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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because “the index of refraction” in line 2 should be --an index of refraction--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. 2018/0034145) in view of Lassalle (U.S. 2018/0048299), and further in view of Ayers et al. (U.S. 5,397,961).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1:
Anderson discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) to generate gravitational waves (recitation of intended use in preamble (body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete invention and a recitation of intended use in the preamble of a structurally complete invention is not a claim limitation - MPEP 2111.02 II)) comprising:
a spark-gap assembly (430, 432, first and second spark gasps - Para 35) having a pair of
a
a control system (100, controller - Para 22) that allows for constant or pulsed operation of the device (Paras 6, 7, and 39 - “…a driver circuit operably coupled to the plasma antenna element to selectively provide pulsed current to the plasma antenna element for ionization of plasma in the plasma antenna element, and a controller operably coupled to the driver circuit and the plasma density sensor to provide In control of the plasma density of the plasma antenna element…The duty cycle of pulsed ionization current can be reduced , but also controlled to generate the desired amount of plasma density for a given application or situation…”); and
means (220, interferometer - Para 23) for detecting optical path length changes using interferometry (see Fig. 1, Paras 23 and 29 - “…a plasma density sensor (e.g., an interferometer 220) that is configured to measure plasma density in the plasma antenna element 200… can be operably coupled to the plasma antenna element 200 to measure the plasma density of plasma in the plasma antenna element 200…” (an interferometer inherently detects optical path length changes during operation)).
Anderson fails to disclose a spark-gap assembly having a pair of tungsten tips.
Lassalle teaches a spark-gap assembly (E1, spark gap - Para 45) having a pair of tungsten tips (Para 58 - “…the electrodes of the spark gaps can be tungsten-copper alloy…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modelled the tips of Anderson after those of Lassalle, thereby making the pair of tips of Anderson tungsten tips as taught by Lassalle, for the advantage of minimizing erosion due to electric arcs (Lassalle; Para 58).
Anderson fails to disclose a transformer providing high-voltage power to generate plasma.
Ayers teaches a driver circuit (Figs. 1-2 at 20-25 and Col. 4, Line 64 - Col. 5, Line 30) comprising a transformer providing high-voltage power (Col. 4, Lines 64 - Col. 5, Line 9 - “…The charging circuit may utilize a step-up transformer with a high voltage…”) to generate plasma (see Fig. 1, Abstract, and Col. 5, Lines 59-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the driver circuit of Anderson after that of Ayers, thereby including a transformer in the driver circuit of Anderson in the way taught by Ayers, for the advantage of being able to step up voltages (Ayers; Col. 4, Lines 64 - Col. 5, Line 9 - “…The charging circuit may utilize a step-up transformer with a high voltage…”).
Re claim 3:
Anderson/Lassalle/Ayers teaches the apparatus (Anderson; Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above).
Anderson further discloses wherein the spark-gap assembly (430, 432) is configured to form plasma (Para 35 - “…the first and second capacitors 420 and 422 are charged in parallel from the DC source 400, but are enabled to discharge in series through a first spark gap 430 and a second spark gap 432 when breakover voltage is reached for the first and second spark gaps 430 and 432. When the breakover voltage is reached, the first and second spark gaps 430 and 432 act as short circuits to enable both the first and second capacitors 420 and 422 to discharge through the plasma antenna element 200 thereby providing the plasma antenna element 200 with a pulse of DC current as the ionizing current…” and Para 6 - “…a driver circuit operably coupled to the plasma antenna element to selectively provide pulsed current to the plasma antenna element for ionization of plasma in the plasma antenna element…”) that results in a measurable change in the index of refraction of a surrounding medium of the spark-gap assembly (430, 432)(see Figs. 1 and 3 and Paras 23 and 29 - “…a plasma density sensor (e.g., an interferometer 220) that is configured to measure plasma density in the plasma antenna element 200… can be operably coupled to the plasma antenna element 200 to measure the plasma density of plasma in the plasma antenna element 200…”).
Re claim 4:
Anderson/Lassalle/Ayers teaches the apparatus (Anderson; Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above).
