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 § 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 – 18 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.
In claim 1, “n” light sources and “n-m” and “m” light sources are disclosed. It is not clear how the “n-m” and “m” light sources are related to the “n” light sources.
In claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, the terminologies, “preferably” and “more preferably” since the meets and bounds of the claims are undefined and open-ended.
In claim 18, the statement “an upper” is indefinite since it is not clear to what “upper” (device or element) the “upper” is referring.
Claims 2 – 18 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 9, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oshio (WO 2010/073982).
Oshio discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A self-powered luminous device, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
13
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(two light sources 6; see Fig. 1) a piezoelectric system 2A comprising at least one supporting layer 2a and at least one first piezoelectric layer 2b combined with each other, and connecting means (cables; see Figs. 1, 7, 3) to electrically connect said piezoelectric system 2A [[(6)]] to said light sources 6 (see Figs. 1, 7, 3), wherein said connecting means comprise a first electric cable (cable connected to light source 6a) and a second electric cable (cable connected to light source 6b) which have respective first ends electrically connected to said piezoelectric system (see Fig. 7), characterized in that wherein n-m light sources 6a, with m>1, are arranged in said luminous device with a given electrical polarity and m light sources 6b, are arranged in said luminous device with an opposite electrical polarity with respect to said given electrical polarity (see Fig. 7a), and in that wherein said luminous device is without electrical battery (see abstract).
Claim 2, at least one first piezoelectric layer is made of a ceramic material selected from the group comprising lead zirconate titanate (PZT) and aluminum nitride (AIN) crystals (see Fig. 3. Specification Description in Machine English Translation).
Claim 3, at least one supporting layer is made of a metal material, preferably brass (see Fig. 3. Specification Description in Machine English Translation).
Claim 9, a first element [[(17)]] placed on a first side of said piezoelectric system [[(6)]], and a second element [[(18)]] placed on a second side of said piezoelectric system opposite said first side (see Fig. 7b), wherein said first element [[(17)]] and said second element [[(18)]] are substantially in contact with said piezoelectric system (see Fig. 7c) wherein said first element and said second element constitute a support for the piezoelectric system and a striker 2D for transmitting stresses to the piezoelectric system, respectively (see Figs. 7a-e).
Claim 17, A sole structure [[(1)]] for luminous footwear, comprising a sole [[(2)]] and at least one luminous device [[(3)]] according to anyone of the preceding claimsclaim1, combined with said sole (see Figs. 11, 1, 14).
Claim 18, A luminous footwear comprising a sole structure according to and an upper combined with said sole, wherein the light sources of said luminous device are combined with said sole and/or said upper (see Figs. 11, 1, 14).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshio in view of Mihara (US 2016/0072411).
Oshio discloses all of the elements above. It is noted that Oshio discloses, regarding,
Claim 4, said first ends of said first electric cable and said second electric cable are electrically connected to said at least one supporting layer (see Figs. 1, 7) and to said at least one first piezoelectric layer (see Fig. 7), respectively, wherein preferably said connecting means comprise an elastic element (since an elastic overlay is used in the support; see Figs. 3a-e) interposed between said at least one first piezoelectric layer and the first end of said second electric cable (conductive rubber of cable; see spec description related to Fig. 3D).
However, Oshio does not disclose the elements below.On the other hand, Mihara discloses, that it is common practice in piezoelectric devices to have more preferably an elastic element 150 interposed between one piezoelectric layer 120 and a first end of a cable 130 and the elastic element is a metal spring 150 (see Fig. 1; 0031).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclose by Oshio and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Mihara for the purpose of providing a piezoelectric device that operates within resonance characteristics, thus improving the efficiency of the piezoelectric device.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshio in view of Wang et al (US 2020/0177105).
Oshio discloses all of the elements above. However, Oshio does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Wang et al discloses, regarding
Claim 5, said piezoelectric system comprises a second piezoelectric layer 224 combined with said at least one supporting layer 221 on the opposite side with respect to said at least one first piezoelectric layer 223 (see Fig. 2C).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclose by Oshio and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Wang et al for the purpose of charging electronic devices efficiently.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshio in view of Torvinen et al (US 2017/0208890).
Oshio discloses all of the elements above. However, Oshio does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Torvinen et al discloses, regarding
Claim 9, a first element 505 (top) placed on a first side of said piezoelectric system, and a second element 505 (bottom) placed on a second side of said piezoelectric system opposite said first side (see fig. 5a), wherein said first element and said second element are substantially in contact with said piezoelectric system (via side elements), wherein said first element and said second element constitute a support for the piezoelectric system (see Fig. 5g) and a striker for transmitting stresses to the piezoelectric system, respectively (see Fig. 5c).
Claim 10, at least one of said first element and said second element comprises at least two portions having hardness different from each other (since it is disclose that only one side of element 505 may contain a press bar 520; thus one of the sides is going to be more stiff or hardened than the other side; see Figs. 5a, 5b; paragraph 0058).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such a material with different hardened composition, 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.
Claim 11, at least two portions are one inside the other (see fig. 4), wherein preferably said at least two portions are substantially circular and concentric with each other (see Fig. 6), or wherein said at least two portions are placed one above the other with a complementary shape, one with a convex side, the other with a concave side in contact with said convex side (see Figs. 5c, 5d).
Claim 16, at least one support combined with either said first element or said second element, and preferably comprising a first support 630 and a second support 630 with which said first element and said second element are combined, respectively (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclose by Oshio and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Torvinen et al for the purpose of providing a power system that reduces an adverse effect on the environment.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshio and Wang et al as applied to claims 1, 5 above, and further in view of Walker (US 2014/0260689).
The combined device discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined device does not disclose the elements below.On the other hand, Walker discloses, regarding,
Claim 6, said connecting means comprise a third electric cable (see Walker, Figs. 7, 17, 20, 24, 25), wherein said third electric cable is extended between said at least one first piezoelectric layer, preferably at the electrical connection of said first end of said second electric cable, and said second piezoelectric layer (see Walker, Figs. 7, 17, 20, 24, 25), or wherein said third electric cable branches off from said second electric cable and has a respective first end electrically connected to said second piezoelectric layer (see Walker Figs. 7, 17, 20, 24, 25).
Claim 7, said connecting means comprise a conducting element in contact with both said at least one first piezoelectric layer and said second piezoelectric layer, and an insulating element interposed between said conducting element and said at least one supporting layer (Wang et al, Fig. 2C; see Walker, Fig. 3, 26), wherein said first ends of said first electric cable and said second electric cable are combined with said at least one supporting layer and said conducting element respectively (see Walker, Figs. 7, 17, 20, 24, 25).
Claim 8, said first ends of said first electric cable and said second electric cable are electrically connected to said second piezoelectric layer and said at least one first piezoelectric layer, respectively (Wang, Fig. 2c), wherein preferably said connecting means comprise a first conducting element and a second conducting element which are interposed between said at least one first piezoelectric layer and the first end of said second electric cable and between said second piezoelectric layer and the first end of said first electric cable respectively (Walker, see Figs. 7, 17, 20, 24, 25).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined device as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Walker for the purpose of providing accurate feedback in a piezoelectric system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming the 112 rejection noted above.
The cited prior art of record fails to disclose the structural description of the device pertaining to the first and second element as specifically described in claims 12, 13, 14, 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
February 10, 2026