CTNF 18/514,599 CTNF 85826 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 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, “the processor configured to: input a wind turbine wake from the wind turbine” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the actual wind turbine wake is sent through the processor or whether the wind turbine wake is sensed and the data is input into the processor. Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, the limitations “output at least one of a second location and a second position of the DAC system”, “output at least one of a second location and a second position of a direct-air-capture (DAC) system” and “outputting at least one of a second location and a second position of the DAC system” are unclear. It is unclear whether or not these limitations are requiring that the DAC system be moved to the second location or second position. Regarding claim 15, “inputting a wind turbine wake from the wind turbine” is unclear. It is unclear what this is being input into. If it is the processor, as required by claim 1, it is unclear whether the actual wind turbine wake is sent through the processor or whether the wind turbine wake is sensed and the data is input into the processor. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the execution of an algorithm to determine at least one of a wind velocity and a concentration of the carbon dioxide in the wind turbine wake. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the determination of wind velocity or carbon dioxide concentration are not tied to any practical steps. Although the claims recite that the processor is also configured to “output at least one of a second location and a second position of the DAC system”, this limitation is not tied to the determination of wind velocity or carbon dioxide concentration. USPA 2021/0362094 A1 discloses utilizing a DAC system with a wind turbine (paragraphs 22 and 26); therefore, the device being claimed is conventional. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because although an “output of at least a second location or a second position of the DAC system” is required, the claims do not actually require the DAC system to be moved to such a location or position. The claims do not even require that the second location or second position be calculated, but rather merely require that this position be “output”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I-C) gives various examples of mathematical calculations that are deemed to be abstract ideas. For example, in Parker v Flook, “calculating a number representing an alarm limit value using the mathematical formula “B1=B, (1.0-F) + PVL(F)” was deemed to be an abstract idea. This is similar to the present claims where the wind velocity or carbon dioxide concentration is being calculated. Therefore, the claimed invention is deemed to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F. 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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. /CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/514,599 Page 2 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/514,599 Page 3 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/514,599 Page 4 Art Unit: 1776