DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 October 2025 has been entered.
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 17/722,228 in response to a request for continued examination filed by Applicant on 28 October 2025. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 21-30 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 Ocotber 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below:
Applicant argues that the combination of Smithers, Barton, and Knoblachdoes not disclose a balloon that is disconnected from the reaction chamber because the balloon of Smithers is tethered. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As pointed out by Applicant, Smithers offers the tethering of the balloon as an optional limitation by stating, “An antenna may be connected to the balloon and tethered to communication circuitry within the apparatus” (see [0027]). Further, claim 1 of the instant application states, “balloon is configured to detach from the reaction chamber… such that the high-altitude balloon is disconnected from the reaction chamber.” This added limitation of the balloon being disconnected from the reaction chamber is read as a synonym to “detach”, as there is not any disclosure in the instant specification to support the term “disconnect” as being more limiting, in the context of the instant application, as the term “detach”. Additionally, the balloon becoming disconnected from the reaction chamber is a functional limitation that defines a manner of operation which occurs as a consequence of the “balloon being configured to detach from the reaction chamber based at least in part on an elapsed reaction time and/or a lift force”. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Lastly, even in the embodiment of Smithers in which the balloon is tethered, it is still detached and separated from the reaction chamber. Smithers states, “the balloon may separate from the apparatus and float to the surface” (see [0027]), indicating that the balloon is detached and disconnected from the apparatus, which includes the reaction chamber. Smithers also states, “an antenna may be connected to the balloon and tethered to communication circuitry”, which is not the same as being tethered to the reaction chamber.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithers et al. (US-20210061488-A1), hereinafter “Smithers” in view of Barton (US-20130244128-A1) and Knoblach et al. (US-20200324870-A1), hereinafter “Knoblach”.
Regarding Claim 1, Smithers discloses a system for producing hydrogen gas (to generate hydrogen gas; see [0034]), the system comprising: a reaction chamber configured to contain a reactant (the mixing assembly includes a holding portion which stores the gas generating substrate; see [0040]) that reacts with water to generate hydrogen gas (One example of a substrate… capable of generating hydrogen gas rapidly by hydrolysis reaction with water; see [0022]); an inlet in fluid communication with an exterior environment the reaction chamber is at least partially immersed in (by opening a valve to introduce seawater; see [0040]); and a valve disposed along a flow path extending between the inlet and the reaction chamber, wherein the valve is configured to permit a liquid to flow from the exterior environment into the reaction chamber to react the reactant with the liquid (The mixing assembly is constructed and arranged to perform a mixing operation that mixes a gas generating substrate with a liquid 42 to generate gas… the mixing assembly may… access the liquid 42… by opening a valve to introduce seawater; see [0040]); and a balloon in fluid communication with the reaction chamber (portion of the generated gas inflates the deployable balloon; see [0027]), wherein the balloon is configured to detach from the reaction chamber based at least in part on an elapsed reaction time and/or a lift force (When the balloon is inflated and the apparatus is at least partially under water, the balloon may separate from the apparatus and float to the surface of the water; see [0027]). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the action of a balloon floating to the surface of water is caused by buoyant force, which is a type of lifting force by definition. Additionally, Smithers discloses that the balloon separates when it is inflated (see [0027]), which naturally occurs after an elapsed reaction time as the balloon is being inflated by a portion of the gas generated during reaction (generation of gas serves the dual purpose of varying buoyancy…; see [0026] and “some portion of the gas to a deployable balloon”; see [0027]).
Regarding the limitation claiming, “such that the high-altitude balloon is disconnected from the reaction chamber”, this is a functional limitation that defines a manner of operation which occurs as a consequence of the “balloon being configured to detach from the reaction chamber based at least in part on an elapsed reaction time and/or a lift force”. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Further, the balloon being disconnected from the reaction chamber is read as a synonym to “detach”, as there is not any disclosure in the instant specification to support the term “disconnect” as being more limiting, in the context of the instant application, as the term “detach”. Lastly, Smithers states, “the balloon may separate from the apparatus and float to the surface” (see [0027]), indicating that the balloon is detached and disconnected from the apparatus, which includes the reaction chamber.
Smithers does not explicitly teach the valve being a one-way valve. While Smithers does disclose a check valve being used in the device, it is not explicitly taught as being used for the introduction of liquid into the reaction chamber. However, Barton does disclose the use of a one-way valve disposed along a flow path extending between the inlet and the reaction chamber (an internal pump, which pumps reactant liquid from the reservoir to the reaction are. Reactant liquid is drawn into a pump chamber in the internal pump through an inlet. A one-way valve 154 can be used to prevent reactant liquid 122 from flowing back from the internal pump into the reservoir; see e.g. Barton [0037]).
