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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 10, line 4, recites “means for machine learning” which invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f). The “means for machine learning” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof on page 8, line 29 through page p, line 8.
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, line 1, the phrase “the lower layers of the atmosphere” lacks antecedent basis. The phrase should be changed to --lower layers of the atmosphere--.
Regarding claim 1, line 4, the word “especially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is recommended that the word “especially” is deleted, such that the sentence reads as follows, --situated in the lower layers of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface--, to clearly define the invention.
In claim 1, lines 4 and 5, the phrase “the upper end of the air-conducting tube” lacks antecedent basis. The phrase should be changed to --an upper end of the air-conducting tube--.
In claim 1, line 5, the phrase “the upper layers of the atmosphere” lacks antecedent basis. The phrase should be changed to --upper layers of the atmosphere--.
Regarding claim 1, line 6, the word “especially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is recommended that the word “especially” is deleted, such that the sentence reads as follows, --situated in the upper layers of the atmosphere in the troposphere or in the stratosphere--, to clearly define the invention.
In claim 1, lines 8 and 9, the phrase “the lower end of the air-returning tube” lacks antecedent basis. The phrase should be changed to --a lower end of the air-returning tube--.
In claim 15, line 2, the phrase “at least one air-conducting tube” raises double inclusion issues since such a recitation has already been positively recited in claim 1, line 3. The phrase should be changed to --the at least one air-conducting tube--.
In claim 15, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “at least one air-returning tube” raises double inclusion issues since such a recitation has already been positively recited in claim 1, line 7. The phrase should be changed to --the at least one air-returning tube--.
In claim 15, lines 5 and 6, the phrase “at least one air-conducting tube” raises double inclusion issues since such a recitation has already been positively recited in claim 1, line 3. The phrase should be changed to --the at least one air-conducting tube--.
In claim 15, line 6, the phrase “at least one air-returning tube” raises double inclusion issues since such a recitation has already been positively recited in claim 1, line 7. The phrase should be changed to --the at least one air-returning tube--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter of claims1-15: The closest prior art being MacDougall ‘375, Chan et al ‘477 and Secor ‘072 did not teach or suggest separately or in combination a device for cooling lower layers of the atmosphere as claimed by the applicant, specifically a device wherein the air-conducting tube is assigned to at least one air-returning tube whose upper end is assigned to the upper end of the air-conducting tube, wherein a lower end of the air-returning tube is spaced from the lower end of the air-conducting tube and the support tube sleeve is provided with an interface for filling and discharging the buoyant carrier gas, together in combination with the other claimed features of applicant’s invention and if the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are corrected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MacDougall ‘375, Chan et al ‘477 and Secor ‘072 disclose support tube sleeves and/or air/gas conducting tubes with upper ends located in upper layers of the troposphere or in the stratosphere.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J GANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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 J. GANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN J GANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights