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 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15-16, 20-24, 28-29, and 31 are pending, claims 1, 5-6, 9, 13, 20, 22, and 28 are amended, and claims 4, 8, 11-12, 14, 17-19, 25-27, 30, and 32-33 are cancelled.
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 29 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. The claims recite the limitation “a pump configured to pump seawater from the water intake to the one or more than one output to thereby eject seawater containing salt particles into ambient air surrounding the wind turbine to stimulate cloud formation.” The specific limitation that such ejection would stimulate cloud formation fails to comply with enablement requirement.
State of the prior art.
The prior art does not disclose a working example of stimulating cloud formation from just the application of ejected seawater from the height found in wind turbines. There appears to be no indication how such application of ejected seawater (even with the further force of the wind turbines blades) would have any effect on stimulating cloud formation. It would rather be understood that this application would induce more saltwater in a breeze blowing through the air that would result in the droplets falling back to earth without cloud formation.
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). One of ordinary skill in the art would not know how much force and amount of fluid would be required from a wind turbine to produce enough seawater at an elevation to stimulate cloud formation. Essentially, how a wind turbine out in the ocean would be able to stimulate cloud formation from spraying fluid from the rotor blades as it rotates without further external elements playing a factor (such as natural seawater being evaporated and updrafts from the ocean).
3. 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.
Although there are working example of wind turbines with nozzles on the rotos, and there is known methods of utilizing chemicals and application of fluids at higher altitudes to seed clouds, there is a lack of working examples of applying seawater at heights such as wind turbines to stimulate cloud formation. Nor that that such wind turbines would have the energy necessary to launch the ejected seawater containing salt particles high enough that it would have an effect on stimulating cloud formation.
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 predictability in both the force from the wind turbine applying fluid to the altitude that clouds are formed as well as there being fluid such that it would form the clouds (and not fall back down as a mist). The specification does not disclose or describe how the rotational force and fluid pressure would be enough to eject seawater containing salt particles upwards enough to reach the area for generating clouds, nor the specification give any calculations or examples of how much fluid would need to be provided upwards by the nozzles in the wind turbines to have an effect in stimulating cloud formation. Even if there is fluid applied at the height of cloud formation, what elements are being utilized to generate the cloud form the ejected droplets rather then such droplets falling back down to the ocean?
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 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.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the step of forming clouds" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15-16, and 20-23, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald (AU2021107294A4).in view of RASMUSSEN (GB 2452488A).
With respect to claims 1, 22, and 28 Macdonald discloses a wind park, comprising a plurality of wind turbines, comprising one or more than one wind turb, wherein the wind turbine, comprising (also the method step of providing rainfall, as Macdonald discloses rain production see page 3 of the provided description):
a foundation supporting a nacelle (see figure 5, there being a shown nacelle, and an understood foundation);
a rotor that is rotatable relative to the nacelle (being the rotor that the visible rotor blades are affixed on and attached to the nacelle) and that comprises a plurality of rotor blades (shown in figure 5);
a fluid connection configured to connect a water intake (described in the specification as a pump, see middle of page 3) to one or more than one output arranged above sea level (figure 5, the nozzle); and
a pump (see specification, middle of page 3, This invention consists of a prefabricated spraying device which filters sea water and with the help of pumps and nebulizers to spray sub micron droplets into the boundary layer). configured to pump seawater from the water intake to the one or more than one output to thereby eject seawater containing salt particles into ambient air surrounding the wind turbine to stimulate aerosol formation (see specification, “Figures 1-2 indicate possible configurations of offshore or coastal wind turbines with submarine/ terrestrial filtration and pumps, controls and multi outlet nozzles for spraying fine salt aerosols) Macdonald fails to disclose the one or more than one output is disposed along at least a part of a trailing edge of at least one rotor blade and/or on the nacelle.
Rasmussen, figure 3, discloses a variety of nozzle placements along the rotor blade of a wind turbine such as long its length and at its tip, specifically showing a nozzle 142 along at least a part of the trailing edge. Rasmussen, pages 1 and 5, discloses such nozzle and fluid application is to allow for further control of the structure such as dampening and allowing the wind turbine to sweep a larger area as well the dampening and control means.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate nozzles in the blades themselves as disclosed by Rasmussen into the system of Macdonald, allowing the turbine to have longer blades, more control, and further dampening control. While also providing a fluid spray from the blades themselves.
With respect to claim 2, Macdonald discloses the wind turbine is an offshore wind turbine, and the water intake is arranged below sea level (as shown in figures 1-5).
With respect to claim 3, Macdonald discloses the one or more than one output comprises one or more than one nozzle (see figures 4-5), and the one or more than one nozzle defines a nebulizer that is configured to nebulize the seawater containing salt particles (see figures 4-5, specification page 3, Dispersion of nebulized MCB sea salts will be achieved by a series of nozzles located around the top of the device.).
With respect to claim 5, Macdonald as modified discloses the one or more than one output is arranged at a tip of the rotor blade and configured to eject the seawater containing salt particles radially outward relative to the tip (as disclosed above my Rasmussen).
