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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims are dependent upon claim 1 which recites “A method of…” and hence as dependent claims referring back to claim 1 should recite --The method of…according to claim 1--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims are dependent upon claim 8 which recites “A device of…” and hence as dependent claims referring back to claim 8 should recite --The device of…according to claim 8--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8 recites “are bond each other” however for grammatical correctness this should recite --are bonded to each other--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 breadth of the claims is such that there is, currently as claimed, a single carrier, the single carrier includes a “spoiler” and a spray device. There’s a device that releases the “spoiler” and the “spoiler,” which forms a “blockage body,” is meant to be released “at the bottom of the tornado wind eye” while the spray device is meant to be positioned (with the carrier) at “the edge of the tornado wind eye” in order to “spray the spoiler along the reverse direction of the tornado vortex” so that “the spoiler can hedge, consume and weaken the cyclonic momentum of the tornado and crack the tornado.” Further recitations include that the “spoiler” appears to be either balloons or tarpaulin while the spray device appears to spray an adhesive and is possibly a fog gun and that the fog gun “sprays the spray adhesive onto the balloons and that “the outer diameter of the tarpaulin is greater than the outer diameter of the tornado wind eye.” Lastly, the release device appears to include either or both of an “expansion installation” which includes an “expansion arm” that can expand and contract or a “folded installation” which includes a “folded skeleton” that can expand and contract.
The nature of the invention is a device meant to weaken or seemingly stop a tornado entirely.
The state of the prior art is such that numerous pre-grant publications exist disclosing methods or apparatus meant to weaken or stop a tornado, none of which were ever granted. For instance, in what is possibly the closest prior art to the claimed invention, US 2016/0183480 A1 discloses spraying streams of water in order to “dissolve” a tornado, however as stated this was not granted on the basis of a lack of enablement.
The level of direction provided by the inventor involves little to no detail that would allow one having ordinary skill in the art to be able to make and/or use the claimed invention. Specifically, the disclosure does not go into detail about the size of any given tornado or how one would predict where a tornado would land. As tornados can be more than 2 miles in diameter and there is currently no possible way to predict in advance exactly when and where they will develop or how strong (what size) they will be, or precisely what path they will follow, the disclosure does not provide any remedies for this and as such there is no possible way for one skill in the art to know how large the disclosed and claimed “spoiler” needs to be or how much sprayed liquid, water or adhesive would be needed, there appears to be no direction provided that would allow one having ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention.
The existence of working examples does not appear to be present in applicant’s disclosure nor elsewhere. No examples appear to exist for a device meant to “crack” a tornado in any way or for a tarp, or tarpaulin, of a size meant to disrupt a tornado in any way.
Lastly, the quantity of experimentation to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is of an undue nature for the fact that, as stated above, applicant’s disclosure does not appear to take into account the size/strength of any given tornado or how to predict when, where or what size/strength any given tornado will be at. For example, the required “spoiler” being balloons or tarpaulin, if one even could predict where a tornado will specifically occur and how large that tornado might, if this were a tornado of a size that’s over a mile in diameter, how many carriers and how many balloons would one need in order to have the claimed effect of the invention? More than one tarpaulin would almost certainly need to be required, how big would each tarpaulin be, how many would be required? For the balloons, how much adhesive is necessary to overcome the strength of a tornado and bond the balloons together to have the desired, claimed effect? These are basic questions based solely on what’s been claimed and disclosure and doesn’t even get into the extreme amount of factors that would need to be taken into consideration before one having ordinary skill in the art could produce any kind of working example.
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 “specially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specially” 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 carrier is rendered indefinite.
The term “heavy-duty” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy-duty” 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 carrier is rendered indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the blockage body" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tornado wind eye" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spray device" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the edge of the tornado wind eye" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reverse direction" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cyclonic momentum" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the release device is provided on the specially heavy-duty carrier, and when the specially heavy-duty carrier is moved to the tornado wind eye, the release device can release the spoiler, the spoiler is able to form the blockage body at the bottom of the tornado wind eye, the blockage body is able to block the tornado wind eye and crack the tornado wind” and further recites “the spray device is set on the specially heavy-duty carrier, the spray device is moved to the edge of the tornado wind eye, the spray device can spray the spoiler along the reverse direction of the tornado vortex” however, these limitations do not appear to specify separate carriers which appears to be a necessary aspect of the method as best demonstrated in figures 1-3 of the instant application. As such, it’s unclear how the same carrier, as currently presented in claim 1 can release the spoiler at the bottom of the tornado eye while simultaneously set the spray device on the carrier at the edge of the tornado eye and as such the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained and the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to being dependent upon claim 1.
The term “light weight” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light weight” 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 material product is rendered indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the light weight material product" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “light” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light” 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 blockage body is rendered indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “a light blockage body” however it’s unclear if this is meant to refer to the same “blockage body” already recited in claim 1 or if this is meant to be a completely separate component. As such the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained and the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claims 4-7 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to being dependent upon claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the liquid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “specially” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specially” 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 carrier is rendered indefinite.
The term “heavy-duty” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy-duty” 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 carrier is rendered indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the dispensing device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the fog gun" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the spray adhesive" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “specially” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specially” 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 carrier is rendered indefinite.
The term “heavy-duty” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy-duty” 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 carrier is rendered indefinite.
Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to being dependent upon claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the light weight interstitial material" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “light weight” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light weight” 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 interstitial material is rendered indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the gap" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the adjacent ballons” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the tarpaulin" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “specially” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specially” 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 carrier is rendered indefinite.
The term “heavy-duty” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy-duty” 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 carrier is rendered indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the specially heavy-duty carrier" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the spoiler" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bottom of the eye" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the release device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the spraying device" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cyclonic momentum" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9 and 10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to being dependent upon claim 8.
The term “specially” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specially” 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 carrier is rendered indefinite.
The term “heavy-duty” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy-duty” 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 carrier is rendered indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the dispensing device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the fog gun" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the expansion installing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the folded installation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the expansion arm" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the outer diameter" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the outer diameter" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the folded skeleton" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the outer diameter" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the outer diameter" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0090805 discloses distributing a chemical into a tornado in order to interfere with transmission of angular momentum. US 2011/0198407 discloses a method to break up/annihilate a tornado by vacuuming a metal receptacle which includes an absorption tube and intake valves. US 2010/0276533 discloses a missile system utilizing high explosives in order to delimit a tornadic event. US 2010/0002353 discloses subjecting a tornado to an electromagnetic filed to destabilize or disrupt the tornado. US 2011/0284649 discloses an apparatus including an engine attached to a frame positioned in the path of a tornado and producing a thrust vector in an attempt to change the temperature of a mass of air in an attempt to mitigate a tornado.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-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 (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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752