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 .
Examiner Note
Examiner notes that Claims 15-20 currently are not rejected under 101 due to it being made clear that the program is housed on the non-transitory computer readable medium. A claim objection will be applied to encourage modifying the claim language to more common language.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that non-patent literature #24 (“MFC Overview… Smart Material – Home of the MFC”) of one of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 8/29/23 has been particularly cut-off of a large portion of the text and so has not been considered.
Furthermore, #2 document of that IDS is does appears to have been included with a typographical error, since there is no attachment with 4,944 pages (rather, a similar document with 5188 pages was included). It has been placed in the file, but due to the length, has not been closely considered (and if the applicant wishes to have it considered in the future, it is suggested they point out which particular pages are the most relevant; Applicant is reminded of section 2004, paragraph 13, of the MPEP: It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
It is further noted that the 2nd IDS filed 8/29/23 appears to be a duplicate. Examiner will attempt to remove the duplicate IDS from the file wrapper.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: line 3 “s” is the 1st word/letter in the line and its presence is unclear. For purpose of examination, examiner will assume it is omitted.
Claim 14: emend “the rotational mount” in line 2 to “a rotational mount” to provide proper antecedent basis for the claims.
Claim 15: emend “A computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer program comprising computer executable code…” to “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program, the computer program comprising computer executable code…” to more clearly follow the jurisprudence on subject matter eligibility corresponding to 35 USC 101.
Claims 16 & 17: For the same reasons, emend “The computer program…” to “The non-transitory computer readable medium…”.
Claims 18-20 lack antecedent basis for the term “The method”. Emend to “The non-transitory computer readable medium…” for the same reasons explained above in Claims 15-17.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
symmetrical feature of Claim 13
converter and power storage of Claim 12
self-aligning mechanism of Claims 6-8 and 20
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takao et al (USPGPN 20170207730).
Independent Claim 1, Takao discloses a method for harvesting energy (Figs. [1-21, esp. 1-11, 19], claim 1), comprising:
detecting, by an airfoil (Fig. 2, esp. 38 of 14/10, see further Fig. 4), an incoming fluid flow (114 of Fig. 19, ¶[72]);
oscillating, by a bluff body of the airfoil, perpendicular to a direction of the fluid flow (Figs. [2, 4-9], ¶’s [53, 54, 58, 59, 74], abstract & claim 1, with ¶[48] explicitly describing the perpendicular flow, other sections describing the vibration/deformation);
converting mechanical strain from the oscillation into electrical energy; and storing the electrical energy (¶[54] for storage, Fig. 11, other sections above for piezo conversion).
Independent Claim 9, Takao discloses an airfoil (Fig. 2, esp. 38 of 14/10, see further Fig. 4), (Figs. [1-21, esp. 1-11, 19]) comprising:
a rotating mechanism (¶’s [46, 48, 72], 116);
a substrate airfoil beam connected to the rotating mechanism (Fig. 2, esp. 38 of 14/10, see further Fig. 4);
a cylinder bluff body attached to the substrate airfoil beam (14); and
a composite piezoelectric (46) harvester configured to harvest electrical energy (¶[54] for storage, Fig. 11) converted from mechanical strain (Figs. [2, 4-9], ¶’s [53, 54, 58, 59, 74], abstract & claim 1, with ¶[48] explicitly describing the perpendicular flow, other sections describing the vibration/deformation).
Dependent Claim 2, Takao discloses the conversion of the mechanical strain into electrical energy is performed via a piezoelectric patch on an airfoil-shaped composite layered beam of the airfoil (piezo layer 46 is patched on composite layers of airfoil, see Figs. [2, 3, 7, 8] showing that 14 is part of airfoil shaped portion esp. in Figs. [2, 3]).
Dependent Claim 5, Takao discloses the electrical energy is harvested from the fluid flow by way of the bluff body and a piezoelectric harvester of the airfoil-shaped composite layered beam (piezo layer 46 is patched on composite layers of airfoil, see Figs. [2, 3, 7, 8] showing that 14 is part of airfoil shaped portion esp. in Figs. [2, 3], where it can be seen in Figs. [2-5] that the body is bluff/blunt in shape rather than streamlined).
Dependent Claim 3, Takao discloses forming vorticity due to flow separation of the fluid flow (vorticity is defined as whirl/swirl motion of fluid/air according to oxford language [google.com search result], where Figs. [4, 5] shows this swirled motion, i.e. vorticity, of the air/fluid/wind as it moves pass airfoil generator of Figs. [1-6])
Dependent Claim 11, Takao discloses the rotating mechanism comprises a clamping mount that is attached to a pipeline via press-fitting the clamping mount inside the pipeline (see Fig. 3, clamp member 24 with pipeline shown well there as well, and press-fitting shown).
