Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/724,159

SOLAR HOT AIR BALLOON VENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 25, 2024
Priority
Jan 05, 2022 — provisional 63/296,746 +2 more
Examiner
XAVIER, VALENTINA
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Arizona Board of Regents
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
560 granted / 749 resolved
+22.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
772
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
79.8%
+39.8% vs TC avg
§102
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§112
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 749 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION 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, 2, 4 – 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVaul (US 9290258) in view of Behroozi et al. (US 11,254,409). Regarding claim 1, DeVaul discloses an altitude-controllable solar high-altitude balloon (300), the balloon comprising: a. an envelope (302); b. one or more controllable one-way vents (342) in the envelope, wherein the one or more one-way vents are configured to release and retain hot air (col. 15, lines 54 – 67; col. 16, lines 1 – 9); and c. a control system (312, 318, 324, 326, 332)) for controlling the one-way vent; wherein control of the one or more one-way vents is configured to provide altitude control of the balloon. DeVaul fails to teach that the one or more one-way vents are configured to be controlled via a timer configured to determine a time of day to actuate the one or more controlled one-way vents. However, Behroozi et al. discloses a high-altitude balloon having an active venting system that is controlled via a timer configured to determine a time of day to actuate the vents (claims 8, 13, and 14 of Behroozi et al.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to have used the active venting system controlled via a timer depending on the time of day taught by Behroozi et al. to DeVaul’s balloon in order to provide the control system with more data to better control the balloon. Regarding claim 2, DeVaul discloses that the control system comprises a power supply (326), a controller (312), a wireless communication device (318), onboard sensors (332) for control and telemetry, and a GPS tracker (col. 13, lines 57 – 67). Regarding claim 4, DeVaul discloses that the balloon is an infrared (IR) balloon configured to fly night and day (Fig. 4 – the balloon traps infrared radiation; col. 13, lines 12 – 22). Regarding claim 5, DeVaul discloses that the one or more controllable one-way vents are configured to be more open during the day than in the night, so as to reduce daily altitude variations (Fig. 4 – the sun provides heat to the balloon during the day causing the vents to be more open during the day compared to during the night, in order to maintain a specific altitude). Regarding claim 6, DeVaul discloses that the balloon is configured to share data with one or more additional balloons (204; Fig. 2 – the balloon network shares data between balloons; col. 11, lines 62 – 67; col. 12, lines 1 – 16). Regarding claim 7, DeVaul discloses that the balloon is configured to control its altitude based on data from the one or more additional balloons (204; Fig. 2 – the balloon network shares data between balloons; col. 11, lines 62 – 67; col. 12, lines 1 – 16). Regarding claim 8, DeVaul discloses that the balloon is configured to maintain an altitude above 35,000 feet (col. 12, lines 55 – 60). Regarding claim 9, DeVaul discloses that the balloon is configured to maintain an altitude of about 50,000-70,000 feet (col. 12, lines 55 – 60). Regarding claim 10, DeVaul discloses that the one or more one-way vents are configured to be controlled from the balloon (300, Fig. 3) or from a ground station. Regarding claim 12, DeVaul discloses that the one or more one-way vents are positioned at a center top of the envelope (Fig. 3 – the center top of envelope 302), off-center at a top of the envelope, or a combination thereof. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVaul as modified by Behroozi et al. and further in view of Palmer (US 2007/0138336). Regarding claim 3, DeVaul as modified by Behroozi et al., more specifically DeVaul, teaches a control system (312, 318, 324, 326, 332) but fails to disclose that the control system is positioned inside an insulated gondola. However, Palmer teaches a balloon (20) comprising an insulated gondola (30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include the insulated gondola to DeVaul’s balloon in order to protect the control system of the balloon at higher altitudes. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 10 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 pm. 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 Huson can be reached on (571) 270-5301. 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. /VALENTINA XAVIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 25, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jun 26, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jan 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
May 13, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637200
PANELS
1y 9m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12637213
FLAPPING DEVICE
1y 1m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630063
COVER SYSTEM FOR WRAPPING A BACKREST FRAME
2y 0m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12623768
SUPPORT ASSEMBLY FOR AN AIRCRAFT DOOR
2y 3m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12617519
Airship with Self-Ballasting Airframe
1y 11m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+9.2%)
3y 2m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 749 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month