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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-15 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-3, 7, and 9 were previously canceled.
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, 4-6, 8, and 10-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “ionize and impart an electric charge of a single sign”, and the claim also recites “preferably negative” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation of “a high-voltage direct current power supply” in line 18 renders the claim indefinite because “a high-voltage direct current power supply” was already positively recited in line 15. As a result, it is unclear if line 18 requires a second high-voltage direct current power supply, or if it is referring to the high-voltage direct current power supply that was already recited. For the purposes of examination, the latter will be assumed; this appears to be consistent with the drawings.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 10-15 are rejected for depending from indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “2-15 kV”, and the claim also recites “4-7 kV” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 is rejected for depending from indefinite claim 10.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0072562) in view of Fluhrer et al. (US 2011/0174892), Kaidonis et al. (US 5,211,336), and He (US 10,907,819).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus (100) for precipitation of water and weather modification (par. 5, 79), the apparatus adapted to provide particles of organic and inorganic insoluble materials suspended in water (par. 12) and release a space charge in the form of electrically charged liquid droplets of same electric sign to augment cloud microphysics of precipitation formation (par. 86), the apparatus comprising:
a mast (“OB”) forming a support structure elevated at a height above the ground (par. 613; fig. 29) for preventing electric discharge to the earth and for supporting the apparatus (par. 616; fig. 29);
a plurality of spraying nozzles (par. 155 – “multiple nozzles”) arranged side-by-side (figs. 11A, 11B) and mounted at the top of the non-conductive mast (fig. 29 – apparatus 100, which has the nozzles, is mounted to the top of the mast “OB”) for ejecting electrically charged droplets (par. 143, 625) in an upward direction (figs. 11A, 11B) towards atmosphere (par. 625; fig. 29) to increase free surface for ionization;
at least one insulated charging electrode (36, which are insulated by substrates, 201/205/207, see figs. 44A, 44B), arranged adjacent to the plurality of spraying nozzles (see figs. 10A, 10B, 11A, 11B), for ionizing the droplets in the ejection direction (par. 80), wherein the at least one insulated charging electrode may protrude to different heights from the nozzle array (par. 172) and is connected to a high-voltage direct current power supply (160, par. 187), and the at least one insulated charging electrode being configured to ionize and impart an electric charge of a single sign, preferably negative (par. 91-92), to the electrically charged droplets (par. 235), and being connected to a high-voltage direct current power supply (160) for generating the required potential difference (par. 187);
at least one internal tank (110, see figs. 6, 29) supported by the mast (fig. 6 – the “Liquid storage unit” 110 is shown as part of the “Device” 100; fig. 1 – the device is shown in the form of a mast; fig. 29) for storing the particles of organic and inorganic insoluble materials suspended in water (par. 135);
and a pump (120, see par. 139, 140) accommodated in the mast (fig. 6 – the “Liquid supply unit” 120 is shown as part of the “Device” 100; fig. 1 – the device is shown in the form of a mast; fig. 29), the pump is connected directly to the plurality of spraying nozzles (par. 141) and the at least one internal tank (par. 141) through at least one pipe or hose (par. 138),
wherein the plurality of spraying nozzle are fed with the particles of organic and inorganic insoluble materials suspended in water by the pump to the plurality of nozzles under pressure (par. 141),
wherein the charged liquid droplets form a localized electric field that enhances condensation nuclei activity in atmosphere, upon being ejected into the atmosphere, forms the space charge of same polarity that interacts with the space charge of the particles of organic and inorganic insoluble materials to enhance condensation, thereby augmenting the precipitation of the water (regarding this limitation, it is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I).
Kim does not disclose firstly, that the mast is non-conductive or secondly, that the at least one insulated charging electrode is located in ejection direction above the plurality of spraying nozzles, or thirdly, an external tank supported by the mast, or fourthly, that the pump is electrically coupled with a low voltage direct current supply.
Regarding the first deficiency, Fluhrer teaches an apparatus for precipitation of water (par. 2) comprising a non--conductive mast (47, see par. 154).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mast of the apparatus of Kim to be non-conductive, as taught by Fluhrer, since this was known to prevent the accumulation of continuous conductive water film under wet conditions (par. 154).
Regarding the second deficiency, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus such that the charging electrode is located in ejection direction above the spraying nozzle since Kim discloses that both the charging electrode and the nozzle may protrude to different heights from the base (par. 172); therefore, one or ordinary skill could envision a configuration in which the charging electrode protrudes to a greater height than the nozzles, locating it above the spraying nozzle.
Regarding the third deficiency, Kaidonis teaches an apparatus for precipitation of water (fig. 3) comprising an external tank (7) supported by a mast (21, see fig. 3 – the masts 21 “support” the tank by providing a structure for the fluid conduits to provide a flow path by which the contents of the tank are discharged into the environment).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kim to further comprise an external tank supported by the mast, as taught by Kaidonis, since this would provide a centralized, large capacity reservoir able to support a number of apparatuses in an area (Kaidonis, fig. 3).
Regarding the fourth deficiency, He teaches an apparatus for precipitation of water comprising a pump (5) accommodated in a mast (12) that is electrically coupled with a low voltage direct current supply (col. 6, ln. 22).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kim to electrically couple the pump with a low voltage direct current supply as taught by He, since this was a known means for providing power to a pump of an apparatus for precipitation of water.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 1, and further wherein a size of the particles of organic and inorganic insoluble material suspended in water is less than or equal to 1 µm.
Regarding this claim, it is noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II. Claim 4 does not recite any additional structures, but only recites the manner in which the apparatus is used; therefore, the apparatus of Kim is also interpreted to be capable of being used in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 1, and further wherein each of the plurality of spraying nozzles have an orifice diameter of between 0.3-1.2 mm (par. 144 – outer diameter of 0.3 mm) and/or have a liquid consumption of 40-80 ml/min (inherent, the flow rate through the nozzle will depend on the pressure of the liquid supplied to the nozzle).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 1, and wherein the plurality of spraying nozzles produce droplets having an average diameter of several µm (par. 82), but not specifically that the average diameter is between 10-140 µm. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the average droplet diameter of Kim such that it “is between 10-140 µm” since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779. Providing the droplets with an average diameter between 10-140 µm would increase the volume of water being sprayed from the apparatus.
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 1, and further wherein another pump is located outside the non-conductive mast for refilling the at least one internal tank and the at least one external tank. Nevertheless, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He to further include another pump located outside the non-conductive mast for refilling the at least one internal tank and the at least one external tank. A pump is a well-known element for transferring a liquid from one point to another.
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 9, and further wherein the at least one insulated charging electrode operates at 2-15 kV, preferably 4-7 kV (par. 203).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 9, and further wherein the at least one charging electrode consumes net electric current after leak current of 1 µA to 1 mA per each of the plurality of spraying nozzles (par. 328). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric current of Kim such that it is in the range of 3-10 µA since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art". In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 2020/0008370).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 9, but not further wherein a polarity of the at least one insulated charging electrode is positive and a polarity of the droplets is negative when charged.
Martin teaches an apparatus (10) for precipitation of water (par. 2) comprising a plurality of spraying nozzles (16) for ejecting droplets (par. 22); at least one insulated charging electrode (20) arranged adjacent to the plurality of spraying nozzles (fig. 2), for ionizing the droplets (par. 22); and wherein a polarity of the charging electrode is positive (par. 22) and a polarity of the charged droplets is negative (par. 22).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses such that a polarity of the at least one insulated charging electrode is positive and a polarity of the droplets when charged is negative since this was known to form a spray of charged water droplets suited to being carried by an updraft into a cloud for seeding the cloud (par. 5).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He, and further in view of Seitz (US 2016/0256878).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the high-voltage direct current power supply is a low-to-high direct current voltage converter located above an insulated emitter electrode.
Seitz teaches a high-voltage direct current power supply (84) is a low-to-high direct current voltage converter (88, see par. 22) located above an insulated emitter electrode (104, see figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses so that the high-voltage direct current power supply is a low-to-high direct current voltage converter located above the insulated emitter electrode, as taught by Seitz, since this was known to allow a low voltage alternating current to be converted into a high voltage direct current for electrically charging liquid droplets (par. 22).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He, and further in view of Roos et al. (US 2014/0367478).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising an insulated emitter electrode, which is mounted on the non-conductive mast below the plurality of spraying nozzles and electrically coupled with another high-voltage direct current power supply.
Roos teaches an apparatus (1) comprising a spraying nozzle (5) for ejecting droplets (par. 81), at least one insulated charging electrode (8) arranged adjacent to the spraying nozzle (fig. 1) for ionizing the droplets and connected to a high-voltage direct current power supply (50), an insulated emitter electrode (7), which is mounted on the apparatus below the spraying nozzle (figs. 1, 3) and electrically coupled with another high-voltage direct current power supply (51, see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, and He discloses to further comprise an insulated emitter electrode, which is mounted on the non-conductive mast below the plurality of spraying nozzles and electrically coupled with another high-voltage direct current power supply, as taught by Roos. This modification was known to cause an electric wind to form that helps carry the liquid droplets in the spraying direction (par. 82, 83).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Fluhrer, Kaidonis, He, and Roos discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 14, and further wherein a polarity of the another high-voltage direct current power supply is opposite to the polarity of the high-voltage direct current power supply (par. 82; fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim does not disclose an apparatus that generates “electrostatically charged droplets of water containing organic and inorganic insoluble particles…to enhance cloud microphysics and induce precipitation” and “lacks any reference to weather modification or precipitation formation”. In response, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant further argues that Kim does not disclose all of the claimed structural elements (e.g., the external tank). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues that Kim does not disclose several additional intended uses and functions of the claimed invention (see p. 11, ln. 21-28). In response, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a control unit”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the proposed combination of Kim and Fluhrer is improper because it would fundamentally alter Kim’s intended functionality, and there is not teaching or motivation to combine. Regarding the former, Applicant has not provided any further explanation or analysis in support the assertion. Regarding the latter, it is noted that the rejection clearly states that the motivation is to “prevent the accumulation of continuous conductive water film under wet conditions”.
In response to applicant's arguments against Kaidonis, He, Martin, Seitz, and Roos individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 (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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752