The present invention relates to unmanned lighter-than-air platforms operating in the stratosphere and more particularly, their termination and recovery.
Unmanned lighter-than-air ballooncraft have been used for many years to perform tasks such as near space research, and meteorological measurements. Such ballooncraft have even carried payloads with instrumentation that sometimes includes radio transmission capabilities.
Innovative new methods in connection with lighter-than-air free floating platforms, of facilitating legal transmitter operation, platform flight termination when appropriate, environmentally acceptable landing and recovery of these devices are provided. Especially, termination of radio transmissions and flight related to regional, governmental and international border requirements, regulations and laws. The present invention provides methods comprising specific criteria, detection of the criteria and elements of operation for reducing or preventing illegal transmissions, for producing rapid descend to the ground, for environmentally acceptable landing and for facilitating recovery all with improved safety and enhanced compliance with known regulations.
A better understanding of the invention may be had with reference to the attached drawing Figures in connection with the Detailed Description below in which like numerals represent like elements and in which:
It has been found that the previous largest use of unmanned lighter-than-air ballooncraft has been by the various weather services of the world. For weather data acquisition purposes small latex weather balloons carry instrument packages called radiosondes to gather the weather data. These weather balloons are launched from a network of sites around the world at noon and midnight Greenwich Mean Time each day. The weather service radiosondes collect temperature, humidity, pressure and wind data as they rise from the surface of the Earth to approximately 100,000 feet during a two-hour flight comprising ascent and rapid descent. At approximately 100,000 feet the weather balloons burst and the radiosonde payload falls to earth on a parachute. This data acquire during the ascent is input into atmospheric models run on supercomputers to facilitate predicting the weather. The input data is limited as it represents only a snapshot of the weather data taken during the balloon ascent every 12 hours. The ascent and decent is rapid, mostly within country borders. Also, most countries of the world are bound by treaty to launch balloon carried radiosondes from designated sites and to share the data with other countries such that short duration radio transmissions and physically crossing borders is not any major issue.
Currently there are about 800,000 radiosondes launched each year throughout the world. There are also a small number of radiosondes launched for military and research purposes. The research balloons typically are done using special frequencies and with international or individual country permission for border crossing. The total number primarily represents the 997 global weather stations launching two radiosondes per day, 365 days per year (727,000). Only about 18% of these radiosondes are recovered, reconditioned and reclaimed, resulting in the new production of about 650,000 weather-gathering radiosondes per year.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) prohibits uncontrolled transmitters as they may cause interference to users on the same frequency or others on nearby frequencies. FCC spectrum licenses prohibit a US licensed transmitter from transmitting when it leaves the border of the US.
It has been found that most lighter-than-air platforms that maintain altitude drop ballast to maintain altitude as lifting gas is lost through the balloon membrane that floats the platform. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations Section 101.7 states that unmanned ballooncraft are prohibited from dropping objects or operation such that a hazard may occur.
Sec. 101.7 Hazardous operations.
(a) No person may operate any moored balloon, kite, unmanned rocket, or unmanned free balloon in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons, or their property.
(b) No person operating any moored balloon, kite, unmanned rocket, or unmanned free balloon may allow an object to be dropped there from, if such action creates a hazard to other persons or their property.
(Sec. 6(c), Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c))
[Doc. No. 12800, Arndt. 101-4, 39 FR 22252, Jun. 21, 1974]
A major factor influencing the size and cost of a lighter-than-air platform is the weight of the payload. For small ballooncraft such as weather balloons, they may become exempt from certain FAA reporting, lighting, and launching requirements if the total payload weight is kept below 6 pounds and a density of 3 ounces or less per square inch of the smallest side.
Sec.101.1 (4)Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United States, of the following:
(4) Except as provided for in Sec. 101.7, any unmanned free balloon that—
(i) Carries a payload package that weighs more than four pounds and has a weight/size ratio of more than three ounces per square inch on any surface of the package, determined by dividing the total weight in ounces of the payload package by the area in square inches of its smallest surface;
(ii) Carries a payload package that weighs more than six pounds;
[Doc. No. 1580,28 FR 6721, Jun. 29, 1963, as amended by Arndt. 101-1, 29 FR 46, Jan. 3, 1964; Arndt. 101-3, 35 FR 8213, May 26, 1970]
The unique use of a low-density payload also significantly reduces costs associated with the launch and allows a launch to occur in all weather conditions. The amount of ballast required to keep a platform within a set altitude range over a 24-hour period is typically on the order of 15% of the total system weight. This is a significant percentage of the total weight for a floating platform or ballooncraft mission lasting over multiple days. For example, it has been found that a three day flight may require that 38% of the platform's system weight be ballast. This either significantly increases the size of the balloon or decreases the weight available for the payload.
The two sections of the FAA regulations above show the FAA's concern with increased payload weights and increased densities. This appears to focus on reducing the potential for damage to an aircraft in a collision. The density and total weight of the payload are also found to be significant factors in overall safety upon the payload's return to the earth. Generally lower weight and density payloads, are believed to reduced chances of causing physical damage, and as a beneficial result may also be easier and less costly to insure as well.