Anderson further discloses the apparatus comprising a plurality of spark-gap assemblies (430, 432) arranged in an array (see Fig. 3) to produce customizable spacetime distortions and energy fields (Para 35 - “…the first and second capacitors 420 and 422 are charged in parallel from the DC source 400, but are enabled to discharge in series through a first spark gap 430 and a second spark gap 432 when breakover voltage is reached for the first and second spark gaps 430 and 432. When the breakover voltage is reached, the first and second spark gaps 430 and 432 act as short circuits to enable both the first and second capacitors 420 and 422 to discharge through the plasma antenna element 200 thereby providing the plasma antenna element 200 with a pulse of DC current as the ionizing current…” and Para 6 - “…a driver circuit operably coupled to the plasma antenna element to selectively provide pulsed current to the plasma antenna element for ionization of plasma in the plasma antenna element…” (limitation interpreted as requiring customizable distortions in the group of spacetime distortions and energy fields; to overcome this interpretation the Examiner suggests amending the limitation to require --to produce each of customizable spacetime distortions and customizable energy fields--)).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. 2018/0034145) in view of Lassalle (U.S. 2018/0048299) and Ayers et al. (U.S. 5,397,961), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klepatsch (DE102010052353A1).
Re claim 2:
Anderson/Lassalle/Ayers teaches the apparatus (Anderson; Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above).
Anderson further discloses wherein the spark-gap assembly (430, 432) is configured to generate energy densities sufficient to produce
Anderson fails to disclose to produce gravitational waves.
Klepatsch teaches generating energy densities sufficient to produce gravitational waves (see Figs. 1-2 and Paras 56-59 - “…electric generator 14 is connected to the electrodes 8, 9… so that the ions of the working medium 11 in the two vibration towers oscillate synchronously… The anticyclic mass motion of the ions of the plasma-like working medium 11 in the chambers 7 of the two oscillation towers 2 results in a total motion of all participating ions 11 in the manner of a quadrupole oscillation, which is able to emit a gravitational wave.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the generation of energy densities of Anderson after that of Klepatsch, thereby generating energy densities in Anderson sufficient to produce gravitational waves in the way taught by Klepatsch for the advantage of being able to emit a gravitational wave (Anderson; Para 59).
Re claim 6:
Anderson/Lassalle/Ayers teaches the apparatus (Anderson; Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above).
Anderson further discloses wherein the spark-gap assembly (430, 432) is configured to be driven by a time-varying voltage to produce varying plasma profiles (see Figs. 1-3 and Paras 6 and 36 - “…a driver circuit operably coupled to the plasma antenna element to selectively provide pulsed current to the plasma antenna element for ionization of plasma in the plasma antenna element…The parallel charge, and series discharge, of the first and second capacitors 420 and 422 effectively doubles the voltage of the DC source 400. In particular, for example, if the DC source 400 is a 1000 VDC power supply, then the discharge of the first and second capacitors 420 and 422 through the plasma antenna element 200 could effectively double (or nearly so) the voltage provided to the plasma antenna element 200 to about 2000 VDC…”).
Anderson fails to disclose producing varying spacetime distortion profiles.
Klepatsch teaches using plasma to produce spacetime distortion (See Figs. 1-2 and Paras 56-59 - “…electric generator 14 is connected to the electrodes 8, 9… so that the ions of the working medium 11 in the two vibration towers oscillate synchronously… The anticyclic mass motion of the ions of the plasma-like working medium 11 in the chambers 7 of the two oscillation towers 2 results in a total motion of all participating ions 11 in the manner of a quadrupole oscillation, which is able to emit a gravitational wave.” (gravitational waves are vibrations of spacetime)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the plasma of Anderson as spacetime distortion in the way taught by Klepatsch, to arrive at the claimed limitation of configuring the spark-gap assembly of Anderson to be driven by the time-varying voltage of Anderson to produce varying spacetime distortion profiles, for the advantage of being able to emit a gravitational wave (Anderson; Para 59).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. 2018/0034145) in view of Lassalle (U.S. 2018/0048299) and Ayers et al. (U.S. 5,397,961), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sonsky (U.S. 2022/0402013).
Re claim 5:
Anderson/Lassalle/Ayers teaches the apparatus (Anderson; Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above).
Anderson fails to disclose wherein the spark-gap assembly is configured to operate in at least one of air, an inert gas, or a vacuum.
Sonsky teaches wherein a spark-gap assembly (80, 81, spark gap input and spark gap output - Para 47) is configured to operate in at least one of air, an inert gas, or a vacuum (see Fig. 2 and Para 47 - “…air gap between the spark gap input 80 and the spark gap output 81…” (also see Para 38)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeleled the spark-gap assembly of Anderson after that of Sonsky, thereby configuring the spark-gap of Anderson in air in the way taught by Sonsky, for the advantage of allowing the spark gap to function as an automatically operating switch (Sonsky; Para 38).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 7/31/26
Prosecution Insights