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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-10 are pending and claims 1-5 and 10 are amended.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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. The claims recite the limitation “a kinetic energy carried by the nebulized water and a lower-temperature moisture in the high-altitude sky cloud collide mutually to be combined together with respect to a temperature difference to increase volume and weight to form raining. Applicants’ specification states “The kinetic energy carried by the large-area nebulized water B′ and the low-temperature moisture in the high-altitude sky clouds C collide mutually, and they are combined together with respect to the temperature difference to increase volume and weight to form large droplets or tiny ice crystals. The large droplets or ice crystals may attract nearby moisture to increase its own volume and weight to form rainfall when the weight is greater than the buoyancy, and release the latent heat to heat up the surrounding air to make the force of the upward convection become larger so as to form a chain reaction until nearby cumulonimbus becomes raindrops to fall down.”
1. State of the Prior art.
The prior art does not disclose working examples of applying water (heated or cooled) into a cloud at a “high-altitude” that would then allow for raindrops to fall down. Rain drops would fall down from a cloud when the weight of droplets in the cloud overcome the updraft that is supporting a cloud, once the weight of the cloud overcomes the updraft rain is then produced. The amount of water needed to effectively increase the weight to overcome this balance is not shown in the specification and no clear working examples or prior art is known. Applicants’ specification discloses using an intermodal container, and within that is the tank of water, such containers are 10, 20, and 40 feet long. The 40 foot container has a capacity of 17706 gallons. It is clear from applicants’ disclosure and figures that the volume of water within the container is not even half of said container, and thus les then 8853 gallons, it is unclear how that little water compared to a rain cloud would overcome the imbalance and make water.
2. The level of one of ordinary skill.
When an invention, in its different aspects, involves distinct arts, the specification is enabling if it enables those skilled in each art, to carry out the aspect proper to their specialty. “If two distinct technologies are relevant to an invention, then the disclosure will be adequate if a person of ordinary skill in each of the two technologies could practice the invention from the disclosures.” Technicon Instruments Corp.v.Alpkem Corp., 664 F. Supp. 1558, 1578, 2 USPQ2d 1729, 1742 (D. Ore. 1986), aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part, 837 F. 2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The specification lacks one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the technology of spraying heated or cooled water into a cloud to then form raining. As one of ordinary skill in the art would know rain clouds contain hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, and applying a small fraction to the cloud of nebulized water would not directly cause rain to form.
3. The existence of working examples.
The specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970). Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 1310, 115 USPQ2d 2012, 2023 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ( "Only a sufficient description enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out an invention is needed."). Lack of a working example, however, is a factor to be considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art. But because only an enabling disclosure is required, applicant need not describe all actual embodiments.
The prior art does disclose applying water to the atmosphere, and cloud seeding is also known, but no working examples exist that create raining from spraying an amount of water (that is a small fraction of what is in the cloud) to then create raining from the cloud. Known cloud seeding requires dispersing tiny particles such as silver iodide which acts to form larger water droplets or ice crystals to create the weight necessary to allow for precipitation to fall. The inclusion of heated or cooled water alone has not (to the knowledge of the examiner) been shown to create rain by itself when applied to a cloud.
4. The level of predictability in the art.
The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). The "amount of guidance or direction" refers to that information in the application, as originally filed, that teaches exactly how to make or use the invention. The more that is known in the prior art about the nature of the invention, how to make, and how to use the invention, and the more predictable the art is, the less information needs to be explicitly stated in the specification. In contrast, if little is known in the prior art about the nature of the invention and the art is unpredictable, the specification would need more detail as to how to make and use the invention in order to be enabling. See, e.g., Chiron Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1254, 70 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
There is a lack of prior art about the nature of utilizing just water droplets into a cloud to form raining, the specification fails to disclose the enabling concept of how water would be utilized without cloud seeding agents to form such rain. The specification discloses that kinetic energy carried by the water to the low temperature moisture would somehow combine and increase the volume and weight to form large droplets or ice to then increase the weight thereof to cause rain is not shown in the art, and would not be a predictable response. At best, you are adding more cloud to the cloud, increasing its volume but not its weight, nor increasing the size of the droplets. There does not appear to be any predictability that the application of just hot or cooled water from a reservoir (which is vastly small compared to the cloud as a whole) would have an effect to allow for the collision claimed that would allow the flid to combine together and increase weight to form raining. In clouds, water molecules need a particle to condense onto to form a droplet. These particles, called condensation nuclei, are usually dust, salt, or pollen. Adding pure water provides no nuclei for the surrounding moisture to condense around
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 1-10 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 “high-altitude” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-altitude” 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. The limitation “high-altitude sky cloud” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term high-altitude, as there are many different altitudes that can be considered high-altitude for a cloud, and it is unclear how low the cloud can be and still be considered “high-altitude.”
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (07/23/2025) has been entered. Currently claims 1-10 are pending and claims 1-5 and 10 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (04/02/2025). Applicants’ amendments have created a 112(a) enablement problem, as shown above. The existence of prior art or working examples of applying just water to a cloud to create rain from the cloud is not known, and the examiner could find no examples of such a working or predictable response, on the contrary the examiner found specifically that such water application would/could not directly create rain. In clouds, water molecules need a particle to condense onto to form a droplet. These particles, called condensation nuclei, are usually dust, salt, or pollen. Adding pure water provides no nuclei for the surrounding moisture to condense around.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752