Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/724,159

SOLAR HOT AIR BALLOON VENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 25, 2024
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
3y 1m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
559 granted / 747 resolved
+22.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
771
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 747 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
Mar 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 26, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600496
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A SPACECRAFT DOCKING STATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600463
AIRCRAFT RUDDER PEDAL WITH MECHANICAL KINEMATIC CHAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595039
AIR DIRECTING ARRANGEMENT FOR CONTROLLING AIRFLOW AT AN OUTLET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583629
Solar Sail for Orbital Maneuvers
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570406
AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+9.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 747 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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