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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Specification (page 7, line 31) discloses “A device 10 for converting energy”. Fig. 2 in the Drawings is missing label 10 for the device.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification (p. 8, lines 21-23) recites: “the control unit C determines the orientation of the at least one rectenna so that the latter is tuned with a specific electromagnetic wave”. The examiner notes that the meaning of antenna tuning in the art is associated with adjusting the antenna element(s) dimensions, so that the antenna operates in a specific frequency band, while it appears the applicant means changing the antenna orientation to coincide with the direction of incoming electromagnetic wave(s). The Examiner recommends that the meaning of the phrase “the rectenna is tuned” is clearly defined in the Specification so as to make the applicant’s intended meaning clear or, alternatively, different wording is used to clearly convey the intended meaning.
The same applies for any other instances in the Specification where this or similar phrasing is used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “said support element” and “said plate-shaped support element”. It is not clear whether the “said support element” is the same as the “said plate-shaped support element”.
The objection can be overcome by correcting the limitation “said support element” to “said plate-shaped support element” as defined in claim 14.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26 recites “the least one rectenna”. Change to “the at least one rectenna”.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27 (line 1) recites “The device according to claim 20”. Change to “The rectenna according to claim 20”.
Claim 27 (line 3) recites “at least one carbon nanotubes, semiconductor materials, …”. Change to “at least one of carbon nanotubes, semiconductor materials, …”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35.U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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, 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 14, 20, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al. (US 20070240757 A1, hereinafter Ren) in view of Quinn et al. (US 20080265087 A1, hereinafter Quinn).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Ren teaches (Fig. 1; [0041, 0042, 0044]) a rectenna (125) for converting energy comprising:
a plate-shaped support element (110);
a current rectifier (115) of the rectenna deposited on said support element;
an antenna (120) of the rectenna configured to capture an electromagnetic wave, wherein the antenna is deposited on the current rectifier.
Further, Ren teaches ([0044], lines 4-5): “In one embodiment, the optical rectennas comprise carbon nanotubes.”
However, Ren does not teach that the current rectifier and the antenna comprise plurality of nanofibers.
Quinn teaches (claim 9, Fig. 3, [0027]) a dipole antenna elements/units (200) comprised of nanofibers.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Quinn to replace the carbon nanotubes in the rectenna of Ren with carbon nanofibers, so that the rectenna would be comprising a first plurality of electrically conductive nanofibres deposited on said support element to define a current rectifier of the rectenna and a second plurality of electrically conductive nanofibres deposited on the first plurality of nanofibres to define an antenna of the rectenna configured to capture an electromagnetic wave. This modification would provide numerous benefits to the rectenna due to the nanofibers’ strength, resistive thermal properties, electromagnetic conductivity, flexibility, and tolerance to temperature fluctuations, and solar radiation (see Quinn, [0027], lines 6-8, 11-12, and 16-17).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, the modified of Ren teaches the rectenna according to claim 14.
Ren further teaches the the support element and/or the first plurality of nanofibres and/or the second plurality of nanofibres are made of at least one material selected from: conductive materials, structurally conductive materials, ferrous oxide and/or boron nitride (h-BN) (see Ren, [0044], lines 4-5: “In one embodiment, the optical rectennas comprise carbon nanotubes.” Carbon nanotubes are structurally conductive materials).
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the rectenna according to claim 20 as addressed above.
Ren further teaches that the structurally conductive materials comprise at least one carbon nanotubes, semiconductor materials, titanium dioxide (TiO2) and/or zinc oxide (ZnO) (see Ren, [0044], lines 4-5 – carbon nanotubes).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ren and Quinn in view of Beachley et al. (US 7828539 B1, hereinafter Beachley).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the rectenna according to claim 14.
The modified Ren does not teach wherein the first plurality of nanofibres and the second plurality of nanofibres are made by an electrospinning process.
Beachley teaches (claim 1, Fig. 3) nanofibers formed via an electrospinning process.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Beachley to make the modified Ren, so that the first plurality of nanofibres and the second plurality of nanofibres made by an electrospinning process. This modification would provide three dimensional arrays of aligned nanofibers in an open, loose structure of any desired depth, which can be combined with other materials to form a composite 3-D structure. (see Beachley, Abstract, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the rectenna according to claim 14.
The modified Ren does not teach wherein the first plurality of nanofibres and/or the second plurality of nanofibres comprises at least two subsets of nanofibres comprising nanofibres aligned along respective deposition directions, the deposition direction of each subset of nanofibres being inclined with respect to the deposition direction of at least one different subset of nanofibres.
Beachley teaches (Fig. 4A) at least two subsets of nanofibres comprising nanofibres aligned along respective deposition directions, the deposition direction of each subset of nanofibres being inclined with respect to the deposition direction of at least one different subset of nanofibres.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Beachley to make the modified Ren, so that the first plurality of nanofibres and/or the second plurality of nanofibres comprises at least two subsets of nanofibres comprising nanofibres aligned along respective deposition directions, the deposition direction of each subset of nanofibres being inclined with respect to the deposition direction of at least one different subset of nanofibres. This modification would provide three dimensional arrays of aligned nanofibers in an open, loose structure of any desired depth, which can be combined with other materials to form a composite 3-D structure. (see Beachley, Abstract, lines 1-11).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ren and Quinn in view of Beachley and Moddel (US 20200358375 A1).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the rectenna according to claim 14.
The modified Ren does not teach the limitation wherein a third plurality of nanofibres, deposited on the second plurality of nanofibres, defining a capture layer having a mesh density that is configured to define a plurality of quantum cavities.
Beachley teaches (Fig. 4A) depositing a plurality of nanofibers on a second plurality of nanofibers.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Beachley and make the modified Ren, so that the rectenna comprises a third plurality of nanofibres, deposited on the second plurality of nanofibers. This modification would lead to the predictable result of having a rectenna comprising a third plurality of nanofibers in order to meet the design and/or performance requirements of the rectenna such as combining multiple arrays of nanofibres together to form a larger composite array of a desired shape (see Beachley, col. 4, lines 18-20).
Beachley does not teach that the plurality of nanofibers deposited on a second plurality of nanofibers defines a capture layer having a mesh density that is configured to define a plurality of quantum cavities.
Moddel teaches (Fig. 3, [0003, 0039]) a quantum cavity (300) for harvesting electromagnetic radiation energy (see [0003]), which may be constructed in the form of nanopores (see [0039], lines 18-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Moddel to modify the combination of Ren, Quinn and Beachley, so that the rectenna according to claim 14 comprises a third plurality of nanofibres, deposited on the second plurality of nanofibres, defining a capture layer having a mesh density that is configured to define a plurality of quantum cavities. This modification would allow the rectenna to capture energy from quantum vacuum fluctuations (see Moddel, [0003]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, the modified Ren as applied to claim 17 teaches the rectenna according to claim 17.
The modified Ren does not teach the limitation wherein each quantum cavity is adapted to retain an atom in a fundamental state.
However, Model ([0003]) teaches that each quantum cavity is adapted to retain an atom in a fundamental state (Moddel, [0003], lines 6-7, recites quantum vacuum energy that forms the energy ground state, which as is known in the art is equivalent to an atom in a fundamental state).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Moddel to modify the combination of Ren, Quinn and Beachley, so that each quantum cavity is adapted to retain an atom in a fundamental state. This modification would allow the rectenna to capture energy from vacuum fluctuations (see Moddel, [0003], lines 10-13).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ren and Quinn in view of Moddel.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the rectenna according to claim 14.
The combination does not teach the limitation wherein the first plurality of nanofibres and/or the second plurality of nanofibres has a mesh density that is configured to define a plurality of quantum cavities.
Moddel teaches (Fig. 3, [0003, 0039]) a quantum cavity (300) for harvesting electromagnetic radiation energy (see [0003]), which may be constructed in the form of nanopores (see [0039], lines 18-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Moddel to make the modified Ren , so that the first plurality of nanofibres and/or the second plurality of nanofibres has a mesh density that is configured to define a plurality of quantum cavities. This modification would allow the rectenna to capture energy from quantum vacuum fluctuations (see Moddel, [0003]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ren and Quinn in view of Scanlon (US 20110073161 A1).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the rectenna according to claim 14.
The modified Ren does not teach the limitation wherein the rectenna further comprises an orientation base, said support element being rotatably coupled with the orientation base to rotate around a rotation axis lying in said plate-shaped support element.
Scanlon teaches (Fig. 1A) an orientation base (114) and a support element (106) supporting a PV panel (102), and said support element is being rotatably coupled with the orientation base to rotate around a rotation axis lying in said plate-shaped support element.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Scanlon to the modified Ren by providing an orientation base which is rotatably coupled with said support element to rotate around a rotation axis lying in said plate-shaped support element. This modification would achieve the predictable result of orienting the rectenna in the direction of the incoming electromagnetic radiation, so that maximum amount of energy is being captured by the rectenna.
Claims 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ren, Quinn, and Scanlon as applied to claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the rectenna according to claim 21.
The modified Ren, as applied to claim 21 does not teach a device for converting energy comprising:
movement means associated with said at least one rectenna and configured to rotate the support element by modifying an orientation of the first and the second plurality of nanofibres;
a control unit configured to measure a current signal generated by said at least one rectenna and to activate the movement means as a function of said current signal.
However, Ren teaches (Fig. 1) a device for converting energy (100) comprising an array of rectennas (125).
Further, Scanlon teaches (Fig. 1A; [0051], lines 14-17 and 20-24) movement means (110) associated with a PV panel (102) and configured to rotate the support element (106) to modify/change the orientation of the PV panel; and a control unit (118) configured to measure a current signal generated by sensor (108) and to activate the movement means as a function of said current signal.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ren and Scanlon to the modified Ren and provide a device for converting energy comprising: at least one rectenna according to claim 21; movement means associated with said at least one rectenna and configured to rotate the support element by modifying an orientation of the first and the second plurality of nanofibres; a control unit configured to measure a current signal generated by said at least one rectenna and to activate the movement means as a function of said current signal.
This modification would allow harvesting more energy by the device by orienting the at least one rectenna in the direction of the incoming electromagnetic radiation, so that maximum amount of energy is being captured by the rectenna.
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the device according to claim 22 as addressed above.
The modified Ren does not teach the limitation wherein the control unit is configured to activate the movement means so as to tune the at least one rectenna with an electromagnetic wave.
However, Scanlon teaches (Fig. 1A; [0051], lines 8-12 and [0064], lines 17-24) that the control unit (118) is configured to activate the movement means (110) so as to adjust the orientation of PV panels (102) at an optimal angle relative to the incoming sun light.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Scanlon to the modified Ren and configure the control unit to activate the movement means so as to tune the at least one rectenna with an electromagnetic wave. This modification would allow to orient the rectenna at the direction of an impinging electromagnetic wave for capturing maximum energy.
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the device according to claim 22 as addressed above.
Further, Ren teaches the limitation wherein device according to claim 22, comprises a plurality of rectennas (see Ren, Fig. 1; [0042], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the device according to claim 22 as addressed above.
The modified Ren does not teach the limitation wherein the control unit is configured to activate the movement means so as to rotate each rectenna independently and autonomously.
However, Scanlon teaches (Fig. 1A; [0051], lines 8-12 and [0064], lines 17-24) that the control unit (118) is configured to activate the movement means (110) so as to adjust the orientation of one or more PV panels (102) at an optimal angle relative to the incoming sun light.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Scanlon and make the modified Ren so that the control unit is configured to activate the movement means so as to rotate each rectenna independently and autonomously. This modification would allow to orient each rectenna independently so as to capture maximum energy.
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, the modified Ren teaches the device according to claim 22 as addressed above.
The modified Ren does not teach a battery electrically connected to the least one rectenna and configured to store electric energy converted by said rectenna.
However, Scanlon teaches ([0071], lines 8-16 a battery connected to the PV panels for storing the energy converted by the PV panels.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Scanlon to the modified Ren to provide a battery electrically connected to the least one rectenna and configured to store electric energy converted by said rectenna. This would achieve the predictable result of storing the electric energy converted by the rectenna.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571)-270-7893. 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845