The FAA further prohibits uncontrolled lighter-than-air balloons. Again there may be a concern that uncontrolled flight may present a hazard to aircraft. For example, in 1998, a large uncontrolled scientific balloon launched by the Canadian Space Agency prompted re-routing of trans-Atlantic passenger flights for 10 days as it drifted from its launch site in Canada until it finally landed in Finland. The uncontrolled balloon also resulted in aviation concerns in Russia and Norway. Significant resources were expended, including the use of fighter jets to try to bring the uncontrolled balloon down.
Until now, unmanned, free drifting, lighter-than-air balloons have been either restricted to short flights as is the case with the 50,000 NWS weather balloons launched each year, or a very few large and expensive long duration scientific flights. The NWS weather balloons have an extremely limited life (approximately 2 hours) and their transmitters and batteries have limited power. The long duration scientific balloons typically have long lives and extended missions. These infrequent ballooncraft flights are expensive and generally require frequency and safety coordination with each country that they overfly. They may gain authorization to use government or scientific frequencies for short periods of time that are not available for commercial users.
Applicants, as disclosed in a co-pending application, have discovered and developed new and commercially viable uses for small free-floating platforms with long duration capabilities. These small, long duration ballooncraft or free floating platforms have long flight lives similar to much larger scientific ballooncraft and the ability to travel long distances. The present methods and inventive devices facilitate avoiding the massive reporting and coordination requirements of the larger ballooncraft. The free-floating platforms may be operating on commercial frequencies that have specific laws as to the use of the frequencies in each country. The innovative new methods facilitate maintenance of legal transmitter operations, particularly at borders, they provide for platform flight termination for rogue, uncontrolled or malfunctioning platforms, they provide for environmentally acceptable descent and they enhance the opportunity for recovery and reuse of these devices. All of these methods are especially useful as they relate to regional and international borders. The present invention uses specific criteria and elements of operation or sets of criteria and elements of operation that taken as a whole form a safe method for reducing or preventing illegal transmissions, for terminating flight, for rapidly descending the platform to the ground, for environmentally acceptable landing and for enhanced recovery. All the methods are designed to enhance safety and to comply with known regulations.
The following criteria based decisions are provided with the processor 10: Has the platform moved or drifted outside of a certain geographic area? (See
The relevant boundaries may be frequency license borders set by the FCC as dictated by a regional or nationwide broadcasting license. The FCC prohibits transmitter operation outside such geographic borders. Additionally, a neighboring country may have restrictions on transmitted power into their country from a United States transmitter. It has been found that on certain frequencies Mexico prohibits transmit power levels above −99 dBm into Mexico from the United States. These restrictions are not hard for terrestrial towers as they can use directional antennas once during installation and not have to adjust them again thereafter. This is quite different for a free drifting high altitude ballooncraft as the position and altitude may be constantly changing and may require the platform to stop transmitting while still inside the United States, but within a protective number of miles of the United States-Mexico border. Long duration scientific ballooncraft are not as concerned with this as they typically work on special frequencies or have coordinated with other countries that may be over flown.
Is the platform moving outside of boundaries that would significantly reduce the probability of recovering the platform? (See
As payloads costs may be significant, from $50 to $150 for a typical weather service radiosonde, up to hundreds of dollars for a transceiver platform, and up to many tens of thousands of dollars for a scientific payload, recovery is important both financially and for environmental reasons. A platform may encounter strong winds especially in the jet stream as it descends from high altitudes. In order to keep the platform from drifting out of the country on descent, artificial borders that take into account the winds during descent can be used. Also, boundaries of large bodies of water such as the great lakes, seas and oceans the crossing of which might hamper or prevent recovery of the platform upon normal decent, may be taken into account for termination of flight purposes.
Has the platform fallen below or risen above a set altitude range? (See
Most scientific and weather balloons reach altitudes above 60,000 feet, The FAA regulates airspace below 60,000 feet and discourages free floating craft or uncontrolled flight craft from loitering especially in commercial air lanes as they present a hazard to commercial planes. Current NWS weather balloons do not have the capability to terminate the flight if they start to hover below 60,000 feet. Even the large-scale scientific balloons may become errant and free drift below 60,000 feet. (see the rogue scientific balloon example listed earlier). There is a strong need for a ballooncraft to terminate it's flight if it is not in the proper altitude range.
Is the platform velocity sufficient to create an unacceptably large Doppler shift in the transmission frequency? (See
A ballooncraft traveling in the jet stream may reach speeds of over 180 miles per hour. This creates a Doppler shift in the frequencies received on the ground. The FCC regulates the amount of total frequency drift allowed on a commercial transmission. Doppler shift contributes to this total frequency drift and if great enough can cause the transmitter to transmit out of its allowed band. These requirements have not been considered or accounted for in the past as free drifting commercially transmitting platforms were not available. Therefore, the requirement that the payload be able to immediately stop transmitting past the speed at which the Doppler becomes too great is new.
Does the platform fall rate indicate a balloon burst? (See
A fast fall rate indicates that the balloon has burst and that the craft is falling. The transmission of radio signals should be terminated and the other termination actions should be promptly initiated.
