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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 10 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 requires the electrodes to be formed of polyvinylidene fluoride. Polyvinylidene fluoride is known for its insulative characteristics. Combining PVDF with conductive fillings would be an option to make PVDF conductive, however the specification does not describe the use of conductive PVDF. The specification discloses the piezoelectric layers comprising polyvinylidene fluoride; but, nowhere in the specification the electrodes comprising polyvinylidene fluoride was disclosed. Paragraph [0019] discloses the electrodes being formed of aluminum, nickel, copper, chromium, gold, silver, platinum, rhodium, and alloys of any of the foregoing. For examination purposes, the examiner will assume the claim refers to electrodes formed on the polyvinylidene fluoride layer instead of electrodes formed of polyvinylidene fluoride layer.
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 of this title, 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 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US2016254437, hereinafter Yao) in view of Sasaki et al. (JP2018002913, hereinafter Sasaki).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a cantilever structure (Fig. 1) for a piezoelectric energy harvesting system (abstract), wherein the cantilever (16) comprises two layers (3, 8) formed of polyvinylidene fluoride (paragraph 0033), and wherein a core layer (4) formed of a shim material (paragraph 0033, brass, copper, steel, aluminum) is sandwiched between the two layers (3, 8) formed of polyvinylidene fluoride.
Yao fails to disclose the two layers (3, 8) formed of polyvinylidene fluoride having a predominantly b-type crystal structure.
Sasaki discloses a piezoelectric substrate comprising a polyvinylidene fluoride b-type crystal. Sasaki discloses the b-type polyvinylidene fluoride film has flexibility and excellent strain characteristics, which are desirable characteristics in a piezoelectric material used for energy harvesting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the b-type polyvinylidene fluoride film in the cantilever structure as disclosed by Yao, since it provides flexibility and excellent strain characteristics.
Regarding claim 3, Yao discloses longitudinal sides and broad sides, and the cantilever is connected to a device (which is the goal of the invention, to generate energy).
Regarding claim 4, the core layer (4) is made of steel (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claims 5, 7 and 8, Yao discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the core layer, the thickness of the piezoelectric layers. Yao does disclose in paragraph [0033] that the size of the piezoelectric beam can be adjusted depending on the actual situation. Therefore, it is the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the thicknesses of the layers as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application, as disclosed by Yao.
Regarding claim 6, Yao discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the core layer formed of polyethylene terephthalate. Selection from among known, suitable materials has long been held to be within the skill expected of the routineer and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyethylene terephthalate to form the core layer since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is the Examiner's position that the general characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of PET are well known, and forming the core layer out of PET instead of the disclosed metals to obtain the known or naturally expected advantages (flexibility, tensile strength, etc.…) of the chosen material presents in general a case of good judgment instead of a case of invention.
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki discloses including a resin film to improve the adhesion and flexibility of the polyvinylidene fluoride b-type crystal.
Regarding claim 10, the electrodes are formed on the polyvinylidene fluoride layer.
Regarding claim 11, the material of the electrodes would have been an obvious matter of design choice since selection from among known, suitable materials has long been held to be within the skill expected of the routineer and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyethylene terephthalate to form the core layer since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is the Examiner's position that selecting specific metals to form the electrodes based on the general characteristics, advantages and disadvantages as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 12, Yao discloses the system comprising the cantilever structures and an end connected to a device.
Regarding claims 13-15, Yao discloses a tip mass (10, 11) attached to the top and bottom surfaces of the tip of the cantilever.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Andosca and Zawada disclose a piezoelectric harvester device anchored at the long end of the cantilever. Kosel discloses a piezoelectric energy generation beam comprising PVDF.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on 571-270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837