Smithers and Barton are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hydrogen generator systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smithers by incorporating the teachings of Barton and including a one-way valve on the liquid inlet of the device. Doing so would prevent reactant liquid from flowing back into the reservoir (see e.g. Barton [0037]).
Smithers does not explicitly teach the balloon being a high-altitude balloon. However, Knoblach discloses the balloon being a high-altitude balloon (The present invention relates to unmanned lighter-than-air platforms operating in the stratosphere; see [0002]; and “Fig. 3 is a… neck of a platform connecting between a balloon”; see [0008]).
Smithers and Knoblach are both considered to be analogous to the prior art because they are in the same fields of hydrogen generation and balloons utilizing lift gas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Smithers by incorporating the teachings of Knoblach and including a high-altitude balloon. Doing so can enable near space research and meteorological measurements (see Knoblach [0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Smithers, Barton, and Knoblach together disclose the system of claim 1. Smithers further discloses the reactant being disposed in the reaction chamber (the mixing assembly includes a holding portion which stores the gas generating substrate; see [0040]).
Regarding Claim 3, Smithers, Barton, and Knoblach together disclose the system of claim 1. Smithers further discloses the reactant including at least aluminum (see [0021]).
Regarding Claim 6, Smithers, Barton, and Knoblach together disclose the system of claim 1. Smithers further discloses the system comprising a controller configured to open the inlet based at least in part on an initiation signal (“Power may be used to control actuators and/or other components that expose the substrate or portions thereof to liquid”; see e.g. Smithers [0029] and “The control circuitry 28 is constructed and arranged to communicate with equipment that is external to the apparatus, as well as perform electronic operations”; see [0041]).
For clarification, Smithers discloses the opening of a valve to introduce seawater from the external environment to carry out the reaction (see e.g. [0040]). It is understood that the water is being introduced through a valve that operates at the inlet of the apparatus. Further, Smithers discloses a controller that is configured to control the valves of the system (see e.g. [0041]). Additionally, Smithers teaches the control circuitry including a transceiver and/ or set of sensors (see e.g. [0041]). Following this path of logic, it is understood that the controller is configured to open and close the inlet valve based on a signal.
Regarding Claim 7, Smithers, Barton, and Knoblach together disclose the system of claim 1. Smithers further discloses an altitude controller configured to control buoyancy of the system (“the control circuitry 28 provides a mixing signal to the mixing assembly 26. In response, the mixing assembly 26 performs a mixing operation that mixes the gas generating substrate 40 with the liquid 42 to generate gas and to input the generated gas into the container 24. As a result, the buoyancy of the container 24 changes”; see [0044]).
Regarding Claim 8, Smithers, Barton, and Knoblach together disclose the system of claim 1. Smithers further discloses a payload being attached to the system (see [0042]).
Regarding Claim 10, Smithers, Barton, and Knoblach together disclose the system of claim 1.
Smithers does not explicitly teach a ballast. However, Knoblach teaches the system comprising a ballast (see e.g. Knoblach [0043]).
Smithers and Knoblach are both considered to be analogous to the prior art because they are in the same fields of hydrogen generation and balloons utilizing lift gas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Smithers by incorporating the teachings of Knoblach and including a ballast in the system. Doing so would allow altitude to be maintained (see e.g. Knoblach [0016]).
Regarding Claim 11, Smithers, Barton, and Knoblach together disclose the system of claim 10. Knoblach further discloses the ballast comprising a waste product formed by the reactant and water within the reaction chamber (the water byproduct of the fuel cell’s reaction may be used for the ballast; see Knoblach [0043]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because using a byproduct as the ballast makes the payload lighter and therefore safer in the event of collision with aircraft or persons and property on the ground (see e.g. Knoblach [0045]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithers (US-20210061488-A1) in view of Barton (US-20130244128-A1), Knoblach et al. (US-20200324870-A1), hereinafter “Knoblach”, and Amendola (CN-1571695-A).
Regarding Claim 4, Smithers, Barton, and Knoblach together disclose the system of claim 1.
Smithers does not explicitly teach the reactant including gallium and/or indium. However, Amendola discloses the reactant including gallium (see [0041]).
Smithers and Amendola are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hydrogen gas generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified Smithers by incorporating the teachings of Amendola and including gallium in the reactant. This would be advantageous as gallium is stable and can be dissolved into alkaline medium (see e.g. Amendola [0044]).
Claims 9 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithers (US-20210061488-A1) in view of Barton (US-20130244128-A1), Knoblach et al. (US-20200324870-A1), hereinafter “Knoblach”, Slocum et al. (US-11964748-B1), hereinafter “Slocum”, and Zubrin et al. (US-20070278344-A1), hereinafter “Zubrin”.
Regarding Claim 9, Smithers discloses a system for producing hydrogen gas (to generate hydrogen gas; see [0034]), the system comprising: a reaction chamber configured to contain a reactant (the mixing assembly includes a holding portion which stores the gas generating substrate; see [0040]) that reacts with water to generate hydrogen gas (One example of a substrate… capable of generating hydrogen gas rapidly by hydrolysis reaction with water; see [0022]); an inlet in fluid communication with an exterior environment the reaction chamber is at least partially immersed in (by opening a valve to introduce seawater; see [0040]); ]); a balloon in fluid communication with the reaction chamber (portion of the generated gas inflates the deployable balloon; see [0027]); a valve disposed along a flow path extending between the inlet and the reaction chamber, wherein the valve is configured to permit a liquid to flow from the exterior environment into the reaction chamber to react the reactant with the liquid (The mixing assembly is constructed and arranged to perform a mixing operation that mixes a gas generating substrate with a liquid 42 to generate gas… the mixing assembly may… access the liquid 42… by opening a valve to introduce seawater; see [0040]).
Smithers does not explicitly teach the valve being a one-way valve, nor does Smithers explicitly teach a heater. While Smithers does disclose a check valve being used in the device, it is not explicitly taught as being used for the introduction of liquid into the reaction chamber. However, Barton does disclose the use of a one-way valve disposed along a flow path extending between the inlet and the reaction chamber (an internal pump, which pumps reactant liquid from the reservoir to the reaction are. Reactant liquid is drawn into a pump chamber in the internal pump through an inlet. This addition would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because a one-way valve 154 can be used to prevent reactant liquid 122 from flowing back from the internal pump into the reservoir; see e.g. Barton [0037]). Barton also discloses a heater (heating and cooling can be done by a variety of methods, including… electrical heaters; see [0075]) configured to heat the reaction chamber (The reaction area can be an area in which reactants come in contact with each other and/or with… heat; see [0062]). The addition of a heater would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so would help initiate the reaction (see Barton [0051]).
Smithers does not explicitly teach the use of a float valve. However, Slocum discloses the use of a float valve configured to prevent flow of water into the balloon (the float is buoyantly movable relative to a seat region in the funnel to control accumulation of condensate from lifting gas within the volume; see Col. 2 Lines 10-12), wherein the float valve is positioned along a flow path extending from the balloon to an outlet of the reaction chamber (see Figs. 1A and 1B, Parts 105 and 104 and [0070]).
Smithers and Slocum are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of balloons utilizing lift gas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Smithers by incorporating the teachings of Slocum and providing a float valve. Doing so would enable control of accumulation of condensate from lifting gas (see Slocum, Col. 2 Lines 10-12).
Modified Smithers does not explicitly teach the heater being disposed in the reaction chamber. However, Zubrin discloses a heater disposed in the reaction chamber (“reaction chamber heater”; see [0016] and “reaction chamber integrated heating element”; see [0057]) and configured to heat the reaction chamber (reaction chamber heater pre-heats the reaction chamber; see [0016]). Smithers and Zubrin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of apparatuses for producing lift gas to enable balloon launch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify Smithers by incorporating the heater of Zubrin in order to initiate the reforming reaction and subsequent formation of lift gas; see Zubrin [0016]).
Regarding Claim 21, Smithers, Barton, Knoblach, Slocum, and Zubrin together disclose the system of claim 9. Smithers further discloses the reactant disposed in the reaction chamber (the mixing assembly includes a holding portion which stores the gas generating substrate; see [0040]), and wherein the reactant includes at least aluminum (see [0059]).
Regarding Claim 22, Smithers, Barton, Knoblach, Slocum, and Zubrin together disclose the system of claim 9. Smithers further discloses the reactant disposed in the reaction chamber (the mixing assembly includes a holding portion which stores the gas generating substrate; see [0040]), and wherein the reactant comprises an activated metal (activated alumina; see [0021]).
Regarding Claim 23, Smithers, Barton, Knoblach, Slocum, and Zubrin together disclose the system of claim 9. Slocum further discloses the float valve being configured to drain liquid from the balloon into the reaction chamber (That is, in the second position, the drain valve 105 may facilitate achieving improved flight performance by draining condensate that forms over time; see Col. 8 Lines 44-46 and Figs. 1A and 1B, Parts 105 and 104 and [0070]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithers (US-20210061488-A1) in view of Barton (US-20130244128-A1), Knoblach et al. (US-20200324870-A1), hereinafter “Knoblach”, Slocum (US-11964748-B1), and Zubrin et al. (US-20070278344-A1), hereinafter “Zubrin”, as applied to claim 9, further in view of Troczynski et al. (US-20050232837-A1), hereinafter “Troczynski”.
Regarding Claim 24, Smithers, Barton, Knoblach, Slocum, and Zubrin together disclose the system of claim 9.