Dependent Claim 13, Takao discloses the airfoil is symmetrical (Figs. 3 & 6 shows symmetrical airfoil shape).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao et al (USPGPN 20170207730).
Independent Claim 15, Takao discloses a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer program comprising computer executable code which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to (116 is described as a control device, and control is described, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would involve the control located in a non-transitory memory ¶’s [15, 39, 60, 72], or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to incorporate the control on a non-transitory memory so that the control system can be reliably and efficiently convert the wind energy to electricity and stored without having to have a person move it manually;
Figs. [1-21, esp. 1-11, 19], claim 1):
detecting, by an airfoil (Fig. 2, esp. 38 of 14/10, see further Fig. 4), an incoming fluid flow (114 of Fig. 19, ¶[72]);
oscillating, by a bluff body of the airfoil, perpendicular to a direction of the fluid flow (Figs. [2, 4-9], ¶’s [53, 54, 58, 59, 74], abstract & claim 1, with ¶[48] explicitly describing the perpendicular flow, other sections describing the vibration/deformation);
converting mechanical strain from the oscillation into electrical energy; and storing the electrical energy (¶[54] for storage, Fig. 11, other sections above for piezo conversion).
Dependent Claim 16, Takao discloses the conversion of the mechanical strain into electrical energy is performed via a piezoelectric patch on an airfoil-shaped composite layered beam of the airfoil (piezo layer 46 is patched on composite layers of airfoil, see Figs. [2, 3, 7, 8] showing that 14 is part of airfoil shaped portion esp. in Figs. [2, 3]).
Dependent Claim 19, Takao discloses the electrical energy is harvested from the fluid flow by way of the bluff body and a piezoelectric harvester of the airfoil-shaped composite layered beam (piezo layer 46 is patched on composite layers of airfoil, see Figs. [2, 3, 7, 8] showing that 14 is part of airfoil shaped portion esp. in Figs. [2, 3], where it can be seen in Figs. [2-5] that the body is bluff/blunt in shape rather than streamlined).
Dependent Claim 17, Takao discloses forming vorticity due to flow separation of the fluid flow (vorticity is defined as whirl/swirl motion of fluid/air according to oxford language [google.com search result], where Figs. [4, 5] shows this swirled motion, i.e. vorticity, of the air/fluid/wind as it moves pass airfoil generator of Figs. [1-6])
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 4, 6, 7, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao et al (USPGPN 20170207730) in view of Taylor et al (USPGPN 20070267874)
Dependent Claims 4 and 18, Takao teaches changing of the fluid flow (Figs. [2, 4-9], ¶’s [53, 54, 58, 59, 74], abstract & claim 1, with ¶[48] explicitly describing the perpendicular flow, other sections describing the vibration/deformation)
Takao is silent to compensating for a changing of flow direction of the fluid flow.
Taylor teaches compensating for a changing of flow direction of the fluid flow (¶’s [53, 135], Figs. [1A, 24-26, 30A-31B, 33-37, 39, 40, esp. 34-36]). Taylor teaches this method serves to optimize the power generation (¶’s [62, 64, 65, 135])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takao with Taylor to optimize power generation.
Dependent Claims 6 and 20, Takao teaches utilizing a self-aligning mechanism to compensate for conditions due to a pressure difference (Fig. 19 components, ¶[72], anemometer detects wind speed, i.e. pressure difference conditions)
Takao fails to explicitly teach utilizing a self-aligning mechanism to compensate for the changes in flow direction.
Taylor teaches utilizing a self-aligning mechanism to compensate for the changes in flow direction (¶’s [53, 135], Figs. [1A, 24-26, 30A-31B, 33-37, 39, 40, esp. 34-36]). Taylor teaches this method serves to optimize the power generation (¶’s [62, 64, 65, 135])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takao with Taylor to optimize power generation.
Dependent Claim 7, the combination of Takao and Taylor teaches the self-aligning mechanism comprises utilizing an airfoil-based geometry and a rotational mount of the airfoil (Taylor ¶’s [134, 135] describes mounting of the airfoil to rotate, similar to Takao where the airfoil is mounted to rotate, with both having airfoil based geometry).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao in view of Taylor, further in view of Bair (USPN 4303835)
Dependent Claim 8, the combination of Takao and Taylor teaches the self-aligning mechanism utilizes a free rotation to self-align towards a direction of s highest flow when there is an incoming flow stream (as described above, both describe rotation of the airfoil).
