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 .
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) 2-7, 10-17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longmier (US PgPub #2016/0018823) in view of Knoblach (US PgPub #2005/0014499).
For Claim 2, the figures and paragraphs [0030 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose a method of controlling a lighter than air (LTA) system, comprising delivering a LTA gas to a first balloon (114 and 314) to provide an upward lifting force to the LTA system; ascending a payload using the first balloon; and controllably releasing ambient air from a second balloon (116 and 316).
While paragraph [0046] and Claim 6 of Longmier ‘823 disclose using different attitudes to take advantage of different wind directions so as to navigate the system, it is silent about creating a helical path. However, paragraph [0017] of Knoblach ‘499 teaches steering the balloon in a circular path using local winds. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Longmier ‘823 with the ability to travel in a circular pattern with the winds as taught by Knoblach ‘499. The motivation to do so would be to maintain the system in a desired area.
For Claim 3, the figures and paragraph [0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose that the first balloon is a zero pressure balloon and the second balloon is a super pressure balloon.
For Claim 4, the figures and paragraph [0049] of Longmier ‘823 disclose deploying a parafoil (320) toward the ground with the payload.
For Claim 5, the figures and paragraphs [0030 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose receiving ambient air into the second balloon, wherein receiving the ambient air into the second balloon descends the payload to a second altitude less than the first altitude.
For Claim 6, the figures and paragraphs [0030 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose that the LTA system comprises a valve configured to controllably release the ambient air from the second balloon.
For Claim 7, paragraph [0044] of Longmier ‘823 discloses that the LTA gas is helium or hydrogen.
For Claim 10, paragraphs [0023 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 discloses that controllably releasing ambient air from a third balloon, wherein releasing the ambient air form the third balloon ascends the payload to a second altitude.
For Claim 11, the figures and paragraphs [0030 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose that the second ballon is between the first balloon and the payload.
For Claim 12, the figures and paragraphs [0030 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose delivering a LTA gas to a first balloon to provide an upward lifting force to the LTA system to ascend a payload to a first altitude; receiving ambient air into a second balloon to descend, the payload to a second altitude less than the first altitude.
While paragraph [0046] and Claim 6 of Longmier ‘823 disclose using different attitudes to take advantage of different wind directions so as to navigate the system, it is silent about creating a helical path. However, paragraph [0017] of Knoblach ‘499 teaches steering the balloon in a circular path using local winds. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Longmier ‘823 with the ability to travel in a circular pattern with the winds as taught by Knoblach ‘499. The motivation to do so would be to maintain the system in a desired area.
For Claim 13, the figures and paragraph [0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose that the first balloon is a zero pressure balloon and the second balloon is a super pressure balloon.
For Claim 14, the figures and paragraph [0049] of Longmier ‘823 disclose deploying a parafoil (320) toward the ground with the payload.
For Claim 15, the figures and paragraphs [0030 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose receiving ambient air into the second balloon, wherein receiving the ambient air into the second balloon descends the payload to a third altitude less than the second altitude.
For Claim 16, the figures and paragraphs [0030 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose that the LTA system comprises a valve configured to controllably release the ambient air from the second balloon.
For Claim 17, paragraph [0044] of Longmier ‘823 discloses that the LTA gas is helium or hydrogen.
For Claim 20, paragraphs [0023 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 discloses that controllably releasing ambient air from a third balloon, wherein releasing the ambient air form the third balloon ascends the payload to a third altitude.
For Claim 21, the figures and paragraphs [0030 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose that the second ballon is between the first balloon and the payload.
For Claim 22, the figures and paragraphs [0030 and 0046] of Longmier ‘823 disclose that the payload is coupled to the LTA system by an elongated structural connector, the elongated structural connector being at least partially rigid and configured to support a component.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longmier (US PgPub #2016/0018823) in view of Knoblach (US PgPub #2005/0014499) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claims 8-9 and 18-19, while Longmier ‘823 teaches that the first and second balloon are couple to each other, it is silent about them being coupled together with a rotatable actuator. However, the AAPA teach that it is well known in the art to use multi-axis rotational actuators to connect balloon so as to allow for them to be positioned relative to one another in multiple dimensions. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Longmier ‘823 with a multi-axis rotational actuator as is known in the art. The motivation to do so would be to position the balloons relative to one another in any orientation so as to control orientation and movement of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 and 12 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 Longmier ‘823 based on the amended claims.
The Applicant has not argued the Official Notice Of Claims 8-9 and 18-19. Per MPEP 2144.03 this is now taken to be Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 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 1/28/2029
Prosecution Insights