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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0373031 A1 to Procopio et al.
Procopio et al. clearly teaches a cantilever piezoelectric transducer, comprising:
a piezoelectric patch (15), wherein a bottom of the piezoelectric patch is provided with a deformation (see Figures 8 and 9) space for accommodating the deformed piezoelectric patch;
a vibration structure comprising an elastic element (18) and a mass block (16) connected to the elastic element; and
a vibration trigger structure (20, 21) which has a trigger threshold and is resilient, wherein the vibration trigger structure is arranged between the piezoelectric patch and the mass block, and a bottom surface of the mass block is in contact with the vibration trigger structure;
wherein the elastic element is capable of driving the vibration trigger structure to press against the piezoelectric patch through the mass block after receiving a force;
when a driven force exerted on the vibration trigger structure is greater than the trigger threshold (see paragraphs [0032], [0033], [0039], [0040], [0049], and [0051]; see claim 11), the vibration structure generates vibrations, so that the piezoelectric patch receives an alternating load and generates multiple deformations in the deformation space in order to convert a mechanical energy generated due to vibrations of the mass block into an electrical energy.
With regards to claim 15, Procopio et al. discloses:
the mass block being a metal block (see paragraph [0038]) or a cement block.
With regards to claim 16, Procopio et al. discloses:
a piezoelectric patch (15), wherein a bottom of the piezoelectric patch is provided with a deformation space for accommodating the piezoelectric patch after being deformed;
a vibration structure comprising a mass block (16), wherein the mass block is arranged above the piezoelectric patch; and
a vibration trigger structure (20, 21) which has a trigger threshold (see paragraphs [0032], [0033], [0039], [0040], [0049], and [0051]; see claim 11) and is resilient, wherein the vibration trigger structure comprises:
an elastic element and a lever, one end of the elastic element is connected to the mass block, one end of the lever is connected to a top surface of the mass block;
when a driving force exerted on the other end of the lever is greater than the trigger threshold, the lever is rotated around a pivot point and drives the mass block to move upwards;
after the driving force exerted on the other end of the lever is released, the lever and the elastic element drive the mass block to generate vibrations, so that the piezoelectric patch receives an alternating load and generates multiple deformations in the deformation space in order to convert a mechanical energy generated due to the vibrations of the mass block into an electrical energy; and
wherein the elastic element is configured to enable the mass block to restore to its original position after the vibrations of the mass block disappear.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0373031 A1 to Procopio et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,841,052 A to Stanton.
Procopio et al. clearly teaches a cantilever piezoelectric transducer as described in paragraph 4 above.
However, it fails to disclose a central part of the vibration trigger structure is provided with an arc-shaped protrusion, the arc-shaped protrusion is deformable when the mass block is pressed against the vibration trigger structure; the arc-shaped protrusion makes a deformational displacement when the applied force exerted on the arc-shaped protrusion reaches the trigger threshold, and then is rebounded upwards when the applied force is released, thereby generating a force that causes the mass block to generate the vibrations at an equilibrium point.
Stanton discloses a finger playable percussion trigger instrument, comprising:
a central part of a vibration trigger structure being provided with an arc-shaped (see Figures 1-4, 10-14, and 19-21; see column 13, lines 15-17) protrusion, the arc- shaped protrusion is deformable when the mass block is pressed against the vibration trigger structure;
the arc-shaped protrusion making a deformational displacement when the applied force exerted on the arc-shaped protrusion reaches the trigger threshold, and then is rebounded upwards when the applied force is released, thereby generating a force that causes the mass block to generate the vibrations at an equilibrium point.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the arc-shaped protrusions disclosed by Stanton on the vibration triggers disclosed by Procopio et al., for the purpose of providing vibration triggers that “conducts vibration efficiently, and could be colored, color-coded, adorned, textured or patterned for decoration or for ease of learning to play patterns”.
With regards to claim 3, Procopio et al. in view of Stanton disclose:
the vibration trigger structure being a metal dome fixed to a top surface of the piezoelectric patch, the arc-shaped protrusion is formed at a central part of the metal dome, and the arc-shaped protrusion is curved in a direction away from the piezoelectric patch and abuts against the bottom surface of the mass block.
With regards to claim 4, Procopio et al. in view of Stanton disclose:
the vibration trigger structure being a metal elastic sheet suspended above the piezoelectric patch, the metal elastic sheet is bent in a direction away from the piezoelectric patch so as to form a first convex bump, and a central part of the first convex bump is bent in a direction away from the piezoelectric patch so as to form the arc-shaped protrusion.
With regards to claim 5, Procopio et al. in view of Stanton disclose:
a position of the bottom surface of the mass block corresponding to of the arc-shaped protrusion is provided with a lug boss, the lug boss has a cross-sectional area smaller than a cross-sectional area of a widest part of the arc-shaped protrusion.
With regards to claim 6, Procopio et al. in view of Stanton disclose:
the vibration trigger structure is a metal elastic sheet suspended above the piezoelectric patch, the metal elastic sheet is bent in a direction away from the piezoelectric patch so as to form a second convex bump, a central part of the second convex bump is bent towards the piezoelectric patch so as to form the arc-shaped protrusion, and the arc-shaped protrusion is in contact with the piezoelectric patch.
With regards to claim 7, Procopio et al. in view of Stanton disclose:
a cross- section of the piezoelectric patch in a thickness direction is circular, a central axis of the piezoelectric patch, a central axis of the elastic element and a central axis of the vibration trigger structure are coincided.
With regards to claim 17, Procopio et al. in view of Stanton disclose:
a metal dome fixed to a top surface of the piezoelectric patch, wherein a central part of the metal dome is protruded towards the mass block and forms an arc-shaped protrusion that abuts against the mass block, the arc-shaped protrusion makes a deformational displacement when an applied force exerted on the arc-shaped protrusion reaches the trigger threshold, and can be rebounded upwards when the applied force is released.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0373031 A1 to Procopio et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0178696 A1 to Kaajakari.
Procopio et al. clearly teaches a cantilever piezoelectric transducer as described in paragraph 4 above.
However, it fails to disclose the elastic element comprising a first spring, a bottom end of the first spring is fixed to a top surface of the mass block, and a central axis of the first spring is coincided with a central axis of the mass block.
Kaajakari discloses a piezoelectric frequency-modulated gyroscope, comprising:
an elastic element comprising a first spring (151, 152, 153, and 154), a bottom end of the first spring is fixed to a top surface of the mass block, and a central axis of the first spring is coincided with a central axis of the mass block (see Figures 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the springs disclosed by Kaajakari on the cantilever piezoelectric transducer disclosed by Procopio et al., for the purpose of dampening vibrations in multiple directions.
With regards to claim 9, Procopio et al. in view of Kaajakari disclose:
the elastic element further comprises a stressed member which is resilient after being pressed, a top end of the first spring is engaged with a bottom surface of the stressed member, the stressed member drives the first spring to be deformed after being pressed, and the first spring drives the mass block to perform a damped vibration under an action of an elasticity thereof, after the force applied on the stressed member is released.
With regards to claim 10, Procopio et al. in view of Kaajakari disclose:
a bottom surface of the stressed member is provided with a convex block, and the top end of the first spring is sleeved on and secured to an outer circumference of the convex block.
With regards to claim 11, Procopio et al. in view of Kaajakari disclose:
the self-generation device further comprises a housing, the stressed member is arranged on a top surface of the housing, the piezoelectric patch and the vibration structure are received in the housing, an inner bottom surface of the housing is provided with a mounting base, the mounting base is recessed, so that a recess is formed, a periphery of the piezoelectric patch is fixed on the mounting base, and a wall of the recess and the piezoelectric patch are enclosed to form the deformation space.
With regards to claim 12, Procopio et al. in view of Kaajakari disclose:
the stressed member is a force panel arranged on the top surface of the housing, and the force panel is resilient.
With regards to claim 13, Procopio et al. in view of Kaajakari disclose:
the stressed member is a button arranged on the top surface of the housing, and a resilient elastic element for restoration of the button after the button is pressed is provided between the button and the housing.
With regards to claim 14, Procopio et al. in view of Kaajakari disclose:
the elastic element comprises a plurality of second springs, one end of each of the plurality of second springs is connected to the mass block, and the plurality of second springs are distributed horizontally or diagonally upwards; wherein the plurality of second springs are arranged to be distributed uniformly around a circumference of the mass block.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEDRO J CUEVAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2021. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/PEDRO J CUEVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 December 18, 2025