Takao is silent to a rotation of a bearing mount.
Bair teaches a rotation of a bearing mount (Col 8 L61 to Col 9 L40, Figs. [9, 10], abstract describing analogous airfoil). Official notice taken that bearing mounts provide improved ease for rotation for the elements used in it.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takao in view of Taylor with Bair to provide improved ease of rotation.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao et al (USPGPN 20170207730) in view of Bair (USPN 4303835)
Dependent Claim 10, Takao teaches the rotating mechanism that allows for free rotation of the substrate airfoil beam and the cylinder bluff body (as described above, Takao describes rotation of the airfoil, see esp. ¶’s [46, 48, 72]).
Takao is silent to the rotating mechanism comprises a bearing mount
Bair teaches a rotation mechanism comprises of a bearing mount (Col 8 L61 to Col 9 L40, Figs. [9, 10], abstract describing analogous airfoil). Official notice taken that bearing mounts provide improved ease for rotation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takao in view of Taylor with Bair to provide improved ease of rotation.
Dependent Claim 14, Takao teaches the rotational mount is fitted into an opening slot of a pipe housing the airfoil (see esp. Figs. [2, 3, 6])
Takao is silent to the rotating mount comprises a rotational bearing.
Bair teaches the rotating mount comprises a rotational bearing (Col 8 L61 to Col 9 L40, Figs. [9, 10], abstract describing analogous airfoil). Official notice taken that bearing mounts provide improved ease for rotation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takao in view of Taylor with Bair to provide improved ease of rotation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao et al (USPGPN 20170207730) in view of Schumacher et al(USPGPN 20050134047;hereinafter Schu)
Dependent Claim 12, Takao teaches an electronic box, wherein the electronic box comprises a converter, and storage for power (¶[54], Fig. 11 shows power storage 64, converter 62 in this circuit/electronic-box, where as ¶’s [31, 54] describes it inside of 10, i.e. the housing, the electronic circuit is inside of a box).
Takao is silent to the circuit includes a radio transmission device, and storage for data.
Schu teaches the circuit includes a radio transmission device (34, 36), and storage for data (32; Fig. 2, ¶[20] describes air-foil shape). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that by allowing for wireless communication, it can improve the ease for communication since wires are not needed which can increase costs and complexity. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that by having a memory [as noted above for Takao’s claim 15] it serves to improve the reliability and ease for the system to be repeatably operated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takao with Schu to provide improved complexity, costs, ease, and reliability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. From the IDS, the most relevant references were found to be
“A hybrid piezo-dielectric wind energy harvester for high- performance vortex-induced vibration energy harvesting”
“Power Control Optimization of an Underwater Piezoelectric Energy Harvester”
“A hybrid piezoelectric-electromagnetic nonlinear vibration energy harvester excited by fluid flow”
“AIRFOIL-BASED SELF-ADJUSTABLE PIEZOELECTRIC ENERGY HARVESTER IN FLUID-FLOW APPLICATIONS FOR PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION”
“Comparative study of conventional and magnetically coupled piezoelectric energy harvester to optimize output voltage and bandwidth”
“A Review of Piezoelectric Vibration Energy Harvesting with Magnetic Coupling Based on Different Structural Characteristics”
“MOTIONS, FORCES AND MODE TRANSITIONS IN VORTEX-INDUCED VIBRATIONS AT LOW MASS-DAMPING”
“Evaluation and validation of equivalent properties of macro fibre composites for piezoelectric transducer modelling”
“An enhanced hybrid piezoelectric- electromagnetic energy harvester using dual-mass system for vortex-induced vibrations”
“Optimal piezoelectric beam shape for single and broadband vibration energy harvesting: Modeling, simulation and experimental results”
“Harvesting ambient wind energy with an inverted piezoelectric flag”
“A piezoelectric vibration based generator for wireless electronics”
“A review of energy harvesting using piezoelectric materials: state-of-the-art a decade later (2008-2018)”
“Thickness effect of NACA foils on hydrodynamic global parameters, boundary layer states and stall establishment”
“Comparison of Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Devices for Recharging Batteries”
“A piezoelectric energy harvester with vortex induced vibration”
“Low velocity water flow energy harvesting using vortex induced vibration and galloping”
“Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting Controlled with an IGBT H-Bridge and Bidirectional Buck-Boost for Low-Cost 4G Devices”
“Experimental investigation of aerodynamic energy harvester with different interference cylinder cross-sections”
“Experiments on Fairing Design for a Wind Turbine Tower”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights