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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6 – 9, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the NPL Documented “Recent Developments of Acoustic Energy Harvesting: A Review” cited in the IDS, the NPL Document being referred hereafter as “NPL 1”.
The NPL 1 discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, An energy harvesting system comprising: a central resonator EMHR;a plurality of surrounding resonators SCR arrayed about the central resonator (see Fig. 17); and an acoustic energy harvester located in the central resonator EMHR (see page 12 of document), the acoustic energy harvester being configured to convert acoustic energy into electrical energy (see abstract).
Claim 2, the central resonator is a Helmholtz resonator (see Fig. 17 description; page 12).
Claim 3, the plurality of surrounding resonators are substantially equally spaced from the central resonator (see Fig. 17).
Claim 6, including an energy storage device (super capacitor, battery), wherein the energy storage device is operatively connected to receive electrical energy from the acoustic energy harvester (see Figs. 14, 1).
Claim 7, including a device (see Fig. 1), wherein the device is powered by electrical energy, and wherein the device is operatively connected to receive electrical energy from the acoustic energy harvester (see Fig. 14).
Claim 8, the acoustic energy harvester includes a piezoelectric patch operatively connected to a membrane (page 6, subtitle 3.2.1; Fig 6, 8, 9).
Claim 9, the piezoelectric patch and the membrane extend cantilevered from a side wall of the central resonator (see Figs. 11, 6).
Claim 11, the piezoelectric patch and the membrane are located at a lower end of the central resonator (see Figs. 9, 8), whereby the piezoelectric patch and the membrane at least partially define the lower end of the central resonator.
Claim 12, the acoustic energy harvester includes a membrane and a coil operatively positioned substantially adjacent to the membrane, and wherein the acoustic energy harvester includes a permanent magnet (see Figs. 10, 7).
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, 5, 13 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the “NPL 1” in view of the NPL Document, “Acoustic resonance coupling for directional wave control: from angle-dependent absorption to asymmetric transmission, cited in the IDS, the document being referred hereafter as “the NPL 2”.
The NPL 1 discloses, regarding,
Claim 14, the central resonator is a Helmholtz resonator (see Fig. 17 description; page 12).
Claim 16, the central resonator and the plurality of surrounding resonators are defined in a wall or a panel (see Fig. 14).
Claim 17, including an energy storage device (super capacitor, battery), wherein the energy storage device is operatively connected to receive electrical energy from the acoustic energy harvester (see Figs. 14, 1).
Claim 18, including a device (see Fig. 1), wherein the device is powered by electrical energy, and wherein the device is operatively connected to receive electrical energy from the acoustic energy harvester (see Fig. 14).
Claim 19, the acoustic energy harvester includes a piezoelectric patch operatively connected to a membrane (page 6, subtitle 3.2.1; Fig 6, 8, 9).
Claim 20, the acoustic energy harvester includes a membrane and a coil operatively positioned substantially adjacent to the membrane, and wherein the acoustic energy harvester includes a permanent magnet (see Figs. 10, 7).
Claim 13, An energy harvesting system comprising: a central resonator; an acoustic energy harvester located in the central resonator, the acoustic energy harvester being configured to convert acoustic energy into electrical energy; and a plurality of surrounding resonators arrayed about the central resonator (see Fig. 17 and abstract), the plurality of surrounding resonators being substantially equally spaced from the central resonator (see Fig. 17), the plurality of surrounding resonators do not include an acoustic energy harvester (since it is mentioned that the SCR’s resonators are only used for diverting acoustic waves and the metamaterial “sonic-crystal” in the SCR’s is only used for diverting the acoustic waves and sound manipulation; see subsection 4.3 and Fig. 17 description in page 12). Moreover, it is mentioned in the document that the wave propagation is guided (sound focusing; Fig. 18) into the central EMHR in order to increase the power output.
It is noted that SCR’s could be designed to have extremely low losses, thus become lossless resonators.
However, the NPL 1 does not disclose explicitly using lossless resonators.
On the other hand, the NPL 2, teaches that it is well-known to have a plurality of surrounding resonators being lossless resonators (see Fig. 4a; subsection 3.2).
The NPL 2 further discloses, regarding
Claim 5, the plurality of surrounding resonators are lossless resonators (see Fig. 4a; subsection 3.2).
Claims 4, 15, a center-to-center distance between the central resonator and the plurality of surrounding resonators is about 0.7 lamda (see subsection 3.2 and 3.3; Fig. 4), wherein lamda is a wavelength of an incident acoustic wave at a resonance frequency of the central resonator. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to come out with such optimum value, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system as disclosed by the NPL 1 and to teach the elements pertaining to the NPL 2 for the purpose of effectively transferring and focusing acoustic energy into a resonator.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the NPL 1 in view of Andosca et al.
The NPL 1 discloses all of the elements above. It is noted that moving/relocating an element is well within the skill of someone having ordinary skill in the art.
In that respect, Andosca et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 10, the piezoelectric patch and the membrane are located at an upper end of the central resonator, whereby the piezoelectric patch and the membrane at least partially define the upper end (see Fig. 10D) of the central resonator 14.
It is further noted that moving an element from a bottom to a top and vice-versa is well-known since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system as disclosed by the NPL 1 and to teach the elements pertaining to Andosca et al for the purpose of maximizing the power output of an energy harvesters.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R – 07.2015] VI. PRIOR MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP ₴ 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sipp discloses using a plurality of resonators in combination with acoustic energy harvesters.
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 12, 2026