Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/714,043

SkyPipes for Renewable Water and Power Production

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 05, 2022
Examiner
CUEVAS, PEDRO J
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
4 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
712 granted / 1018 resolved
+1.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1042
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1018 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 16, 2024 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed on October 1, 2025, with respect to omitted essential elements have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 1-8 and 17 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed on October 1, 2025, with respect to the recitation of an inoperative invention that lacks utility have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-8 and 17 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed on October 1, 2025, with respect to the alleged failure of Abahusayn, Sander et al., and Prueitt to teach tubes being “filled with and enclose … helium” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because Abahusayn clearly teaches, in paragraph [0025], lines 44-45, that the tubes of the aerostat liquid aerosol collector (ALAC) are filled with and enclose a “gas that weighs less than air to provide buoyancy”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-19 has been maintained. 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. Claims 1-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0280849 A1 to Abahusayn in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,668,875 to Sander et al. and U.S. Patent No. 5,395,598 to Prueitt. Abahusayn clearly teaches an aerostat liquid aerosol collector (ALAC), comprising: a plurality of fabricated tubes (12), wherein the tubes are filled with and enclose a “gas that weighs less than air to provide buoyancy” (see paragraph [0025], lines 44-45), wherein said gas can be hydrogen (see paragraph [0021]), helium (see paragraph [0040]), or combinations thereof, and wherein the tubes are bonded together lengthwise in a circular assembly to provide a cylindrical structure (see Figure 1) comprising a central bore (see Figure 3); a turbine (10) configured to extract power from wind; and a ground structure (see Figure 1), wherein a lower portion of the cylindrical structure is tethered (78) to the ground structure. However, it fails to disclose: the cylindrical structure being flexible, the tubes being each in direct contact with their neighboring tubes when bonded together lengthwise in a circular assembly; and the ground structure comprising a turbine, wherein the turbine is configured to extract power from updrafts produced above the Level of Free Convection (LFC) by heat released during condensation of water within the cylindrical structure. Sander et al. discloses an offshore terminal, comprising: a cylindrical structure (see Figure 6) being flexible (see column 3, line 44 to column 4, line 1, “tubular telescopic elements 11 and 12 have different elastic limits”); and tubes being each in direct contact with their neighboring tubes (see Figure 6) when bonded together lengthwise in a circular assembly. Prueitt discloses convection towers, comprising: a ground structure comprising a turbine (53) configured to extract power from updrafts produced above the Level of Free Convection (LFC) by heat released during condensation of water within the cylindrical structure. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the flexible structure and directly contacting tube construction disclosed by Sander et al. and the ground structure comprising a turbine as disclosed by Prueitt on the aerostat liquid aerosol collector disclosed by Abahusayn, for the purpose of: allowing the aerostat to move with the fluid; and increasing the fluid movement through the structure. With regards to claim 2, Abahusayn discloses: the cylindrical structure having a height of more than 1000 meters (see paragraph [0023]). With regards to claim 3, Abahusayn discloses: the cylindrical structure having a nominal outside diameter between 150 meters and 300 meters (see paragraph [0022]). With regards to claim 4, Abahusayn discloses: each of the tubes are fabricated from materials having mechanical strength and the ability to impede gas permeation (see paragraph [0023]) such as a UV stabilized polyethylene, a polymer filled fabric, a fiber reinforced polymer, a nano-clay loaded polymer, or any combinations thereof. With regards to claim 5, Abahusayn discloses: each of the tubes are fabricated from polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, polycarbonate, polyamides, polyimides, epoxies, urethanes, polyolefins, mylar, fluorinated polymers, UV stabilized polymers, nanomaterial reinforced polymers, polymer nanocomposites, aluminum films, rubberized Dacron, silk, polymer infused fabrics, or any combinations thereof (see paragraph [0023]). With regards to claim 6, Abahusayn discloses: the cylindrical structure being self-supporting (see Figure 1). With regards to claim 7, Abahusayn discloses: a balloon (32) tethered to an upper portion of the cylindrical structure to provide additional support. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a blimp instead of a balloon since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of blimps and balloons for their use in the providing lift and vertical support art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to provide additional support would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. With regards to claim 8, Abahusayn discloses: metallic or composite hoops (38; see paragraph [0021]) disposed inside or outside the cylindrical structure to provide additional support. With regards to claim 11, Abahusayn in view of Sander et al. and Prueitt disclose a method comprising the steps of: concentrating and lifting humid air through a central bore of a cylindrical structure to condense water above the Lifted Condensation Level (LCL), wherein the cylindrical structure comprises: a plurality of fabricated tubes (12 of Abahusayn), wherein the tubes are filled with and enclose hydrogen, helium (see paragraph [0040] of Abahusayn), or combinations thereof, and wherein the tubes are bonded together lengthwise in a circular assembly (see Figure 1 of Abahusayn), and further wherein the tubes are each in direct contact with their neighboring tubes; and a ground structure (see Figure 1 of Abahusayn), wherein a lower portion of the cylindrical structure is tethered to the ground structure; collecting condensed water that runs down the central bore, wherein the step of collecting condensed water is performed by the ground structure; and generating power from updrafts caused by the heat released during condensation, wherein the updrafts are produced above the Level of Free Convection (LFC), and further wherein a turbine (18, 46, 53, and 62 of Prueitt) extracts power from the updrafts. With regards to claim 12, Abahusayn discloses: the cylindrical structure having a height of more than 1000 meters (see paragraph [0023]). With regards to claim 13, Abahusayn discloses: the cylindrical structure having a nominal outside diameter between 150 meters and 300 meters (see paragraph [0022]). With regards to claim 14, Abahusayn discloses: each of the tubes are fabricated from materials having mechanical strength and the ability to impede gas permeation (see paragraph [0023]) such as: a UV stabilized polyethylene; a polymer filled fabric; a fiber reinforced polymer; a nano-clay loaded polymer; or any combinations thereof. With regards to claim 15, Abahusayn discloses: each of the tubes are fabricated from polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, polycarbonate, polyamides, polyimides, epoxies, urethanes, polyolefins, mylar, fluorinated polymers, UV stabilized polymers, nanomaterial reinforced polymers, polymer nanocomposites, aluminum films, rubberized Dacron, silk, polymer infused fabrics, or any combinations thereof (see paragraph [0023]). With regards to claim 16, Abahusayn discloses: the cylindrical structure being self-supporting (see Figure 1). With regards to claim 17, Abahusayn discloses: an aerostat (32), blimp, or airship lifting structure tethered to an upper portion of the cylindrical structure to provide additional support. With regards to claim 18, Abahusayn discloses: metallic or composite hoops (38; see paragraph [0021]) disposed inside or outside the cylindrical structure to provide additional support. With regards to claim 19, Prueitt discloses: the turbine being configured to collect and direct wind and force air up the central bore (see Figure 5). 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 PEDRO J CUEVAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2021. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM. 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, Jessica Han can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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. /PEDRO J CUEVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 October 24, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 05, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 16, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 20, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 30, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 16, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 01, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600601
VOLTAGE SIGNAL PROCESSING UNIT, LANDING DOOR FAILURE LOCATING SYSTEM AND METHOD, ELEVATOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603634
ACOUSTIC WAVE DEVICES WITH IMPROVED HEAT MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599932
DRIVE CONTROL DEVICE AND ULTRASONIC MOTOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597829
WEARABLE HUMAN BODY UPPER LIMB MOTION ENERGY HARVESTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592425
POWER SUPPLY DEVICE AND MECHANICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+15.8%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1018 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month