon system wherein the balloon is inflated after it is launched from the orbital launching system.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would minimize the space occupied within the orbital launching system which can be used to place other equipment or larger size balloon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 18th, 2025, with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Murakami (US 2012/0069464) and Sercel (US 2018/0051914).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642