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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claim 1 in the reply filed on October 12, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Applicant believes claims 1 and 2 overlap in scope, and are not mutually exclusive. The examiner agrees with the applicant's argument that claims 1 and 2 overlap and are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, both claims are now pending for examination.
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 12, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 2 should end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 2 recite step of “changing in magnetic field strength, orientation, direction, angular flux.” However, it is suggested to amend to -changing strength, orientation, direction, and angular flux in magnetic field-.
Claim 2 recites “where artificial electromagnetic field(s).” It is unclear why the term “field” has “(s)”, since line 2 states “artificial electromagnetic fields” as a plural. It is suggested to remove the parenthesis.
Claims 1 and 2 must be corrected to maintain consistent lowercase usage, eliminating the current use of initial uppercase letters in many words. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Applicant has failed to provide a disclosure of the invention which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention without undue experimentation. The examiner maintains that this finding of lack of enablement is supported by substantial evidence in the form of findings of fact and relevant discussion by the examiner as follows:
Finding of Fact A: The disclosure provides no further detail regarding the specific operational challenges involved in altering the magnetic field strength, orientation, direction, or angular flux within aquatic bodies of water. Rather, the description is confined to a general discussion of the interaction between the Earth’s natural electromagnetic field and an artificially generated electromagnetic field, purportedly for the purpose of inducing precipitation. No technical teaching is provided as to how such electromagnetic variations could be implemented or controlled in practice. Consequently, the claimed invention appears to lack enabling detail. In addition, the proposed approach suffers from significant inefficiency, as it would require the expenditure of considerable energy to generate and sustain artificial electromagnetic fields across large areas of ocean or other bodies of water. The concept appears limited to lab or non-ocean environments, not large-scale marine applications.
Finding of Fact B: The applicant fails to disclose or provide sufficient specificity, the magnitude or range of artificial electromagnetic filed strength required to be applied to aquatic bodies of water in order to achieve the purported precipitation effect. In the absence of this critical parameter, the disclosure does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to reproduce or implement the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. Accordingly, the specification does not satisfy the enable requirement.
Finding of Fact C: The applicant fails to disclose or provide sufficient information to explaining how the size or scale of aquatic bodies could be utilized to induce electrical currents and oppositional magnetic fields capable of producing levitation and evaporation effects. In the absence of such disclosure, implementation of the claimed invention would require undue experimentation will beyond the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the application does not include any specific data, examples, ranges, or parameters that would enable one of ordinary skill to understand or reproduce the asserted relationship between induced electrical currents in ocean water and the resulting levitation and evaporation of ocean water.
Finding of Fact D: The prior art WO 2006/053379, on page 4 states that, “It should also be mentioned that U.S. Pat. No. 4,671,805 observes that seeding fog with electrically charged particles from an airplane was contemplated but discarded in favor a ground-based system owing to the many operational difficulties of an airborne system. The patent does not expand on the nature of these operational difficulties, but in any event, is restricted to a discussion of ground based systems for fog precipitation principally for dispersing fogs near airports and the like. Moreover, no suggestion is made as to how this can be achieved controllably. One of the main drawbacks of the electrostatic precipitation prior art techniques is their inefficiency, since these techniques require high energy consumption for producing an electromagnetic field over a large space or territory. Therefore, these techniques cannot be utilized over large areas of fog and clouds" when referring to suggestions for creating precipitation. The applicant has not provided any information that contradicts this article.
Finding of Fact E: National Geographic Society (July 2023) states that, “Earth’s shifting magnetic poles don’t cause climate change.” The article explains why changes in Earth’s magnetic field are not credibly linked to climate change, according to scientists. The applicant has not provided any information that contradicts this article (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/earths-shifting-magnetic-fields-arent-causing-climate-change).
Claims 1-2 attempt to define the subject matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to conceptual statement of the underlying problem, without providing the specific information, ranges, and data necessary for achieving this result. Therefore, Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Additionally, since the originally filed specification does not provide a disclosure of the invention which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention without undue experimentation, the Examiner suggests that if the Applicant wishes to add new subject matter to overcome the rejection, a Continuation-in-Part application must be filed while this application is still pending.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Malcom (GB 2467010 A) discloses a method of using electro magnets to excite water molecule to create electrostatic rain cloud (see abstract and page 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752