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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Concerning the response to the lengthy IDS, by initialing the accompanying 1449 forms, examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The following claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recite “in the event of a failure of the first parafoil”. Recommend rephrasing, such as “due to a failure” or similar, for clarity.
Claim 22 recites a similar limitation and is similarly objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10829229 in view of Lopez Urdiales (US 20120228434).
Claim 21 of the instant application recites (U.S. Patent No. 10829229 claim 1, 2 discloses):
a payload (claim 1: a payload system);
a separator system configured to perform separation of the payload from the lighter than air balloon (claim 1: separator system structured and arranged to perform separation of the at least one payload from propulsion system),
a first parafoil configured to deploy in response to or in preparation of separation of the payload from the lighter than air balloon, the first parafoil configured to control a descent of the payload to a landing site after separation of the payload from the lighter than air balloon (claim 1: including at least one parachute system comprising a drogue chute and a parafoil, thus controlling descent);
a first drogue parachute configured to deploy prior to the first parafoil (claim 1 “including at least one parachute system comprising a drogue chute and a parafoil”); and
a stiffener configured to prevent a line coupling the first drogue parachute to the payload from wrapping around the payload prior to deployment of the first drogue parachute (claim 2: distance separating means comprises a stiffener).
Claim 1, 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10829229 does not expressly disclose as taught by Lopez Urdiales (US 20120228434):
a lighter than air balloon coupled with the payload and configured to receive a lighter than air gas to ascend the stratospheric visit system to a high altitude (Lopez Urdiales [0062] "the balloon and pod are at cruising altitude of preferably between 30 and 40 km”);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, U.S. Patent No. 10829229 with Lopez Urdiales by providing a lighter than air balloon coupled with the payload in order to allow passengers time to view the external environment through the portholes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 would be allowed if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under the Double Patenting rejection
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reasons for allowance of the claims are the limitations which provide “a parafoil configured to deploy in response to or in preparation of separation of the payload from the lighter than air balloon, the parafoil configured to control a descent of the payload to a landing site after separation of the payload from the lighter than air balloon; and a drogue parachute configured to deploy prior to the parafoil, wherein the drogue parachute is coupled to the payload by a line, the line stiffened by a drogue stiffener.”
The closest prior art references are Lopez Urdiales (US 20120228434) and Smith et al (US 6220547). However, these references do not teach or render obvious the claimed limitations above. Lopez Urdiales is to a capsule to bring payload to an altitude of 30 km to 40 km above earth by means of balloon ascent system. Returning the capsule to the surface using a parafoil. Lopez Urdiales does not teach or suggest a drogue parachute drogue line stiffener, or a the parafoil configured to deploy in response to or in preparation of separation of the payload. Smith is to only a parachute coupled with a drogue parachute. The line coupling the parachute tot the drogue parachute comprising a double section disclosed as an energy attenuator. This device used to maintain tension between the drogue and the parachute canopy. The instant application is looked to for a definition of a drogue stiffener and these are structures which utilize rigidizing members forming a geometry-controlling framework, as well as to restrict the bridle from wrapping around tumbling vehicle structures.
Criticality for the drogue stiffener is provided as to restrict the bridle from wrapping around tumbling vehicle structures and preferably functions to assist drogue parachute 130 penetrate outward beyond the wake (burble) of the falling capsule. Therefore, combining prior art references to achieve the claimed limitations would involve hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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 HUSON can be reached at 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642