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 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 1-20 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.
The term “about” in claims 1, 13, 16 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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.
Claims 2-12, 14, 15, and 18-20 are also rejected because of dependency on claims 1 and 13.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfano (US 2018/0271034 A1) in view of Calderia et al. (US 9,526,216 B2) and Nature scientific report (October 29, 2023, “Nature” thereinafter ).
With regard to claim 13, Alfano discloses a system, comprising: a pulsed laser configured to transmit a beam of laser into the cloud to promote precipitation of the cloud (Fig. 1) in response to the changing condition of the cloud, a repetition rate of the pulsed laser.
Alfano does not disclose that a remote sensor configured to monitor a changing condition of a cloud.
However, Calderia teaches a system comprising a remote sensor (209) configured to monitor a changing condition of a cloud (Col. 4 lines 64-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alfano, by incorporating the remote sensor (209) as taught by Calderia, doing it would allow the user to understand the status of the cloud.
Alfano does not disclose that a repetition rate of the pulsed laser is between about 1 kHz and about 200 kHz; and a peak power of the pulsed laser is between about 10 GW and about 50 GW.
However, Nature teaches a repetition rate of the pulsed laser is between about 1 kHz and about 200 kHz (abstract) ; and a peak power of the pulsed laser is between about 10 GW and about 50 GW (“285 GW peak power”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alfano, by incorporating the frequency and peak power of the pulsed laser as taught by Nature, for the benefit of providing enough energy for the laser to reach a predetermined long distance (abstract).
With regard to claim 14, the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Alfano further discloses that the repetition rate of the pulsed laser is adjustable based on the changing condition of the cloud (Par. [0016])
With regard to claim 15, the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Alfano further discloses that the peak power of the pulsed laser is adjustable based on the changing condition of the cloud (Par. [0016]).
With regard to claim 16, the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Calderia further discloses that the remote sensor (209) is equipped on an air based platform (Col. 8 lines 39-41); the pulsed laser is equipped on a ground based platform (Figs. 2 and 4); and a data about the changing condition of the cloud is transmitted from the air based platform to the ground based platform (Col. 4 line 51 - Col. 5 line 3).
With regard to claim 17, the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 16 above. Calderia further discloses that the remote sensor (209) is further configured to monitor the changing condition of the cloud at an altitude between about 1000 m and about 5000 m from ground (Col. 2 lines 54-67).
With regard to claim 19, the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Calderia further discloses that the changing condition of the cloud comprises a change of an average size of cloud droplets in the cloud; and the pulsed laser is further configured to adjust the repetition rate or the peak power, in response to a growing rate of the average size of the cloud droplets in the cloud being less than a reference growing rate (Col. 3 lines 31-33, Col. 7 lines 1-10 and claim 1).
With regard to claim 20, the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Calderia further discloses that pulsed laser is further configured to steer the beam of laser in a helical pattern (vehicle 405 shown in Fig. 4 is capable of being steered in a helical pattern).
With regard to claims 1-6 and 8-12, since the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature discloses all structure of the claimed invention above, in its use, the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature will inherently perform all the method steps of claims 1-6 and 8-12.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfano in view of Calderia and Nature as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of OPTICA Publishing Group (December 20, 2003 “OPTICA” thereinafter).
With regard to claim 18, the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. They do not disclose that the pulsed laser is further configured to induce a shock wave and/or an acoustic wave in the cloud.
OPTICA teaches a pulsed laser is further configured to induce a shock wave and/or an acoustic wave in the cloud (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Alfano, by incorporating the femtosecond laser pulse as taught by OPTICA, since acoustic detection simpler, more sensitive, and with higher spatial resolution, making it suitable for field measurements (abstract).
With regard to claim 7, since the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature discloses all structure of the claimed invention above, in its use, the system of Alfano as modified by Calderia and Nature will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-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 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights