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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-14, 16,
18, 20-21, 24, 34-35, 42) in the reply filed on March 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 37-38 and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37
CPR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title is objected to for failure to be sufficiently descriptive.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the
presence of all possible minor errors. The applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 14, 16, 20, and 42 are objected to because of the following
informalities:
Claims 1 and 5-6
line 1 and lines 3-4, “the pores” should be --the plurality of elongated pores--
Claim 9
line 2, “the perovskite crystal” should be --the perovskite--
Claim 14
line 1, “the group” should be --a group--
Claim 16
line 2, “%,” should be --%.--
Claim 20
line 2, “said dipoles” should be --the plurality of dipoles--
Claim 42
line 1, “42,” should be --72--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5-6, 16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
In Claims 5-6, 16, 18, and 20-21, it is unclear whether “about” and “substantially” refer to a fourth, a third, half, more than half, entirely, or some other quantity. The specification does not provide some standard for measuring “about” and “substantially.” One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the prior art and the status of the art, would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of “about” and “substantially” from the drawings alone. Therefore, the examiner has understood the terms “about” and “substantially” to designate entirely.
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, 5-7, 9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Irwin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20180248134; hereinafter “Irwin”) in view of Spann et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20200183168; hereinafter “Spann”).
Regarding claim 1, Irwin teaches a film comprising a perovskite (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]) and a polymer (Fig. 6, 3601(PVDF); [0043]), wherein the perovskite (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]) and the polymer (Fig. 6, 3601(PVDF); [0043]) are configured to form (Fig. 6; [Abstract]) a plurality of elongated pores (Fig. 6; [Abstract] – “mesoporous”), wherein the film (Fig. 6, 3601-3603 in combination; [0039]) comprises two opposed major surfaces (Fig. 6, two opposed major surfaces of 3601-3603 in combination; [0039]). Irwin does not teach elongated pores that are interconnected, are at least partially vertically aligned to two opposed major surfaces of the film, and deform when a force is applied to a major surface of the film.
Spann, however, does teach elongated pores (Figs. 5A-B, 504) that interconnect (Figs. 5A-B) and are at least partially vertically aligned (Figs. 5A-B) to two opposed major surfaces (Fig. 1C, two opposed major surfaces of 500) of the film (Figs. 5A-B; [0028]), and that deform (Fig. 2C; [0039]) when a force (Fig. 2C; [0039]) is applied (Fig. 2C; [0039]) to a major surface (Figs. 5A-B, major surface of 500) of the film (Figs. 5A-B; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irwin to include the elongated pores of Spann because it would provide anisotropic voids thereby improving the compression properties of the film (Spann [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 1. Irwin does not teach wherein the pores are about 20 µm to 25 µm in length.
Spann, however, does teach wherein the pores are about 20 µm to 25 µm in length (Figs. 5A-B; [0190]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irwin to include the elongated pores of Spann because it would provide anisotropic voids thereby improving the compression properties of the film (Spann [0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 1. Irwin does not teach wherein the pores are about 3 µm to about 5 µm in diameter.
Spann, however, does teach wherein the pores are about 3 µm to about 5 µm in diameter (Figs. 5A-B; [0190]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irwin to include the elongated pores of Spann because it would provide anisotropic voids thereby improving the compression properties of the film (Spann [0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 1, comprising a plurality of piezoelectric nanoparticles (Fig. 6; [0018]; [0068]; [Claim 59]) including the perovskite (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]), wherein the perovskite (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]) comprises at least one of inorganic lead zirconate titanate (PZT) (Fig. 6; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]), barium titanate (BaTiO3) (Fig. 6; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]), Na/KNbO3, and ZnSnO3 (Fig. 6; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]).
Regarding claim 9, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 1, wherein the perovskite (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]) is in a crystalline form (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]), wherein the crystalline form (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]) of the perovskite crystal (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]) comprises a non-centrosymmetric structure (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]).
Regarding claim 11, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 1, wherein the perovskite (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]) comprises a hybrid halide perovskite (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]), optionally wherein the hybrid halide perovskite is (HHP)-formamidinium lead bromine iodine (FAPbBr2I) (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]).
Regarding claim 13, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 1, wherein the film (Fig. 6, 3601-3603 in combination; [0039]) comprises the polymer (Fig. 6, 3601(PVDF); [0043]) in a crystalline β-phase (Fig. 6, 3601(PVDF); [0043]).
Regarding claim 14, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 1, wherein the polymer (Fig. 6, 3601(PVDF); [0043]) is selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Fig. 6, 3601(PVDF); [0043]), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyvinylidene fluoride- trifluoroethylene (PVDF-TrFE), and polyethyl acrylate (PEA).
Claims 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Irwin in view of Spann and further in view of Michot (U.S. Publication No. 20200274161; hereinafter “Michot”).
Regarding claim 16, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 1, wherein the film (Fig. 6, 3601-3603 in combination; [0039]) comprises the perovskite (Fig. 6, 3603; [0020]; [Claims 45-48]; [Claim 60]). Irwin does not teach perovskite in a mass ratio of about 10 wt.% to about 30 wt. %,
Michot, however, does teach perovskite in a mass ratio of about 10 wt.% to about 30 wt. % ([0252]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irwin to include the wt. % of Michot because it would provide solvating thereby improving cross-linking functions (Michot [0251]).
Regarding claim 18, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 1, wherein the film (Fig. 6, 3601-3603 in combination; [0039]) comprises the polymer (Fig. 6, 3601(PVDF); [0043]). Irwin does not teach polymer mass ratio of about 10 wt.% to about 15 wt. %.
Michot, however, does teach polymer mass ratio of about 10 wt.% to about 15 wt. % ([0251]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irwin to include the wt. % of Michot because it would provide solvating thereby improving cross-linking functions (Michot [0251]).
Regarding claim 20, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 1, wherein the film (Fig. 6, 3601-3603 in combination; [0039]) comprises a plurality of dipoles (Fig. 6; [0020]; [0043]; Examiner’s Note: Piezoelectric non-centrosymmetric crystal structures have dipoles aligned or shifted based on stress.), wherein said dipoles are substantially aligned (Fig. 6; [0020]; [0043]; Examiner’s Note: Piezoelectric non-centrosymmetric crystal structures have dipoles aligned or shifted based on stress.).
Claims 21 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Irwin in view of Spann and further in view of Michot and Meng et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20180090709; hereinafter “Meng”).
Regarding claim 21, Irwin discloses the film defined in claim 1. Irwin does not teach wherein the film has a thickness of about 20 µm to about 50 µm.
Meng, however, does teach wherein the film (Fig. 13, 4/9 in combination; [0112]; [0114]) has a thickness of about 20 µm to about 50 µm (Fig. 13, 4/9 in combination; [0112]; [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irwin to include the film thickness of Meng because it would provide a connected structure thereby improving resistance reduction, field intensity increase, and light emission enhancement (Meng [0084]).
Regarding claim 72, Irwin as modified teaches the film defined in claim 7. Irwin does not teach wherein the piezoelectric nanoparticles comprise zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles.
Meng, however, does teach wherein the piezoelectric nanoparticles (Fig. 13; [0112]) comprise zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles (Fig. 13; [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irwin to include the zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles of Meng because it would provide a connected structure thereby improving resistance reduction, field intensity increase, and light emission enhancement (Meng [0084]).
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Irwin in view of Spann and further in view of Michot, Meng, and Belk et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20180162556; hereinafter “Belk”).
Regarding claim 24, Irwin as modified teaches a. the film (Fig. 6, 3601-3603 in combination; [0039]) defined (Fig. 6; [0039]) in claim 1; b. a first electrode (Fig. 6, 3602), and c. a second electrode (Fig. 6, 3606), wherein the film (Fig. 6, 3601-3603 in combination; [0039]) is in electrical contact (Fig. 6) with the first electrode (Fig. 6, 3602) and the second electrode (Fig. 6, 3606). Irwin does not teach a piezoelectric nanogenerator.
Belk, however, does teach a piezoelectric nanogenerator (Fig. 1, 22 in 16; [0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irwin to include the piezoelectric nanogenerator of Belk because it would create a controlled combustion in response to thermal energy thereby improving vibration induction in a surface of the respective structural element (Belk [0041]).
Regarding claim 34, Irwin as modified teaches the piezoelectric nanogenerator defined in claim 24. Irwin does not teach an aircraft structural health monitoring system incorporating the piezoelectric nanogenerator (Fig. 1, 22 in 16; [0041]- [0042]).
Belk, however, does teach an aircraft structural health monitoring system (Fig. 1, 14; [0037]) incorporating (Fig. 1) the piezoelectric nanogenerator (Fig. 1, 22 in 16; [0041]- [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irwin to include the aircraft structural health monitoring system incorporating the piezoelectric nanogenerator of Belk because it would create a controlled combustion in response to thermal energy thereby improving vibration induction in a surface of the respective structural element (Belk [0041]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin in
view of Spann and further in view of Michot, Meng, Belk, and Signaevsky et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20180214042; hereinafter “Signaevsky”).
Regarding claim 35, Irwin as modified teaches the piezoelectric nanogenerator defined in claim 24. Irwin does not teach a self-powered device incorporating the piezoelectric nanogenerator.
Signaevsky, however, does teach a self-powered device ([0039]) incorporating (Fig. 13) the piezoelectric nanogenerator ([0120]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Irwin to include the self-powered device incorporating the piezoelectric nanogenerator of Signaevsky because it would provide uniform distribution thereby improving flexibility and stretchability (Signaevsky [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MONICA MATA
whose telephone number is (571) 272-8782. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 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).
/MONICA MATA/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
2 May 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights