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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-19, 21-26, and 28-34 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the second action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 11/12/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloemer (PGPub #2020/0350981) in view of Nikolic (PGPub #2018/0297684), and Vercesi et al. (PGPub #2012/0181381).
Regarding claim 9, Schloemer teaches a lighter-than-air (LTA) non-orbiting aerial node (Paragraph 231) for use in a radio communication system including at least one terrestrial node and a plurality of said LTA non- orbiting aerial nodes (BN1, BN2, and GN100 as seen in figure 22) capable of providing a radio route including at least one said LTA non-orbiting aerial node (Paragraphs 6, 118-120, and 231, this teaches that the non-orbiting nodes can be made of the same construction as the orbiting nodes and that the airborne nodes are capable of communicating with other airborne nodes), said LTA non-orbiting aerial node comprising a casing (Paragraph 231, the balloon discussed in Paragraph 231) and a communication capsule (10 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 231, this teaches that the lighter than air non-orbiting nodes can be constructed in the same manner as the orbiting nodes) in the shape of an spheroid (10 as seen in figure 3) suspended from said rigid casing (Paragraph 231), wherein: said communication capsule includes: (a) an antenna construction for transmitting and receiving radio signals in a plurality of directions (12a-f as seen in figure 3), (b) route creation circuitry (46) for determining a quality associated with a routing message received from at least one of a terrestrial node or another non-orbiting aerial node indicating the suitability of including as a link in the radio route (i) said LTA non-orbiting aerial node and said terrestrial node (Paragraphs 118-120, and 231) or (ii) said LTA non-orbiting aerial node and said other non-orbiting aerial node (Paragraphs 118-120, and 231), said route creation circuitry including a memory for storing an identity of an antenna associated with a received routing message (Paragraph 123), and (c) data transmission circuitry for transmitting data from said LTA non-orbiting aerial node to said terrestrial node or to said other non-orbiting aerial node using said antenna the identity of which is stored in said memory (Paragraphs 131, and 132), wherein said casing includes (b) a lighter-than-air gas for providing a lifting force on said LTA non-orbiting aerial node (BN1 as seen in figure 22, and Paragraphs 65, and 231, for a balloon to maintain a fixed altitude in the air it must inherently be filled with a lighter than air gas), and wherein the system has batteries for powering said route creation circuitry and said data transmission circuitry (Paragraph 82). But does not teach that said casing is rigid; said capsule spheroid is an oblate spheroid and includes: (a) a guidance and propulsion system for controlling the location and orientation of said LTA non-orbiting aerial node, batteries for powering said guidance and propulsion system.
However, Nikolic does teach that said casing is rigid (Abstract, and Paragraph 2, this teaches that the system can be a rigid aerostat that has a rigid out structural framework) and includes: (a) a guidance and propulsion system (2) for controlling the location and orientation of said LTA non-orbiting aerial node (Paragraphs 7, 26, and 29), and that the batteries are for powering said guidance and propulsion system (Paragraph 26). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the casing be rigid, and have the casing have a propulsion system powered by the batteries because Schloemer and Nikolic are both lighter than air aircraft systems. The motivation for having the casing be rigid is that it can help improve the vehicles performance in higher turbulence environments, and the motivation for having the casing have a propulsion system powered by the batteries is that it allows the system to control its position and be able to have an extended flight period due to the batteries being continuously charged by the sun. But Nikolic does not teach that said capsule spheroid is an oblate spheroid; and the casing includes the batteries.
However, Vercesi does teach that the casing includes the batteries (10, and 30 as seen in figure 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the casing include the batteries because Schloemer and Vercesi are both LTA systems with batteries. The motivation for having the casing include the batteries is that it helps to keep the weight of the system closer to the lift center of the system to reduce the moments that it places on the system. But does not teach that said capsule spheroid is an oblate spheroid.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the capsule an oblate spheroid. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. The motivation for having the capsule be an oblate spheroid is that it helps to provide a stable shape that also helps to minimize the drag from the capsule to improve the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 10, Schloemer as modified by Nikolic, and Vercesi teaches the LTA non-orbiting aerial node as in claim 9, wherein said antenna construction includes: a plurality of directional antennas for pointing horizontally generally parallel to the surface of the earth in multiple directions in the space around said casing (10, 12b, and 12e as seen in figure 3 of Schloemer) to send radio signals to and receive radio signals from other non-orbiting aerial nodes when said LTA non-orbiting aerial node is deployed in said radio communication system (Paragraphs 80, 81, and 231 of Schloemer); and a plurality of directional antennas for pointing generally toward the surface of the earth (10, 12c, and 12d as seen in figure 3 of Schloemer) to send radio signals to and receive radio signals from multiple terrestrial nodes when said LTA non-orbiting aerial node is deployed in said radio communication system (Paragraphs 81, 118-120, and 231 of Schloemer).
Regarding claim 11, Schloemer as modified by Nikolic, and Vercesi teaches the LTA non-orbiting aerial node as in claim 10 for use in a radio communication system further including a plurality of orbiting satellites (Paragraphs 81, 118-120 of Schloemer), wherein said antenna construction includes a plurality of directional antennas for pointing generally upwardly away from the surface of the earth (10, 12a, and 12f as seen in figure 3 of Schloemer) to send radio signals to and receive radio signals from said satellites when said LTA non-orbiting aerial node is deployed in said radio communication system (BN1, and SVLO2 as seen in figure 22, and Paragraphs 81, 118-120, and 231 of Schloemer).
Regarding claim 12, Schloemer as modified by Nikolic, and Vercesi teaches the LTA non-orbiting aerial node as in claim 11, wherein said directional antennas comprise parabolic antennas (Paragraph 73, of Schloemer).
Regarding claim 14, Schloemer as modified by Nikolic, and Vercesi teaches the LTA non-orbiting aerial node as in claim 9, wherein said quality comprises the signal strength of said received routing message measured by said route creation circuitry (Paragraph 118 of Schloemer).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloemer (PGPub #2020/0350981) in view of Nagelberg et al. (US #11,196,478), and Lindenbaum (US #4,695,012).
Regarding claim 21, Schloemer teaches a heavier-than-air (HTA) non-orbiting aerial node (Paragraph 231, drones are heavier than air vehicles) for use in a radio communication system including at least one terrestrial node and a plurality of said HTA non- orbiting aerial nodes (DR1, DR2, and GN100 as seen in figure 22, and Paragraph 231) capable of providing a radio route including at least one said HTA non-orbiting aerial node (Paragraphs 6, 118-120, and 231, this teaches that the non-orbiting nodes can be made of the same construction as the orbiting nodes and that the airborne nodes are capable of communicating with other airborne nodes), said HTA non-orbiting aerial node comprising an aircraft (Paragraph 231), wherein the aircraft acts as a lifting device for the system (Paragraph 231, this teaches that a drone can be used to hold the system in the air which requires that the drone provides lift), and a communication capsule (10 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 231, this teaches that the lighter than air non-orbiting nodes can be constructed in the same manner as the orbiting nodes) in the shape of an spheroid (10 as seen in figure 3) suspended from the lifting device (Paragraph 231), wherein: said communication capsule includes:(a) an antenna construction for transmitting and receiving radio signals in a plurality of directions (12a-f as seen in figure 3), (b) route creation circuitry (46) for determining a quality associated with a routing message received from at least one of a terrestrial node or another non-orbiting aerial node indicating the suitability of including as a link in the radio route (i) said HTA non-orbiting aerial node and said terrestrial node (Paragraphs 118-120, and 231) or (ii) said HTA non-orbiting aerial node and said other non-orbiting aerial node (Paragraphs 118-120, and 231), said route creation circuitry including a memory for storing an identity of an antenna associated with a received routing message (Paragraph 123), and(c) data transmission circuitry for transmitting data from said LTA non-orbiting aerial node to said terrestrial node or to said other non-orbiting aerial node using said antenna the identity of which is stored in said memory (Paragraphs 131, and 132); and said aircraft includes:(a) a guidance and propulsion system for controlling the location and orientation of said HTA non-orbiting aerial node (Paragraphs 65, and 231, for a UAV to function it must inherently have a guidance and propulsion system), batteries for powering said guidance and propulsion system, said route creation circuitry and said data transmission circuitry (Paragraph 82). But does not explicitly teach that the aircraft is a rotary-wing aircraft, and the capsule is suspended beneath the rotary-wing aircraft; a lighter-than-air gas to provide a lifting force on said HTA non-orbiting aerial node; said capsule spheroid is an oblate spheroid.
