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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on July 6, 2025, wherein:
Claim 2 is currently pending; and
Claims 1, 3, and 4 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 8/14/2023; 5/21/2023; 3/13/2023; 1/7/2023; 11/19/2022; 6/24/2022; 6/22/2022; 8/28/2021; and 11/30/2020 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
It is noted that none of the cited foreign patent documents and cited non-patent literature publications listed on the aforementioned IDS’s have had copies provided. It is additionally noted that most of the references cited on the different IDS’s appear to be duplications. Applicant is advised that repetition of references on each new IDS is unnecessary and should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the process to create artificial Magnetic Field in claim 2 (e.g. a flowchart); the artificial ring around the planet in claim 2; and the electrically conductive ring forming an oppositional magnetic field in response to the magnetic flux of the sun in claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 11, line 1 of the specification, the phrase “PVC and PPD” is recited. It is noted that PVC and PPD are both acronyms but the full terms are not first recited. Applicant is advised to amend the phrase to recite “Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and p-Phenylenediamine (PPD).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites a step of “creating artificial ring around planet.” From a review of the entirety of the originally filed disclosure, there does not appear to be any recitation or illustration of how this step of “creating” is actually performed. Applicant describes rings comprised of particles, individual satellites, and “a continuous ring” throughout the disclosure, however, as “create” is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “1: to bring into existence; 2b: to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior” it appears as though the inventors have failed to provide an actual reduction to practice in how such a ring is brought into existence or produced by a particular course of action (e.g. using rockets to place a material into a planetary orbit). As this step appears to be unsupported by the written description, Applicant has failed to demonstrate they were in possession of this step of creating at the time the application was filed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Earth rings for planetary environment control” by Pearson et al. in view of “Space science applications for conducting polymer particles: synthetic mimics for cosmic dust and micrometeorites” by Fielding et al.
Re: Claim 2. As best understood due to lack of written description and indefiniteness, Pearson et al. teach a method of creating an artificial planetary ring about the Earth composed of passive particles or controlled spacecraft with parasols to reduce global warming (Abstract). On page 46, section 2, “Artificial Earth rings” it is taught that the creation of an artificial ring above the Earth to reduced solar insolation (i.e. the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface or atmosphere over a specific period of time) is the purpose of the paper. In section 2.1, it is taught that the ring is placed in equatorial orbit above the Earth similar to Saturn’s B ring and is shown in Fig. 1. On page 51, section 3.4 states the Earth ring will extend into the Van Allen radiation belts and absorb the charged particles trapped in the belts and reduce radiation. In section 3.5, it is taught that the particles may be generated from asteroid materials. However, Pearson et al. do not expressly disclose that the material forming the artificial ring around the planet is comprised of an electrically conductive polymer and that the ring creates an oppositional magnetic field in response to a change in the Sun’s magnetic flux.
Fielding et al. teach a range of polypyrrole-based particles for use in space science applications. The particles are taught to be an electrically conductive polymer which is efficient at acquiring a surface charge (Abstract). On pages 16886-16887, the “Background” section teaches that polypyrrole (PPy) and poly(3,4-ethylene-dioxy-thiophene) (PEDOT) are known conductive polymers. The Abstract teaches that these polymers are good mimics for cosmic dust and micrometeorites (e.g. for calibration of equipment to determine the composition of Saturn’s dust rings). The prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the asteroid generated material taught by Pearson et al. for the electrically conductive polymers as taught by Fielding et al. due to the noted mimicry of existing materials in space and the ability to synthesize said materials to tailor their size and shape as taught on page 16887 of Fielding et al. to achieve the optimum particle size as taught by Pearson et al. in section 3.3. “Particle ring design requirements.” Due to the electrically conductive polymers mimicking natural cosmic dust (Examiner gives Official Notice that cosmic dust is known to be formed at least partially from asteroids), generating a man-made material and deploying it to space would be more cost effective and within the current technological capabilities of mankind as opposed to wrangling asteroids into a collision to provide the particles in the same region around Earth. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the electrically conductive polymers of Fielding et al. in place of the asteroid materials of Pearson et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Pearson et al. in view of Fielding et al. therefore render obvious forming the artificial ring around the planet is comprised of an electrically conductive polymer.
With regards to the ring creating an oppositional magnetic field in response to a change in the Sun’s magnetic flux as claimed, in paragraph [0006] of the PG Publication of the present disclosure (US 2021/10163157 A1), it is stated that that “A ring which conducts electricity and generates a magnetic field, can also create oppositional magnetic field in response to a changing external magnetic field.” In paragraph [0027], it is recited that “The ring may be an assembly of completely connected satellites, or flow as a system particles at a certain orbital radius, as electricity can flow through vacuums.” In paragraphs [0028]-[0029] it is then taught “Placing a ring around a planet, comprised of electrically conductive material, will help shield the planet from the Sun's changing magnetic field, and the Solar Wind. A magnetic field can induce a current through electrically conductive material, if the conductor moves in reference to a magnetic field. Change in the magnetic flux through a conductor induces an oppositional current, and thus an oppositional magnetic flux, due to the principles of conservation of energy. Thus, placing an electrically conductive ring around a planet, will induce oppositional current, and oppositional magnetic flux, against changes in the Sun's magnetic field. Objects in space also gain charge, and magnetic fields due to their exposure to space, in a process called space charging. The Sun's magnetic field radiation that is present throughout the Solar System, helps induce current through a conductive ring system.” Based upon Applicant’s own disclosure, the electrically conductive ring rendered obvious by Pearson et al. in view of Fielding et al. will intrinsically produce an oppositional magnetic field in response to a change in the Sun’s magnetic flux, as claimed, due to it being formed from electrically conductive polymer particles. The entirety of claim 2 is therefore rendered obvious by Pearson et al. in view of Fielding et al.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0230414 A1 to Stelmack et al. in view of “Electromagnetic radiation shielding by intrinsically conducting polymers” by Joo et al.
Re: Claim 2. As best understood due to lack of written description and indefiniteness, Stelmack et al. teach a process to create an artificial ring around planet (Abstract; Fig. 1) wherein the artificial ring (Figs. 2-4; 14, ring) is comprised of electrically conductive materials designed to deflect and absorb rays of the sun ([0005]). In paragraph [0037], Stelmack et al. teach that a magnetic material or dust (nanopowder) is released into the thermosphere or exosphere of the Earth and may comprise nickel. Examiner gives Official Notice that nickel is a known to be electrically conductive. In paragraphs [0040]-[0043], a method is taught where the magnetic material is produced on Earth and then transported into orbit by rockets, where it is dispersed to form a magnetic ring around the Earth which deflects and absorbs the rays of the sun. However, Stelmack et al. do not expressly disclose that the magnetic material forming the artificial ring around the planet is comprised of an electrically conductive polymer and that the ring creates an oppositional magnetic field in response to a change in the Sun’s magnetic flux.
Joo et al. teach the use of intrinsically conducting polymers (ICPs) including doped polyaniline, polypyrrole, and polyacetylene for shielding against electromagnetic radiation by reflection and absorption (Abstract). On page 2278, Joo et al. teach that “Intrinsically conducting polymers (ICPs) are promising materials for shielding electromagnetic (EM) radiation and reducing or eliminating EMI because of their relatively high conductivity (σ) and dielectric constant (ε) and ease of control of their σ and ε through chemical processing. Also, they are relatively lightweight compared to standard metals, flexible, and do not corrode as common metals.” The prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the electrically conductive material taught by Stelmack et al. for the electrically conductive polymers as taught by Joo et al. due to the known ability of such polymers to shield against electromagnetic radiation generated by the Sun and the ability to precisely control their conductivity and dielectric constant through chemical processing, while also being lightweight and corrosion resistance which are beneficial for the purpose. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the electrically conductive material of Joo et al. in place of the magnetic and electrically conductive materials of Stelmack et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Stelmack et al. in view of Joo et al. therefore render obvious forming the artificial ring around the planet is comprised of an electrically conductive polymer.
With regards to the ring creating an oppositional magnetic field in response to a change in the Sun’s magnetic flux as claimed, in paragraph [0006] of the PG Publication of the present disclosure (US 2021/10163157 A1), it is stated that that “A ring which conducts electricity and generates a magnetic field, can also create oppositional magnetic field in response to a changing external magnetic field.” In paragraph [0027], it is recited that “The ring may be an assembly of completely connected satellites, or flow as a system particles at a certain orbital radius, as electricity can flow through vacuums.” In paragraphs [0028]-[0029] it is then taught “Placing a ring around a planet, comprised of electrically conductive material, will help shield the planet from the Sun's changing magnetic field, and the Solar Wind. A magnetic field can induce a current through electrically conductive material, if the conductor moves in reference to a magnetic field. Change in the magnetic flux through a conductor induces an oppositional current, and thus an oppositional magnetic flux, due to the principles of conservation of energy. Thus, placing an electrically conductive ring around a planet, will induce oppositional current, and oppositional magnetic flux, against changes in the Sun's magnetic field. Objects in space also gain charge, and magnetic fields due to their exposure to space, in a process called space charging. The Sun's magnetic field radiation that is present throughout the Solar System, helps induce current through a conductive ring system.” Based upon Applicant’s own disclosure, the electrically conductive ring rendered obvious by Stelmack et al. in view of Joo et al. will intrinsically produce an oppositional magnetic field in response to a change in the Sun’s magnetic flux, as claimed, due to it being formed from electrically conductive polymer particles. The entirety of claim 2 is therefore rendered obvious by Stelmack et al. in view of Joo et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“The application persists in arguing the merits of claim 2. The office action questions whether the inventor was in possession of the invention at the time the application was submitted. It is sufficient to have invented by the conception of the invention, so long as it is definitive to describe and enable the invention to one with ordinary skill in the art“.
This argument is not deemed persuasive since it does not respond to how the creation of the artificial ring around a planet is actually performed or provide evidence as to the actual reduction to practice of how such rings are brought into existence. The mere statement that it is sufficient to have invented by conception of the invention lacks the necessary description of how such rings are created and therefore reduced to practice.
“The office action cites a number of publications that the examiner claims would be able to enable one skilled in the art to build the invention, so long as the inventions are combined. At the same time, the examiner states that is it not clear whether the invention was sufficiently in possession of inventor that one skilled in the art would be able to render invention with instructions presented in the specification.
In examining the Pearson and Fielding publications, it is important to note that neither renders the claimed invention in our specification obvious. A skilled inventor would not have possessed the motivation to combine the elements of these different publications. The Fielding publication does not mention the concept of a planetary ring at all. It would be beyond the reach of the publication to disable any new space based invention from acquiring rights simply due to the mention of conductive polymers in space. The idea that simply mentioning a compound or composite renders any molecule sharing molecular components unpatentable, would dismiss a number of improvements in the field of chemistry. The field of chemistry is full of newly developed polymers everyday, which are utilized in a number of emerging sciences. The Pearson publication teaches a method to cool earth with parasols. The publication does not discuss the efforts to terraform another planet. More importantly, it does not disclose materials, or specify using an electrically conductive polymer for a planetary ring.
A skilled inventor would not have been motivated to combine elements from the Pearson and Fielding publications. It would not be wise to restrict the field of invention to this degree. Furthermore, examiner contradicts themselves in their review of the claim, simultaneously stating that the specification doesn’t convey possession of the invention, yet also stating that the invention would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Reviewing the publications mentioned, there’s nothing beyond the scope of our invention, that’s mentioned in the cited prior art. The components that the examiner claims would be obvious to combine, are mentioned in this invention specification, with the noted exception, that this specification actually possesses the motivation to add an inventive step. “
With respect to the above argument, applicant appears to be arguing references individually rather than the combination of both references as noted in the 103 rejection. While Fielding may not mention the concept of a planetary ring, this reference was not cited to teach such feature. Rather the main reference to Pearson et al does in fact teach rings around a planet utilized to control its atmosphere and as stated in the rejections page 51 sections 3.4 and 3.5 . discusses that an artificial ring is produced about the planet earth and that such particles of the ring may be generated from asteroid materials. The Fielding reference was merely cited to show an obvious substitution of a conductive polymer material that mimics cosmic dust and micrometeorites (which examiner gave official notice as being formed of partially asteroids) such that the use of man-made materials of the conductive polymer as taught by Fielding would be a cost effective and controlled measure to place such ring particles around a planet, in this case Earth. The argument also states “… Pearson publication teaches a method to cool earth with parasols. The publication does not discuss the efforts to terraform another planet”, however this is further not persuasive since instant claim 2 does not claim to terraform another planet, rather just “creating an artificial ring around a planet” which is broadly readable as any of the planets in the solar system including “Earth”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER M POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30am-4pm.
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, Namrata Boveja] can be reached on 571-272-8105. 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.
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643