Is the lighter-than-air platform rising too slow? (See
This indicates that the balloon is under-filled or leaking. A slow rise rate may present a danger to aircraft by loitering excessively at one altitude particularly at an altitude in designated air lanes.
Has the processor, the position finding equipment, or the primary power failed? (See
A GPS, star tracker, or system power failure will cause an on-board termination. The platform must be able to terminate without processor control or power.
Have command and control communications been lost? (See
The present inventive system detects the foregoing conditions by comparing current position, velocity, and operating conditions to stored, programmed or calculated criteria using an onboard processor. The present invention utilizes a GPS unit and a processor to determine the current platform's geographic coordinates and velocities. A GPS unit or pressure sensor determines the platform altitude. The processor algorithms will implement the complete set of conditions listed above causing the ballast to be released at 34, the transmitter to be shut off at 38 and the flight terminated at 36 upon detection of a stored, programmed or calculated termination criteria. Under conditions of a power loss or processor failure, the transmitter will also be shut off at 38, and the flight will be terminated at 36. The methods and mechanisms for the termination actions are described more fully below.
A separate termination controller 11 under separate power 13 monitors the primary platform power at 32 and monitors processor functions at 30 to determine if the processor 10 is functioning properly. Both the primary processor 10 and the separate termination controller 11 have the ability to terminate transmissions, by discharging the primary platform batteries at 38 and to terminate the flight by releasing the balloon at 36. The separate power source 13 may advantageously comprise a very small environmentally acceptable battery such as an alkaline watch battery.
The present invention solves certain past needs. This invention describes a system, method and design for use with lighter-than-air platforms that overcomes certain safety drawbacks of conventional unmanned lighter-than-air ballooncraft. The processor reduces or eliminates the chance of the platform becoming a free floating, uncontrolled transmitter by monitoring sensed coordinates and platform velocities (GPS, star tracker, etc) and by comparing the sensed information to known (stored, programmed or calculated) geographic or altitude based boundaries. If the processor determines that the platform is out of its proper boundaries, termination is started. If the GPS fails, the processor also initiates termination. If the processor function unacceptably fails or if the primary power fails, termination and recovery is also automatically initiated with a secondary termination control circuit having its own small and environmentally acceptable power source. This does not require power from the primary power source of the platform.
Termination and recovery comprise several steps or actions as follows:
Releasing all ballast to reduce the payload density and weight. At termination, all ballast is released automatically according to a mechanism as schematically depicted in
Both reactant A in Chamber A (100) and reactant B in Chamber B (101) is metered into the reaction chamber (104) where hydrogen generation occurs. The relative size of each of the two chambers is determined by the molar ratio of the reaction. If water is used as one of the reactants and a fuel cell is used on the platform for generating power, the water byproduct of the fuel cell's reaction may be used for the ballast system reaction as one of the reactants. Different metering rates would be required for each reactant if the molar ratio of the reactants were not 1 to 1. This could be done with a dual peristalsis pump (102) if the tubing diameters were adjusted to pump the appropriate amount from each reactant chamber. During the reaction, hydrogen is vented from the reaction chamber through a tube (107) into the balloon. A one-way valve (106) in the tube to the balloon prevents hydrogen from flowing back into the reaction chamber. After the reaction is complete, the byproduct is dropped as ballast from the bottom of the reaction chamber (104) through an electrically actuated valve (105). The valve (105) is then closed. Unless the balloon has burst, upon flight termination, the reactants will be reacted as quickly as safely possible in the reaction chamber (104) and the byproducts dropped as ballast. If the balloon has burst, the pumps may not be to pump as effectively from the chambers unless the chambers have a slight pressure and no air is allowed in them.
In a second configuration (not depicted), the ballast system comprises two cavities each containing one of the two reactants. The reactant in the top cavity is metered into the lower cavity where the hydrogen generation occurs. The reaction byproducts are only released as ballast when all of the original reactants are depleted.
This makes the payload lighter and therefore safer in the event of collision with aircraft or persons and property on the ground. While any acceptable ballast could be released, the novel ballast system described above effectively reduces the actual weight of ballast required by a system thereby increasing the safety of the payload. In the novel ballast system the total amount of ballast carried to provide long duration flight at an acceptable altitude is significantly reduced. Reducing the amount of ballast should in most cases increase safety. In one specific example, the system uses water and either Sodium Hydride or Calcium Hydride as the ballast. When additional altitude is required, a quantity of water is added to a quantity of Sodium Hydride or Calcium Hydride. A large volume of hydrogen gas is generated. This hydrogen is added to the lifting balloon and the byproducts of the reaction are dropped as ballast. The platform becomes lighter due to the dropping of the Ca(OH)2 or Na(OH)2 byproduct and at the same time, hydrogen is added to the balloon increasing lift. Only 73% (75% for Sodium Hydride) of an equivalent weight of inert ballast such as sand is needed. As ballast can be a significant portion of the initial total weight, reducing the weight of the ballast significantly reduces the total weight of the payload.
Releasing the neck of the balloon from the platform to initiate a quick descent.
This makes sure the platform descends quickly through the atmosphere thereby reducing the potential time through the commercial air lanes. Small balloon systems such as the NWS weather balloons rely on the balloon bursting due to expansion as it rises through the atmosphere. A hovering balloon does not experience this expansion and therefore must either have a system to burst the balloon or physically separate from the balloon. Venting the balloon is generally not acceptable because of the danger of the balloon drifting laterally on the ground increases the chance of personal or property damage. A further problem would occur if hydrogen was used as the lifting gas. This could create a possibility of hydrogen remaining in the balloon after landing and becoming a potential ignition source. Bursting the balloon is also less desirable as the burst balloon still attached to the payload may foul the descent mechanism causing an uncontrolled descent. In the invention, the neck of the ballooncraft is released when power is lost or the processor fails.
One possible implementation of the neck release mechanism as depicted schematically in
When thermination of the flight is called for, the ballast is preferably released first and then a discharge circuit passes current through the resistive coil (48). The coil heats (48) up and melts through the monofilament line (47). The weight of the payload (51) now pulls the bottom tube (49) from the top tube and the payload is released from top tube (43). and thus from the balloon (41). This ballast system advantageously allows for the venting of the lifting gas directly at the payload eliminating the need for wiring to remote valves. Integration of the actuator electronics simplifies the design and ultimately the reliability of the platform.
The battery discharge and neck release circuit is schematically depicted in
An alternate implementation uses a separate, non-hazardous, small battery to operate the discharge circuitry. This implementation ensures that the main batteries are completely discharged. The discharge circuit dissipates power through the resistive wire that during battery discharge, dissipates the energy as heat. The resistive wire is wrapped around a piece of monofilament (fishing) line. When the battery power is dissipated through the resistive wire, the monofilament line is melted through and the neck connecting the balloon to the platform is released from the payload. Another advantage of providing a separate power source for the discharge circuit is that the discharge circuit battery will supply the resistive element with power to cut the monofilament line even if the main batteries are dead. As an alternative, the discharge circuit could dissipate power through a high power resistor if the neck release function were not used.
If the processor senses any of the conditions necessary to initiate termination, it ceases sending the keep alive signal to the discharge circuit. If the processor dies or the power fails, the keep alive signal also ceases, causing termination. The timer advances to a point where it initiates the battery discharge. Battery current flows through the resistive wire discharging the batteries and melting through the monofilament to release the balloon neck. The battery discharge continues until the main batteries are completely dead.
The main platform batteries are fully discharged during descent and if needed upon landing to positively terminate and prevent further radio transmission. Once discharge is initiated, the batteries fully discharge eliminating the chance of transmitting with significant power. The battery discharge can be initiated by the processor as described above or automatically when power or processor control is lost. It has been found that long duration platform flight at high altitudes and cold temperatures requires special high-density power and functional capabilities at low temperatures. It has been found that lithium batteries beneficially fulfill such requirements. Additionally, it was found that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that lithium based batteries are considered hazardous waste except for one type of cell and only when fully discharged. Particularly it has been found that Lithium Sulfur Dioxide (LiS02) batteries, when fully discharged, form a lithium salt, which is not considered hazardous by the EPA. Automatically discharging the LiS02 batteries before they contact the ground not only prevents the transmitter from transmitting but also renders the batteries non-hazardous for environmentally acceptable landing on the ground.
Use of a novel and integral “maple seed” like descent device to increase safety is depicted in
A novel method of platform recovery is depicted in
This Application is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/366,020, filed Dec. 1, 2016 (now allowed), which is a Continuation-In-Part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/473,691, filed Aug. 29, 2014 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,519,045, issued Dec. 13, 2016), which is a Divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/757,585, filed Feb. 1, 2013 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,825,232, issued Sep. 2, 2014), which is a Divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/099,004, filed Apr. 7, 2008 (now abandoned), which is a Divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/673,474, filed Sep. 30, 2003 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,356,390, issued Apr. 8, 2008), which is a Continuation-In-Part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/129,666, filed May 9, 2002 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,203,491, issued Apr. 10, 2007), filed as National Stage of PCT/US02/12228 filed Apr. 18, 2002, which claims benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/284,799 filed Apr. 18, 2001; the contents of all of which are incorporated herein in their entirety by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2151336 | Scharlau | Mar 1939 | A |
2366423 | Pear, Jr. | Jan 1945 | A |
2462102 | Istvan | Feb 1949 | A |
2542823 | Lyle | Feb 1951 | A |
2598064 | Lindenblad | May 1952 | A |
2626348 | Nobles | Jan 1953 | A |
3030500 | Katzin | Apr 1962 | A |
3030509 | Carlson | Apr 1962 | A |
3045952 | Underwood | Jul 1962 | A |
3058694 | Fazio et al. | Oct 1962 | A |
3174705 | Chiff et al. | Mar 1965 | A |
3206749 | Chatelain | Sep 1965 | A |
3384891 | Anderson | May 1968 | A |
3404278 | Chope | Oct 1968 | A |
3471856 | Laughlin, Jr. et al. | Oct 1969 | A |
3555552 | Alford | Jan 1971 | A |
3674225 | Johnson | Jul 1972 | A |
3742358 | Cesaro | Jun 1973 | A |
3781893 | Beukers et al. | Dec 1973 | A |
3781894 | Ancona et al. | Dec 1973 | A |
RE28725 | Hutchinson et al. | Feb 1976 | E |
4123987 | Singerle et al. | Nov 1978 | A |
4249181 | Lee | Feb 1981 | A |
4262864 | Eshoo | Apr 1981 | A |
4394780 | Mooradian | Jul 1983 | A |
4419766 | Goeken et al. | Dec 1983 | A |
4457477 | Regipa | Jul 1984 | A |
4472720 | Reesor | Sep 1984 | A |
4481514 | Beukers et al. | Nov 1984 | A |
4509053 | Robin et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
4509851 | Ippolito et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
4589093 | Ippolito et al. | May 1986 | A |
4595928 | Wingard | Jun 1986 | A |
4689739 | Federico et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
4696052 | Breeden | Sep 1987 | A |
4740783 | Lawrence et al. | Apr 1988 | A |
4747160 | Bossard | May 1988 | A |
4868577 | Wingard | Sep 1989 | A |
4979170 | Gilhousen et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
4995572 | Piasecki | Feb 1991 | A |
5005513 | Van Patten et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5067172 | Schloemer | Nov 1991 | A |
5119397 | Dahlin et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5121128 | van Lidth de Jeude et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5123112 | Choate | Jun 1992 | A |
5175556 | Berkowitz | Dec 1992 | A |
5189734 | Bailey et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5204970 | Stengel et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5212804 | Choate | May 1993 | A |
5214789 | George | May 1993 | A |
5218366 | Cardamone et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5235633 | Dennison et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5239668 | Davis | Aug 1993 | A |
5287541 | Davis et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5327572 | Freeburg | Jul 1994 | A |
5345448 | Keskitalo | Sep 1994 | A |
5384565 | Cannon | Jan 1995 | A |
5420592 | Johnson | May 1995 | A |
5430656 | Dekel et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5433726 | Horstein et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5439190 | Horstein et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5444762 | Frey et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5455823 | Noreen et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5467681 | Liberman | Nov 1995 | A |
5471641 | Dosiere et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5488648 | Womble | Jan 1996 | A |
5519761 | Gilhousen | May 1996 | A |
5521817 | Burdoin et al. | May 1996 | A |
5533029 | Gardner | Jul 1996 | A |
5557656 | Ray et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5559865 | Gilhousen | Sep 1996 | A |
5584047 | Tuck | Dec 1996 | A |
5615409 | Forssen et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5645248 | Campbell | Jul 1997 | A |
5714948 | Farmakis et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5745685 | Kirchner et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5748620 | Capurka | May 1998 | A |
5759712 | Hockaday | Jun 1998 | A |
5761656 | Ben-Shachar | Jun 1998 | A |
5781739 | Bach et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5788187 | Castiel et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5832380 | Ray et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5835059 | Nadel et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5870549 | Bobo | Feb 1999 | A |
5899975 | Nielsen | May 1999 | A |
5907949 | Falke et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5909299 | Sheldon, Jr. et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5960200 | Eager et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5963128 | McClelland | Oct 1999 | A |
5978940 | Newman et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987432 | Zusman et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5992795 | Tockert | Nov 1999 | A |
5996001 | Quarles et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6061562 | Martin et al. | May 2000 | A |
6067579 | Hardman et al. | May 2000 | A |
6097688 | Ichimura et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6108673 | Brandt et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6128622 | Bach et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141660 | Bach et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6167263 | Campbell | Dec 2000 | A |
6212550 | Segur | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6243737 | Flanagan et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6250309 | Krichen et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253200 | Smedley et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6256676 | Taylor et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6259447 | Kanetake et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6289382 | Bowman-Amuah | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6324398 | Lanzerotti et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6397253 | Quinlan et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6401136 | Britton et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6414947 | Legg et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6446110 | Lection et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6507856 | Chen et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6507857 | Yalcinalp | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6510466 | Cox et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6519617 | Wanderski et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6529921 | Berkowitz et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6530078 | Shmid et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6535896 | Britton et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6543343 | Taylor | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6560639 | Dan et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6568631 | Hillsdon | May 2003 | B1 |
6589291 | Boag et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6591272 | Williams | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601071 | Bowker et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6606642 | Ambler et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6613098 | Sorge et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6615383 | Talluri et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6628941 | Knoblach et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6643825 | Li et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6665861 | Francis et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6668354 | Chen et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6687873 | Ballantyne et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6697849 | Carlson | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6728685 | Ahluwalia | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6738975 | Yee et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6753889 | Najmi | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6772206 | Lowry et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775680 | Ehrman et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6799299 | Li et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6810429 | Walsh et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6816883 | Baumeister et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6826696 | Chawla et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6850979 | Saulpaugh et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6859834 | Arora et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6874146 | Lyengar | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6889360 | Ho et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6901403 | Bata et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6901430 | Smith | May 2005 | B1 |
6904598 | Abileah et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6907564 | Burchhardt et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6909903 | Wang | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6910216 | Abileah et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6912719 | Elderon et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6915523 | Dong et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6948117 | Van Eaton et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6948174 | Chiang et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6952717 | Monchilovich et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6964053 | Ho et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6971096 | Ankireddipally et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6980963 | Hanzek | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6980993 | Horvitz et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7000238 | Nadler et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7013306 | Turba et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7043687 | Knauss et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7051032 | Chu-Carroll et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7054901 | Shafer | May 2006 | B2 |
7058955 | Porkka | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7069291 | Graves et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7080092 | Upton | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7093789 | Barocela et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7107285 | von Kaenel et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7111011 | Kobayashi et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7120645 | Manikutty et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7120702 | Huang et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7124299 | Dick et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7130893 | Chiang et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7134075 | Hind et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7143190 | Christensen et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7152205 | Day et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7181493 | English et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7266582 | Stelting | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7296226 | Junkermann | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7341223 | Chu | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7398221 | Bensoussan et al. | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7418508 | Haller et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7421701 | Dinh et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7487936 | Heaven | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7567779 | Seligsohn et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7590987 | Behrendt et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7801522 | Knoblach et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
8286910 | Alavi | Oct 2012 | B2 |
20010004583 | Uchida | Jun 2001 | A1 |
20010014900 | Brauer et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010016869 | Baumeister et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010032232 | Zombek et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010034791 | Clubb et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010037358 | Clubb et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047311 | Singh | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020010716 | McCartney et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020031101 | Petite et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035583 | Price et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020038335 | Dong et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020038336 | Abileah et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020042849 | Ho et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020046294 | Brodsky et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020049815 | Dattatri | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020052968 | Bonefas et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020056012 | Abileah et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059344 | Britton et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078010 | Ehrman et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078255 | Narayan | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083099 | Knauss et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099735 | Schroeder et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020100027 | Binding et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020107915 | Ally et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020111989 | Ambler et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116454 | Dyla et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020133569 | Huang et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143820 | Van Eaton et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020156930 | Velasquez | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020160745 | Wang | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020160805 | Laitinen et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161801 | Hind et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020174340 | Dick et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020175243 | Black et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178031 | Sorensen et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178290 | Coulthard et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178299 | Teubner | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020188688 | Bice et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194227 | Day et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020198974 | Shafer | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030004746 | Kheirolomoom et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030007397 | Kobayashi et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030040273 | Seligsohn et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030040955 | Anaya et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046035 | Anaya et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055768 | Anaya et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065623 | Cornell et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030070006 | Nadler et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074217 | Beisiegel et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030078902 | Leong et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030081002 | De Vorchik et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093403 | Upton | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093436 | Brown et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093468 | Gordon et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030093500 | Khodabakchian et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097327 | Anaya et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030120730 | Kuno et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030126229 | Kantor et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030131142 | Horvitz et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030159111 | Fry | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030163544 | Wookey et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030163585 | Elderon et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030167223 | Pledereder et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030191970 | Devine et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030204460 | Robinson et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212686 | Chu-Carroll et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040006739 | Mulligan | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024820 | Ozzie et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040030740 | Stelting | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040054969 | Chiang et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040064466 | Manikutty et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040103370 | Chiang et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111464 | Ho et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040205536 | Newman et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205731 | Junkermann | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205770 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040210469 | Jones et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040221292 | Chiang et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040230987 | Snover et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040237034 | Chiang et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050050228 | Perham et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050091639 | Patel | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050165826 | Ho et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050165936 | Haller et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050166209 | Merrick et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050171970 | Ozzie et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050203944 | Dinh et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210414 | Angiulo et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050258306 | Barocela et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050278410 | Espino | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060063529 | Seligsohn et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060265478 | Chiang et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070083524 | Fung et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094283 | Fung et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20080263641 | Dinh et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080271049 | Dinh et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080299990 | Knoblach et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090189015 | Alavi | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20140367511 | Knoblach et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1188951 | Mar 1965 | DE |
0837567 | Apr 1998 | EP |
1058409 | Dec 2000 | EP |
1327580 | Jul 2003 | EP |
2216319 | Oct 1989 | GB |
950826 | Feb 1997 | JP |
2001273177 | Oct 2001 | JP |
WO9504407 | Feb 1995 | WO |
WO9602094 | Jan 1996 | WO |
WO9851568 | Nov 1998 | WO |
WO0101710 | Jan 2001 | WO |
WO 0158098 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO0167290 | Sep 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Part 101—Moored Balloons, Kites, Umanned Rockets and Unmmaned Free Balloons, Federal Aviation Administration, Dept. of Tranportation, 14 CFR Ch. 1, Jan. 1, 1999 Edition, pp. 304-308. |
Part 101—Moored Balloons, Kites, Umanned Rockets and Unmmaned Free Balloons, Federal Aviation Administration, Dept. of Tranportation, 14 CFR Ch. 1, Jan. 1, 2000 Edition, pp. 309-313. |
Part 101—Moored Balloons, Kites, Umanned Rockets and Unmmaned Free Balloons, Federal Aviation Administration, Dept. of Tranportation, 14 CFR Ch. 1, Jan. 1, 2001 Edition, pp. 307-311. |
Non-Final Office Action issued Feb. 14, 2017 in corresponding U.S. Appl. No. 15/351,441. |
Brazillian Written Opinion mailed Jan. 3, 2017 in corresponding Brazillian Patent Application No. PI0414906-8. |
“Attunity Connect for Mainframe, Native OS/390 Adapters to Data and Legacy,” 2003, pp. 1-3. |
“Connecting to IMS Using XML, Soap and Web Services”, Shyh-Mei F. Ho. IMS Technical Conference, Koenigswinter, Germany, Oct. 15-17, 2002. |
“Correlate IMSADF Secondary Transaction MFS Generation with the Generation of the Output Format Rule”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 27, No. 1B, pp. 623-624, Jun. 1984. |
“Creating WSDL and a Proxy Client From a Web Service,” www.west-wind.com/webconnection/docs/—08413NI2E.htm, 2002. |
“HostBridge and WebSphere: Integrating CICS with IBM's Application Server,” a HostBridge White Paper, Jul. 23, 2002, pp. 1-34. |
“IBM Mainframe,” www.dmreview.com/whitepaper/WID1002720.pdf. Mar. 18, 2005. |
“IMS Connect Guide and Reference version 1,” http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/icgr0001.pdf, Oct. 2000, IBM. |
“IMS Connect Guide and Reference”, IBM et al. http://publibfp.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/hwsuga11.pdf, Oct. 2002. |
“IMS Connector for Java, User's Guide and Reference”, IBM VisualAge for Java, Version 3.5, 9 pages, IBM. |
“IMS Follow-on Ideal for e-business”, Excerpts from http://www.3.ibm.com/software/data/ims/...ntations/two/imsv7enh/HTML/indexp54.htm, IBM Corporation, 2002. |
“IMS Information”, Excerpts from http://www.3.ibm.com/software/data/ims/...ntatlons/two/imsv7enh/HTML/indexp55.htm, IBM Corporation. 2002. |
“Learning Management Systems XML and Web Services,” Finn Gronbaek, IBM Corporation, copyright 2001, Apr. 20, 2003, pp. 1-29. |
“Leveraging IMS Applications and Data”< Excerpts from Leveraging IMS2 found at http://www.3.ibm.com/software/data/ims/...ntations/tow/imsv7enh/HTML/indexp52.htm, IBM Corporation, 2002. |
“MFS XML Utility Version 9.3.0 User's Guide and REference”, 57 pages, IBM Corporation, ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/data/ims/toolkit/mfswebsupport/mfsxml-v3.pdf, 2003. |
“NetDynamics, PAC for IMS” User Guide, Precise Connectivity Systems, 1998. |
“Quarterdeck Mosiac User Guide,” 1995, Chapters 1-7. |
“Remote Execution of IMS Transactions for OS/2”, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 34, No. 7B, pp. 16, Dec. 1991. |
“Requirements for Building Industrial Strength Web Services: The Service Broker”, http:www.theserverside.com/Warticles.tss?1=Service-Broker Jul. 2001. |
“S1215, www.ims or Websphere Working with IMS,” Ken Blackman, 39 pp. (date unknown). |
“Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.” Mar. 2001, W3C. |
“Web Services”, www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Web services.html, 2003. |
“Web Services—The Next Step in the Evolution of the Web”, Excerpt from http://www.3.ibm.com/software/data/ims/...ntations/two/imsv7enh/HTML/indexp51.htm, IBM Corporation, 2002. |
“What Web Services Are Not”, www.webreference.com/xml/column50, 2003. |
“What's Next in IMS Providing Integrated e-business Solutions: IMS Version 8,” Excerpt from http://www.3.ibm.com/software/data/ims/...ntations/two/imsv7enh/HTML/indexp53.htm, IBM Corporation, 2002. |
“XML and IMS for Transparent Application Integration”, Excerpt from http://www.3.ibm.com/software/data/ims/...ntations/two/imsv7enh/HTML/indexp50.htm, IBM Corporation, 2002. |
“XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes” 2001, W3C <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xmischema-2-20010330>. |
Application Development/Enablement, http://www.306.ibm.com/software/data/ims/presentation/five/trends2003/HTML/indexp15.htm, Oct. 11, 2003. |
Arndt et al., An XML-Based Approach to Multimedia Software Engineering for Distance Learning, ACM 2002, pp. 525-532. |
Blackman, “IMS eBusiness Update”, IMS V8 Roadshow, 11 pages, IBM Corporation, http://www-306ibm.com.software/data/ims/shelf/presentation/oneday/IMSeBusinessUpdate2003.pdf, 2003. |
Component of the Week: XMI Toolkit:, Jun. 1, 2001 http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/co-cow21. htm l. |
Cover et al., “Web Services User Interface (WSUI) Initiative”, http://xml.coverpages.org/wsui.html, Oct. 29, 2002. |
Cover, Robin et al. Web Services for Interactive Applications (WSIA). [Web Services Component Model (WSCM)], http://xml.coverpages.org/wscm, Jan. 21, 2002, printed Oct. 31, 2007, 4 pages. |
Cronje, “Absa Uses VGR to Ensure Online Availability”, www-306.ibm.com/software/data/ims/quarterly/Winter2000/winter.htm. |
Crouch et al., “Balloon and Airship” Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 5 pages excerpt, 1993-1994. |
David A. Brown “Balloon Technology Offers High-Altitude Applications” Aviation Week & Space Technology, Nov. 16, 1992, pp. 56-57. |
Diaz et al., Inter-Organizational Document Exchange—Facing the Conversion Problem with XML, ACM 2002, pp. 1043-104. |
Djuknic, G. M. et al. (1997) “Establishing Wireless Communications Services via High-Altitude Aeronautical Platforms: A Concept Whose Time Has Come?,” IEEE Communictions Magazine 35(9): 128-135. |
Dymetman at al., XML and Multilingual Document Authoring: Convergent Trends, ACM Jul. 2000, pp. 243-249. |
Extended European Search Report mailed on Aug. 1, 2006, for patent application No. 0502604035, 7 pages |
Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition) Oct. 2000, W3C. |
Gavan, J. (1996) “Stratospheric Quasi-Stationary Platforms: (SQ-SP) Complementary toRadio Satellite Systems,” Electrical and Electronics Engineers in Israel, 1996, Nineteenth Convention of 283-286. |
Glushko et al., An XML Framework for Agent-Based E-Commerce, ACM Mar. 1999, pp. 106-114. |
Google Search for IMS OnDemand SOA IMS MFS Web Solution [retrieved Dec. 17, 2009 at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en$source=hp&q=MFS+MID+MOD+DIF+DOF&aq . . . ]. |
Hase, Y. et al. (1998) “A Novel Broadband All Wireless Access Network Using Stratospheric Plaforms” VTC 1191-1194. |
Hofstetter, The Future's Future: Implications of Emerging Technology for Special Education Program Planning, Journal of Special Education Technology, Fall 2001, vol. 16, p. 7, 7 pgs. |
Huang et al., Design and Implementation of a Web-based HL7 Message Generation and Validation System, Google 2003, pp. 49-58. |
James Martin, “Principles of Object-Oriented Analysis and Design,” Oct. 29, 1992, Chapters 1-22. |
Jantti, Jouko et al., “Solutions for IMS Connectivity”, http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docsview.wss?uid=swg27009024&aid=1, Feb. 2006. |
Jouko Jantti et al., “IMS Version 9 Implementation Guide”, ibm.com/redbooks, pp. 139-143. |
Long et al. “IMS Primer”Jan. 2000, IBM, Chapter 18. |
Microfocus International “DBD, PSB and MFS Statements,” 2001, available at <http://supportline, microfocus.com/documentation/books/mx25sp1/imdbds.htm> as of Jun. 16, 2009. |
Microsoft Corp, Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Microsoft Press, 1997, p. 371. |
Mraz, Stephen J. (1998) “Nanosatellites Head for the Launch Pad” Machine Design 70(13):38, 42, 44, 46. |
Office Action from U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for U.S. Appl. No. 12/168,451, received May 10, 2011. |
Office Action from U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for U.S. Appl. No. 12/169,486, received Feb. 1, 2012. |
OMG XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) Specification, Jun. 2000, OMG, v1.0. |
Parr et al., Distributed Processing Involving Personal Computers and Mainframe Hosts, IEEE 1985, pp. 479-489. |
PR Newswire, Sterling Commerce Announces Availability of First Data Transformation Engine to Support Both XML and Traditional EDI Standards, ProQuest May 12, 1999, pp. 1-3. |
PR Newswire, XMLSolutions Delivers XML-based Prototype for Envera Marketplace, ProQuest, Apr. 2000, pp. 1-3. |
Royappa, Implementing Catalog Clearinghouses with XML and XSL, ACM 1998, pp. 616-623. |
Starkey, “XML-Based Templates for Generating Artifacts from Java-Based Models,” Research Disclosure, Dec. 1998, pp. 1678-1680. |
Stieren, SST: Using Single-sourcing, SGML, and Teamwork for Documentation, ACM 1999, pp. 45-52. |
Suzuki et al., Managing the Software Design Documents with XML, ACM 1999, pp. 127-136. |
UMLTM for EAI. UMLTM Profile and Interchange Models for Enterprise Application Integration (EAI). OMG document No. ad/2001-09-17. |
Wong, Web services and Enterprise Application Integration, Google Jun. 2002, pp. 1-57. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60284799 | Apr 2001 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13757585 | Feb 2013 | US |
Child | 14473691 | US | |
Parent | 12099004 | Apr 2008 | US |
Child | 13757585 | US | |
Parent | 10673474 | Sep 2003 | US |
Child | 12099004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 15366020 | Dec 2016 | US |
Child | 15434036 | US | |
Parent | 10129666 | US | |
Child | 10673474 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14473691 | Aug 2014 | US |
Child | 15366020 | US |