Detailed Notice
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant writes “quantum wave filed” which should be “quantum wave field”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant writes “powder in the form of a pulsed electromagnetic field” in the second paragraph from the bottom of Pg. 23. This should be “power in the form of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is incredible (that is, not credible) in its claim to the phenomena of “quantum energy” or “quantum radiation”. The claims are directed at a variety of structural elements for a plant growth apparatus which hinge upon the use of pulsed electromagnetic field generators to produce a claimed “quantum energy” or “quantum”. There is no clear description of the scope of “quantum energy” or “quantum and pulsed electromagnetic fields are known in the prior art and aren’t described as producing “quantum energy” or “quantum”. The existence of a force originating from a pulsed electromagnetic field that is not simply just an electric field or a magnetic field (or even a gravitational field, owing to the inherent mass of the apparatus) is in sharp contrast to known laws of physics. Further, quantum energy, in an abstract sense, is directed to the behavior of physical reality, which is ultimately tracked by a large number of mathematical models. All of these models, however, reduce to observable properties in the known universe. That is, quantum energy inherently relates to a discrete, indivisible and quantized packet of energy.
Therefore, the examiner is rejecting all Claims under 35 USC 101 because applicant has not provided a sound scientific showing that (1) a force such as “quantum energy” or “quantum radiation” is not only observable but known; nor (2) that an apparatus such as a pulsed electromagnetic field generator would produce anything other than an electromagnetic field.
Claims 2-29 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claim 1 is rejected as comprising a number of “quantum energy generators”, all of which require the use of either magnetic coils or pulsed electromagnetic fields resulting from quantum energy generating coils. Applicant does not describe in sufficient detail how the “quantum energy” produced differs from a magnetic field, nor how the structures producing the “quantum radiation” would produce anything other than a magnetic field. Applicant states in the specification (see Pg. 11 to 12) that the quantum energy generating coils produce a magnetic field which overlap at a 90 degree angle to current flow in the first and second quantum energy generating coils to generate a “pulse quantum energy”. What specifically a “quantum radiation” or “quantum energy” is, the applicant never states nor clarifies beyond the mere repetition of its existence.
In relation to the claim language and the level of detail provided in the specification, one of ordinary skill would not be enabled by this system to know sufficiently (a) what a “quantum energy” or a “quantum radiation” is and (b) how a magnetic coil structure in conjunction with a PEMF generator would produce said phenomena.
As to the Wands Factors:
As to the breadth of the claim, while the claim itself is broad, this is not ipso facto problematic. Specifically, it is the central limitation that the apparatus produces “quantum energy” and “quantum radiation” which are themselves unbounded terms without explanation or description.
As to the nature of the invention, the claimed apparatus on the whole is a recognizable multi-component system for growing plants. That is, several features, such as nitric oxide and carbon dioxide production apparatus with related conveying systems are placed in conjunction with circulation systems and various electromagnetic field generators. However, the specific recitation of “quantum energy” or “quantum radiation” producing structures is not known in the art.
As to the state of the prior art, as stated above, there are examples of the use of pulsed electromagnetic field generators with plant growth apparatus. However, no working examples exist of a “quantum energy” or “quantum radiation” phenomena or apparatus producing said phenomena.
As to the level of one of ordinary skill, one would need to be an expert in the subject of quantum physics and engineering to both expound on the meaning of the terms “quantum energy” or “quantum radiation” and to devise an apparatus for their generation.
As to the guidance presented, there is not enough guidance to understand what these terms mean nor how an apparatus would produce them.
As to the working examples, there are known apparatus’ in the art of plant growth which use pulsed electromagnetic fields to stimulate plant growth (see US20110283607A1 and US20110225881A1). However, the working examples are emphasizing the use of the magnetic field, rather than “quantum energy” or “quantum radiation”. Beyond these working examples which structurally share similarity with the instant claim, there is not enough information in the specification to perform an exemplary demonstration of phenomena upon the present invention hinges.
As to the quantity of experimentation, in order to demonstrate a “quantum energy” or “quantum radiation” these would be beyond burdensome tasks to one of ordinary skill in the art to know the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, as there is no current demonstration of a structure that produces these, nor any description as to what these phenomena are.
Claims 2-29 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. Specifically, the applicant requires that there are a plurality of “quantum energy generators”. This term is not described in the specification, nor clarified through context on its meaning in the claim. Attention is required.
Claims 2-29 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim 1, 3, 10, and 14 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. Specifically, the applicant requires that there are a nitric oxide and carbon dioxide dissolvers which “degasses bubbles”. It is unclear what it means to degas a bubble, as a bubble is gas. Attention is required.
Claim 2 is 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. Specifically, the applicant requires that the electrode produces “high electric field electron energy” which is applied to flowing air. It is unclear if the applicant is requiring that air is being subjected to high voltage discharge, or whether there be a specific requirement of discrete electrons being with an associated electric field being supplied to the air. Attention is required.
Claim 3 is 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. Specifically, the applicant requires that “magnetic fields form between the discharge electrodes…. Followed by overlapping and extinction of the same”. Additionally, applicant later states that the “quantum wave field” is introduced to water in order to form a “high-order coherent domain state”. It is unclear whether the applicant is stating that the magnetic fields cancel, and if this is the case, it is further unclear how that would generate a “quantum wave field”, nor is it clear what precisely that means. Further, it is also unclear what is intended by the limitation “high-order coherent domain state”. Attention is required.
Claim 8 is 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. Specifically, the applicant requires that a first and second magnetic field generating coil are installed “in plural”. It is unclear whether there are a plurality of first and second magnetic fields, or whether applicant intends that these are installed in parallel. Attention is required.
Claim 13 is 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. Specifically, the applicant requires a list of exemplary “moisture fluctuation inhibitors”, which is itself an unclear term not known in the art, and following the list states “and the like”. This is indefinite as it is a broad term without boundary, making the list open ended. Attention is required.
Claim 15 is 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. Specifically, the applicant requires an “IGBT power supply”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term, but furthermore, the applicant does not define the acronym in a prior context either. Attention is required.
Claim 17 is 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. Specifically, the applicant requires an electrolysis device in which “cationic and anionic material are removed”. It is unclear to what extent of charged ion “removal” accomplishes the limitation, what “removing” means, and further how the removal allows for the production of carbon dioxide gas-releasing substances. Attention is required.
Claim 18 is 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. Specifically, the applicant requires “quantum wave filed” to create a “microcluster phenomenon” which “decrease a size of water molecule and form a high-order coherent domain state”. It is unclear what a microcluster phenomenon is; how the phenomenon causes a reduction in the size of the water molecules; and, as stated above, what a high-order coherent domain state is. Attention is required.
Claim 25 is 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. Specifically, the applicant requires a “switch HEXFET” but provides no description as to the meaning of the acronym. According the term is indefinite. Attention is required.
Claim 29 is 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. Specifically, the applicant requires that the “plurality of first and second generating coils” be installed in two separate arrangements. As written, the words refer to two elements which are present in two distinct places, thus causing confusion, as it appears instead that there are a plurality of magnetic coils in multiple places. Reference to these terms should distinguish between the elements placed 50 cm from the soil and 1 m above the ground for clarity. Attention is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20110283607A1; US20110225881A1; US 20210144942 A1; US 20200037514 A1; US 20180332788 A1; US 20170105371 A1; US4785575A; and US 6561968 B1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759