With respect to claim 6, Macdonald as modified discloses the one or more than one output is arranged in a longitudinal direction of the rotor blade (as shown in figure 3 of Rasmussen).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Macdonald as modified by Rasmussen discloses the one or more than one rotor blade comprises a water reservoir configured to store seawater (as Rasmussen discloses such storage for their nozzles, “a third control mechanism temporarily stores an amount of liquid in at least one reservoir 148 in the blade, thereby temporarily depositing a mass, see figure 4”), the water reservoir is arranged in a radially outward half of the rotor blade (as shown in figure 4 of Rasmussen) that is defined between the tip and halfway a length of the rotor blade (as shown in figure 4) and/or wherein the water reservoir is pressurized (as disclosed by Macdonald and Rasmussen, as the fluid would be pumped into the space of the reservoir) and/or wherein the water reservoir comprises an elastic bladder.
With respect to claim 13, Macdonald as modified by Rasmussen discloses a controller that is configured to control the pump (as Rasmussen discloses controllably transferring liquid from the reservoir to the dispending mean, further a pump would have some form of controller if even to just turb on and off the pump) and/or the one or more than one output to selectively eject the seawater containing salt particles in a pre-determined angular range of a revolution of the rotor blade (as the angles in the blades are pre-determined when they are placed in the blade).
With respect to claim 15, Macdonald as modified discloses the pre-determined angular range is situated in an upper half of the revolution (as the blades rotate at the upper half of the revolution the pre-determined angular ranges is then at the upper half, as the blade rotates about the device) and/or wherein the pre-determined angular range comprises an upward movement of the rotor blade.
With respect to claim 16, Macdonald discloses the one or more than one output is arranged on the device (figure 5), and wherein the one or more than one output is configured to eject the seawater containing salt particles in an upward direction (figure 5) and/or wherein the one or more than one output is configured to eject the seawater containing salt particles in a horizontal direction (figure 5) and/or wherein the one or more than one output is configured to eject the seawater containing salt particles in a slipstream of the wind turbine (figure 5). Macdonald fails to disclose the output is arranged on the nacelle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the output of Macdonald on the nacelle itself, since Macdonald discloses “a series of nozzles located around the top of the device” and the devices top being the nacelle itself, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI-C).
With respect to claim 21, Macdonald discloses a drive (the face of the rotor blade that drives the blade) configured to rotatably drive the rotor like a fan.
With respect to claim 23, Macdonald discloses one or more than one wind turbine that is arranged at a downstream side of the wind park relative to the wind direction is configured and controlled to eject seawater containing salt particles into ambient air surrounding the wind turbine (as the one or more wind turbine are located within the wind park and thus the downward wind turbine would have sprayed seawater going into the flow of wind coming from the turbines).
With respect to claim 29, Macdonald discloses the step of forming clouds to achieve the desired solar ray reflection (the desired MCB, or the desired amount of seawater being dispersed into the atmosphere to cool an area) or the providing of rain, and/or further comprising the step of determining the need for solar ray reflection or providing rain and/or the determining the optimal operation of the wind turbine and/or wind park (determine the optimal operation of the wind turbine, such that an optimal amount of spray is dispersed to get the generated desired reflectivity).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald and Rasmussen as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above and further in view of Cardi (U.S. 2020/0196539).
With respect to claim 20, Macdonald discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to disclose an additive reservoir configured to store additives, wherein the additives preferably comprise nutrients or seeds.
Cardi, disclose the use of additives as they assist in cloud seeding, paragraphs 0007 and 0064. Such additives understood being stored in a reservoir for application into the air to form clouds.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the additives of Cardi into the system of Macdonald for cloud seeding.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macdonald and Rasmussen and further in view of DeFelice (U.S. 2018/0292826).
With respect to claim 31, Macdonald discloses the method of claim 28, but fails to disclose the step of gathering information about relevant climate conditions and/or gathering or determining weather forecasts and further comprising the step of determining the optimal operation of the wind turbine and/or wind park.
DeFelice, paragraphs 0023-0025, 0083 and 193, discloses using weather forecast as part of a dataset to determine what the weather is and to better deploy and use the system for cloud seeding.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize weather forecasts and other relevant climate conditions as disclosed by DeFilce into the system of Macdonald, so that the system of Macdonald would generate and seed clouds when the conditions are right for such seeding.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (07/06/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13, 15-16, 20-24, 29, and 31 are pending, claims 1, 5-6, 9, 13, 20, 22, and 28 are amended, and claims 4, 8, 11-12, 14, 17-19, 25-27, 3-, and 32-33 are cancelled. Applicants’ amendments to the claims has failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (04/06/2026). Applicants’ arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Rasmussen would not have been an obvious combination to be utilized in the system of Macdonald nor would it have any effects or advantages. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as further including nozzles onto the trailing edge of Rasmussen is disclosed being done by them and has the given crictaitly stated above “longer blades, more control, and further dampening control. While also providing a fluid spray from the blades themselves.” This improvement would allow for the blades themselves to be longer and more control. Longer blades would further increase the airflow about them (both increasing power generation and increase the draft caused by them) which has the benefit then in Macdonald as improving energy generation as well as increasing the amount of airflow that is applied to the fluid supplied out of the system. The combination is improving the overall system of the turbine in Macdonald, which still maintains its MCB for its intended purpose. It is unclear if applicant is arguing that the combination is destroying the reference or not, but the above combination is not viewed as preventing Macdonald as functioning as intended.
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