However, Nagelberg does teach that the aircraft is a rotary-wing aircraft (Column 8, lines 20-37), and the capsule is suspended beneath the rotary-wing aircraft (170 and 180 as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the aircraft be a rotary-wing aircraft with the capsule suspended below because Schloemer and Nagelberg are both wireless networks formed from a series of aerial and terrestrial relays. The motivation for having the aircraft be a rotary-wing aircraft with the capsule suspended below is that it allows the aircraft to maintain a more stationary position to help keep the relay elements from moving too much relative to each other. But Nagelberg does not teach a lighter-than-air gas to provide a lifting force on said HTA non-orbiting aerial node; said capsule spheroid is an oblate spheroid.
However, Lindenbaum does teach a lighter-than-air gas to provide a lifting force on said HTA non-orbiting aerial node (Abstract, lines 1-12, this teaches that a lighter than air system can be coupled to a heavier than air aerial vehicle). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a lighter than air gas provided to the heavier than air system because Schloemer and Lindenbaum are both aerial systems with suspended pods beneath the system. The motivation for having a lighter than air gas provided to the heavier than air system is that it helps to reduce the thrust requirements for the system which reduces the energy draw and allows the system to function for a longer period of time. But does not teach that said capsule spheroid is an oblate spheroid.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the capsule an oblate spheroid. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. The motivation for having the capsule be an oblate spheroid is that it helps to provide a stable shape that also helps to minimize the drag from the capsule to improve the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 22, Schloemer as modified by Nagelberg, and Lindenbaum teaches the HTA non-orbiting aerial node as in claim 21, wherein said antenna construction includes: a plurality of directional antennas for pointing horizontally generally parallel to the surface of the earth in multiple directions in the space around said casing (10, 12b, and 12e as seen in figure 3 of Schloemer) to send radio signals to and receive radio signals from other non-orbiting aerial nodes when said HTA non-orbiting aerial node is deployed in said radio communication system (Paragraphs 80, 81, and 231 of Schloemer); and a plurality of directional antennas for pointing generally toward the surface of the earth (10, 12c, and 12d as seen in figure 3 of Schloemer) to send radio signals to and receive radio signals from multiple terrestrial nodes when said HTA non-orbiting aerial node is deployed in said radio communication system (Paragraphs 81, 118-120, and 231 of Schloemer).
Regarding claim 23, Schloemer as modified by Nagelberg, and Lindenbaum teaches the HTA non-orbiting aerial node as in claim 22 for use in a radio communication system further including a plurality of orbiting satellites (Paragraphs 81, 118-120 of Schloemer), wherein said antenna construction includes a plurality of directional antennas for pointing generally upwardly away from the surface of the earth (10, 12a, and 12f as seen in figure 3 of Schloemer) to send radio signals to and receive radio signals from said satellites when said HTA non-orbiting aerial node is deployed in said radio communication system (DR1, and SVLO1 as seen in figure 22, and Paragraphs 81, 118-120, and 231 of Schloemer).
Regarding claim 24, Schloemer as modified by Nagelberg, and Lindenbaum teaches the HTA non-orbiting aerial node as in claim 23, wherein said directional antennas comprise parabolic antennas (Paragraph 73, of Schloemer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 15-19, 26, and 28-34 are allowed.
Claims 13, and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a spheroid shape into an oblate spheroid. Given both the small differences in the physical shape of the two shapes and the aerodynamic benefits that are cited in the motivation statement and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this change of shape to teach the limitation of the claim.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
The examiner notes that the examiner attempted to call the inventors attorney to discuss a potential examiners amendment that would move some or all of the allowable dependent claims into claims 9, and 21, however the examiner was unable to complete the phone call using the number listed for the inventor’s attorney.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Farley (PGPub #2021/0237841), this teaches an oblate spheroid that is suspended beneath a lifting body.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights