DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “fine” in claims 1-18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What size of particles qualifies as a fine particle? The specification defines “fine particles” as “fluid substances that are generated by pulverizing a liquid or solid using external energy and are hanging in a space while maintaining a certain level of coherence. Examples of the fine particles include a cloud that occurs in the nature.” What level of coherence qualifies a liquid or solid as coherent? The bounds of the limitation are unclear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the irriadiators” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bennett (US 20020171039).
Regarding claim 1, Bennett discloses a fine particles space placement control system comprising:
a fine particles generator generating fine particles hanging in a predetermined space by applying external energy to a liquid or a solid (Paragraph 38, water vapor particles are provided by combustion of aircraft fluid); and
an irradiator (Paragraph 46, laser source) removing some of the fine particles generated by the fine particles generator by irradiating the some of the fine particles with an infrared light and thus vaporizing or burning the some of the fine particles (Paragraph 46, particles of the cloud are dissipated using a laser, to generate the image).
Regarding claim 17, Bennett discloses a fine particles space placement control method comprising:
generating, by a computer, fine particles hanging in a predetermined space by applying external energy to a liquid or a solid (Paragraph 51, the skywriting system may be controlled by using a data link at a control station, which suggest use of a computer; paragraph 38); and removing, by the computer, some of the fine particles generated by a fine particles generator by irradiating the some of the removed fine particles with an infrared light and thus vaporizing or burning the some of the removed fine particles (Paragraph 51, the platform for the light source is also controlled by the ground station data link; paragraph 46)
Regarding claim 18, Bennett discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-readable instruction thereon, which, when executed by processor, cause the processor to execute a method comprising: generating fine particles hanging in a predetermined space by applying external energy to a liquid or a solid (Paragraph 38); and removing some of the fine particles generated by a fine particles generator by irradiating the some of the removed fine particles with an infrared light and thus vaporizing or burning the some of the removed fine particles (Paragraph 46).
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 10-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Black (GB2524773).
Regarding claim 1, Black discloses a fine particles space placement control system comprising:
a fine particles generator generating fine particles hanging in a predetermined space by applying external energy to a liquid or a solid (a vapour trail, which includes fine particles of soot, is generated by combustion of an aircraft); and
an irradiator (line 109, photon emitter) removing some of the fine particles generated by the fine particles generator by irradiating the some of the fine particles with an infrared light and thus vaporizing or burning the some of the fine particles (Lines 109-110, soot particles are eliminated by the emitter).
Regarding claim 6, Black discloses the fine particles space placement control system according to claim 1, further comprising: a recognizer (vapour trail sensor) recognizing a form of the fine particles generated by the fine particles generator (Lines 151-153, optical depth is detected); and
a controller (Line 162) controlling the irradiator by comparing the form of the fine particles recognized by the recognizer and form information indicating a form of fine particles to be shaped the controller identifying the range if the fine particles hanging in the predetermined space to be irradiated by the irradiator, and the controller causing the irradiator to irradiate with infrared light to remove the some of the fine particles (Lines 162-167 and 488-498, Contrail optical depth is to be within a particular range; Soot particles are irradiated dependent upon whether ambient temperature lies in a range where irradiation would increase contrail optical depth).
Regarding claim 7, Black discloses the fine particles space placement control system according to claim 6, wherein the controller further comprises a receiver receiving input of the form information (Lines 494-495, predetermined threshold is determined from a look-up table or database; The disclosure suggests there is a memory receiving the information), and the controller urges a user to select, as the form information, at least one of a shape of a cloud and a period condition, a time condition, and an area condition under which the cloud occurs and to input the selected form information to the receiver (Lines 166-167, the threshold value may be determined; ambient temperature conditions are input to the receiver).
Regarding claim 8, Black discloses the fine particles space placement control system according to claim 6, wherein the irradiator comprises an actuator actuated under control of the controller (Lines 162-167, the disclosure suggests that an actuator is present, as the controller controls the emitter).
Regarding claim 10, Black discloses the fine particles space placement control system according to claim 6, wherein the irradiators are disposed in positions opposite to each other with respect to the predetermined space in which the fine particles generator generates the fine particles (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Black discloses the fine particles space placement control system according to claim 1, further comprising a light source irradiating the fine particles generated by the fine particles generator with visible light (lines 563-564).
Regarding claim 16, Black discloses the fine particles space placement control system according to claim 1, wherein the fine particles generator comprises a temperature control mechanism controlling a temperature of at least one of the generated fine particles and a raw material of the fine particles (Line 109, the photon emitter heats the soot).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett in view of Kyung (KR 20020023790).
Regarding claim 2, Bennett discloses the fine particles space placement control system according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the fine particles generator comprises an ultrasonic vibrator configured to generate the fine particles by pulverizing a liquid using ultrasound vibration.
Kyung discloses a system wherein a fine particles generator comprises an ultrasonic vibrator (3) configured to generate the fine particles by pulverizing a liquid using ultrasound vibration (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bennett with the disclosures of Kyung, replacing the fine particles generator of Bennett with that of Kyung, providing a system wherein a fine particles generator comprises an ultrasonic vibrator (Kynug, 3) configured to generate the fine particles by pulverizing a liquid using ultrasound vibration (Kyung, Abstract), as the devices were known alternatives to generate fine particles, and the substitution would have yielded predictable results, with no change in the function of the constituent parts.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black.
Regarding claim 9, Black discloses the fine particles space placement control system according to claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein the irradiator is formed integrally with the recognizer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the irradiator integral with the recognizer since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has been formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752