DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 3, claims 1-4, 8-10 and 12-13, in the reply filed on 08/19/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12 and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the claims recite a limitation “a very short time”. The term “a very short time” is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. The term “a very short time” 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 appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “a very short time” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “a very short time” occurs.
The examiner is aware of usage of the term “a very short time” must be analyzed to determine whether this usage is definite or not to one in the field of invention, but in this case, the term has not been defined, lack of boundaries and is a relative term.
Note: Terms lacking precise boundaries from within the intrinsic evidence of a patent have been basis for a finding of invalidity under 35 USC § 112, ¶ 2, under Amgen. Judge Newman distinguishes Amgen under the facts of the case ( In Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., __ F.3d __, App. No. 01-1417 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2002)(Newman, J.), opinion below, 145 F. Supp.2d 862, 60 USPQ2d 1219 (E.D. Mich. 2001))
Claims 2-4, and 8-10 are rejected due to their dependencies to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, the claims recite a limitation “high voltage”. The term “high” is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. The term “high” 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 appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “high” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “high” occurs.
The examiner is aware of usage of the term “high” must be analyzed to determine whether this usage is definite or not to one in the field of invention, but in this case, the term has not been defined, lack of boundaries and is a relative term.
Regarding claim 3, the claims recite a limitation “aggressive environments”. The term “aggressive” is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. The term “aggressive” 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 appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “aggressive” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “aggressive” occurs.
The examiner is aware of usage of the term “aggressive” must be analyzed to determine whether this usage is definite or not to one in the field of invention, but in this case, the term has not been defined, lack of boundaries and is a relative term.
Regarding claim 3, the claims recite a limitation “high pressure”. The term “high” is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. The term “high” 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 appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “high” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “high” occurs.
The examiner is aware of usage of the term “high” must be analyzed to determine whether this usage is definite or not to one in the field of invention, but in this case, the term has not been defined, lack of boundaries and is a relative term.
Regarding claim 4, the claims recite a limitation “high temperature”. The term “high” is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. The term “high” 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 appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “high” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “high” occurs.
The examiner is aware of usage of the term “high” must be analyzed to determine whether this usage is definite or not to one in the field of invention, but in this case, the term has not been defined, lack of boundaries and is a relative term.
Claim 13 is rejected due to their dependencies to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 13, the claims recite a limitations “low conductive” and “high heat”. The terms “low” and “high” are relative terms that render the claims indefinite. The terms “low” and “high” are 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 appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “low” or “high” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “low” or “high” occurs.
The examiner is aware of usage of the term “low” and “high” must be analyzed to determine whether this usage is definite or not to one in the field of invention, but in this case, the term has not been defined, lack of boundaries and is a relative term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BLG (RU 132664 U1, see machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, BLG teaches an apparatus for creating an artificial ball lightning comprising:
a metal chamber (Fig. 1, 9, page 4, line 9, the metal case 9 of the chamber 1);
an electrolyte residing in the metal chamber (page 4, line 34);
an energy source (Fig. 1, page 4, line 10, the storage device 2), configured to provide high voltage and high current for a very short time (page 4, line 10, for electric arc breakdown);
a ball lightning formed in the metal chamber from the discharge of the energy source in the electrolyte (page 3, last paragraph; page 4, line 30-31).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by BLG.
BLG further teaches the apparatus, wherein the metal chamber is made of stainless steel, glass, quartz, or material resistant to aggressive environments and capable of withstanding high pressures (page 2, paragraph 9, line 1, made of quartz glass).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by BLG.
BLG further teaches the apparatus, wherein the metal chamber including an electrode with opposite polarity, the electrode is installed in the metal chamber (Fig. 1, 10) and electrically isolated (Fig. 1, dielectric sleeve 4) from it, and the electrode is made from copper, tungsten, or conductive material and placed in an electrically isolated part (dielectric sleeve 4).
Regarding claim 8, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by BLG.
BLG further teaches the apparatus, wherein there is a second electrode connected to the opposite pole of the energy source (Fig. 1, 7 connected to 2 through 8).
Regarding claim 9, all the limitations of claim 8 are taught by BLG.
BLG further teaches the apparatus, wherein the second electrode is connected to a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder allowing the second electrode to be inserted and removed from the metal chamber (Fig. 1, 5, The electrode 5 is kinematically connected to the reversing mechanism 6).
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations of claim 8 are taught by BLG.
BLG further teaches the apparatus, wherein the second electrode is mounted on a piston wherein that piston contracts and expands with the formation of the ball lightning (Fig. 1, 5, The electrode 5 is kinematically connected to the reversing mechanism 6).
Regarding claim 12, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 10. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLG (RU 132664 U1, see machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by BLG.
BLG further teaches the apparatus, wherein the energy source is a first capacitor (Fig. 1, 2), is charged through a high voltage switch (Fig. 1, 8).
BLG does not explicitly teach the apparatus, wherein the energy source is charged with a line transformer through a rectifier.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use a transformer through a rectifier in order to charge a capacitor from an AC power source, which is commonly available for driving an electric equipment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