Smithers does not explicitly teach a particle size. However, Troczynski discloses reactant particles having a diameter greater than or equal to 10 micrometers and less than or equal to 2000 micrometers (the metal… may be present in the form of particles having a size between 0.01 and 10000 micrometers; see [0070]).
Smithers and Troczynski are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reacting metals with water to produce hydrogen gas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Smithers by incorporating the teachings of Troczynski and using particles of the given size because the particle size of the initial components in the mixture will have an influence on final state of the mixed powder (see Troczynski [0072]). Examiner notes that the range taught by Troczynski is broader than the claimed range and therefore points to MPEP 2144.05.I, which states that “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists”.
Claims 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smithers et al. (US-20210061488-A1) in view of Barton (US-20130244128-A1), Knoblach (US-20200324870-A1), Slocum (US-11964748-B1), and Li (CN-106516068-A).
Regarding Claim 25, this is merely a combination of the limitations of claims 9-11, with the exception of the ballast assembly limitation and altitude controller limitations. Please refer to the rejections of claims 9, 10, and 11 as the rationale for the rejection of claim 25 follows the same rationale of the associated limitations in the forementioned claims. Regarding the remaining limitations, Smithers discloses an altitude controller configured to: receive an altitude control command to increase an altitude of the system (control circuitry constructed and arranged to execute a pre-programmed change elevation command and/or receive, from remote equipment that is located remotely from the apparatus, a change elevation command to change elevation; see [0009]). Regarding the limitation claiming “a ballast dispensing assembly configured to store and dispense ballast”, Knoblach discloses a ballast system and release mechanism (see [0042]) and discloses that the ballast is only released when all of the original reactants are depleted (see [0044]), indicating that the ballast is stored until the reactants are used, and is then dispensed. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it makes the payload lighter and therefore safer (see Knoblach [0045]).
Modified Smithers does not explicitly teach the altitude controller receiving a control command. However, Li discloses an altitude controller configured to control the ballast dispensing assembly (controller switches the flight mode of the smart balloon according to the control commands and performs corresponding control on the balloon valves and ballast devices; see [0017]) to dispense the ballast to increase the altitude of the system (ballast device is controlled to jettison part of the ballast, causing the flight altitude to increase; see [0016]) in response to receiving an altitude control command (sends the received control commands to the controller 150 so that the controller 150… control… the ballast device; see [0061]).
Smithers and Li are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of balloons utilizing gas lift. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smithers by incorporating the teachings of Li and providing an altitude controller to drop ballast. Doing so would enable to flight altitude to increase (see Li [0016]).
Regarding Claim 26, Smithers, Barton, Knoblach, Slocum, and Li together disclose the system of claim 25. Smithers further discloses the use of aluminum as a reactant (see [0021]) and Knoblach discloses the ballast comprising a byproduct of the reaction (see [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the ballast comprises aluminum hydroxide because that is a natural byproduct of a reaction with aluminum and water.
Regarding Claim 27, Smithers, Barton, Knoblach, Slocum, and Li together disclose the system of claim 25. Smithers further discloses an altitude controller configured to control buoyancy of the system (“the control circuitry 28 provides a mixing signal to the mixing assembly 26. In response, the mixing assembly 26 performs a mixing operation that mixes the gas generating substrate 40 with the liquid 42 to generate gas and to input the generated gas into the container 24. As a result, the buoyancy of the container 24 changes”; see [0044]).
Regarding Claim 28, Smithers, Barton, Knoblach, Slocum, and Li together disclose the system of claim 27. Knoblach further discloses the ballast dispensing assembly being configured to dispense the ballast upon receiving instructions from the altitude controller (The present inventive system detects the foregoing conditions by comparing current position, velocity, and operating conditions to stored, programmed or calculated criteria using an onboard processor. The present invention utilizes a GPS unit and a processor to determine the current platform's geographic coordinates and velocities. A GPS unit or pressure sensor determines the platform altitude. The processor algorithms will implement the complete set of conditions listed above causing the ballast to be released; see [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented logic enabling a controller to release the ballast because it would enable controlled ballast release at specific altitudes (see Knoblach [0038]).
Regarding Claim 29, Smithers, Barton, Knoblach, Slocum, and Li together disclose the system of claim 25. Knoblach further discloses the ballast dispensing assembly being located in the reaction chamber and comprises a ballast outlet configured to remove ballast from the reaction chamber to the exterior environment (the byproduct is dropped as ballast from the bottom of the reaction chamber through an electrically actuated valve (105); see [0043] and Fig. 2 Part 105).
Regarding Claim 30, Smithers, Barton, Knoblach, Slocum, and Li together disclose the system of claim 25. Knoblach discloses the release of ballast via an actuated valve (see [0043]), but does not explicitly teach a rotary dispenser. However, KSR Rationale E (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a rotary valve from the list of possible valves known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774