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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothe (US Patent #5823468) in view of Egon (WO 93/24364).
For Claim 1, the figures of Bothe ‘468 disclose a heavy load carrying aerostat comprising: an aerostat structure comprising a rigid skeleton (41) comprising an assembly of beams arranged in transverse (43) and longitudinal (52) smooth frames and stiffened by a system of tensioned elements (47 and 49); and a hold (13) configured to receive a load, the hold comprising a hold structure mechanically coupled to the aerostat structure by a set of transverse beams (26, 72, 75) and by a set of cables (73), the set of transverse beams extending from side of the hold structure to the aerostat structure and mechanically connecting to the aerostat structure, and the set of cables extending between the set of transverse beams and an upper part of the aerostat structure.
While Bothe ‘468 discloses the hold structure defines a downward facing opening (3 and 5), it is silent about the opening extending longitudinally along an entire length of the hold structure. However, figures 1, 2, and 16 of Egon ‘364 teach a hold structure (7) that defines a downward-facing opening that extends longitudinally along an entire length of the hold structure. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bothe ‘468 with the hold structure of Egon ‘364. The motivation to do so would be to allow storage items the entire size of the hold.
For Claim 4, figure 7b of Bothe ‘468 disclose that the cable (51) is connected at a cable eye (51’) so as to allow for articulation between the cable its connection.
For Claim 8, the figures of Bothe ‘468 disclose that the system of tensioned elements comprises a cable bracing system at the transverse frames.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothe (US Patent #5823468) in view of Egon (WO 93/24364) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeVaul (US Patent #9828081).
For Claims 2 and 3, while Bothe ‘468 discloses using composites and carbon, it is silent about using pultruded carbon. However, the figures and column 4, lines 18-59 of DeVaul ‘081 teach using pultruded carbon fiber tubes. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bothe ‘468 with the pultruded carbon fiber construction as taught by DeVaul ‘081. The motivation to do so would be to reduce weight while maintaining stability against buckling.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothe (US Patent #5823468) in view of Egon (WO 93/24364) and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claim 5, while Bothe ‘468 is silent about the articulated connections material choice being metal, the AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art to use metal connection points as they are strong and easily manufactured. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bothe ‘468 with having a metallic connection as taught by AAPA. The motivation to use metal is to use a well-known material choice that is strong and can be easily made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-7, filed 3/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102 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 Egon ‘364 which teaches the newly amended claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 3/30/2026
Prosecution Insights