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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on August 27, 2026. Claims 3 and 15 have been canceled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to page 5 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that the term “about” in claims 1, 13, 16, and 17 are not indefinite because the specification does provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree to terms “about” and “substantially.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification states that “[i]n some embodiments,” the term “about” can indicate a value that varies whin 5% of the stated value. However, the specification expressly characterizes these values as “merely examples” and states that they “are not intended to be limiting.” Thus, the specification does not establish that a 5% variation represents the boundary of the term “about.” Moreover, the specification provides that “about” can refer to a percentage “as interpreted by those skilled in relevant arts in light of the teachings herein.” This language does not identify with reasonable certainty what degree of variation is encompassed by “about” for the particular numerical limitation recited in the claims. Accordingly, although the specification provides ±5% as one exemplary interpretation of “about,” it expressly declines to make that value limiting and does not provide another objective boundary for determining the scope of the term. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty whether values outside the exemplary ±5% range fall within the scope of the claims. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are maintained.
As to page 6 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that the prior art to Walch teaches “285 GW peak power,” which does not fall within the claimed range “between about 10 GW and about 50 GW.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the specification does not expressly declines to make that value limiting to ±5%, so a person of ordinary skill in the art would define 285 GW peak power reasonably fall within the claiming language “about 50 GW.” Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC § 103 over Alfano in view of Calderia and Walch is maintained.
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, 17, and 22 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 The specification states that “[i]n some embodiments,” the term “about” can indicate a value that varies whin 5% of the stated value. However, the specification expressly characterizes these values as “merely examples” and states that they “are not intended to be limiting.” Thus, the specification does not establish that a 5% variation represents the boundary of the term “about.” Moreover, the specification provides that “about” can refer to a percentage “as interpreted by those skilled in relevant arts in light of the teachings herein.” This language does not identify with reasonable certainty what degree of variation is encompassed by “about” for the particular numerical limitation recited in the claims. Accordingly, although the specification provides ±5% as one exemplary interpretation of “about,” it expressly declines to make that value limiting and does not provide another objective boundary for determining the scope of the term. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty whether values outside the exemplary ±5% range fall within the scope of the claims. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
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 1-2, 4-14, and 16-22 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 (because the specification does not expressly declines to make that value limiting to ±5%, so a person of ordinary skill in the art would define 285 GW peak power reasonably fall within the claiming language “about 50 GW”).
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 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 18, 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 pulsed laser is further configured to induce a shock wave and/or an acoustic wave in the cloud (Fig. 1).
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 1-2 and 4-12, 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 1-2 and 4-12.
With regard to claim 21, 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 further discloses the method of increasing a focusing angle of the beam to increase a width of a region where the shock wave and/or the acoustic wave is induced, wherein the width is along a direction transverse to a propagation direction of the beam (“A beam steering element 16 downstream of the optics and telescope or beam expander 18 is used to direct or re-direct the SC beam 20 at one or more regions of a cloud 22 or different cloud clusters 22” in Par. [0011], the steering element 16 in conjunction of beam expander 18 are designed to adjust focusing angle of the beam and width of region where the wave induced (e.g. one or more regions of a cloud 22)).
With regard to claim 22, 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 further discloses the repetition rate is about 30 kHz; and the peak power is about 50 GW (because the specification does not expressly declines to make that value limiting to ±5%, so a person of ordinary skill in the art would define repetition rate 1 kHz and 285 GW peak power reasonably fall within the claiming language “about 30 kHz…about 50 GW”).
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
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 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