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(s) 1-16 and is/are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-12 are objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates of claims 5-7, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 9 is objected to for failing to further limit claim 8, which it depends upon. MPEP § 608.01(n) III states that dependent claims need to “specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”. Claim 9 claims “the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component”. However, claim 8 claims “the storage component is subsequently re-charged by a recharging power supply”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass et al (US 20120261270 A1) in view of Borregaard (EP2348141A1).
Claim 1: Glass discloses a method for cathodically protecting and/or passivating a metal section (see e.g. [0014] lines 1-2 of Glass) in an ionically conductive material (see e.g. #13 on Fig 2 of Glass), comprising
providing an anode (see e.g. #7 on Fig 1a of Glass) for communication of an electrical current to the metal section in the ionically conductive material (see e.g. [0052] of Glass),
providing a storage component of electrical energy with two poles for communicating electrical current generated by release of the electrical energy (see e.g. [0054] lines 1-2 of Glass),
electrically connecting one pole to the metal section (see e.g. [0050] lines 1-3 of Glass),
electrically connecting the other pole to the anode (see e.g. [0054] lines 4-6 of Glass), and
placing the anode in ionic contact with the ionically conductive material (see e.g. #11 on Fig 2 of Glass) such that the electrical current can flow from the storage component through the electrical connection to the metal section (see e.g. [0052] of Glass) thus reducing a total amount of electrical energy (see e.g. [0018] of Glass);
wherein the storage component is connected as a single preassembled common unit with the anode (see e.g. [0029] lines 1-2 of Glass);
and wherein the anode and the storage component are both at least partly contained in the ionically conductive material (see e.g. #11 on Fig 2 of Glass).
Glass does not explicitly teach that the storage component is contained in a housing wherein replacement electrical energy is introduced by replacing into the storage component with a replacement storage component into the housing. Glass teaches that the storage component can be a battery (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Borregaard teaching a cathodic protection system (see e.g. abstract) using a battery (see e.g. “B” on Fig 1B) wherein the battery is contained in a housing (“battery compartment”) so that the battery can be easily replaced (see e.g. [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Glass by putting the storage component in a housing as taught in Borregaard so that the battery can be easily replaced when depleted.
Furthermore, Glass discloses that the anode should be part of the container that holds the storage component (see e.g. [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Glass in view of Borregaard that the anode would be formed as a common unit with the housing. Using this configuration would allow the storage component to be replaced with a replacement storage component while the housing and anode are in situ in the ionically conductive material.
Claim 2: Glass in view of Borregaard discloses that the storage component is a cell (see e.g. [0064] of Glass).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass in view of Borregaard as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Galande et al (US 20150090607 A1).
Claim 13: Glass in view of Borregaard does not explicitly teach that the storage component is a capacitor. Glass discloses that the storage component can be a battery (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Galande teaches a method for protecting metal from corrosion (see e.g. abstract of Galande) using a storage device to deliver current to the metal (see e.g. [0031] of Galande). Specially, Galande teaches “energy storage devices are selected from the group consisting of capacitors, supercapacitors, batteries, hybrids thereof, and combinations thereof” (see e.g. [0005] of Galande). KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Glass in view of Borregaard so that the storage component is a capacitor as taught in Galande because Galande teaches that batteries and capacitors are suitable equivalents for storage components used to protect metal from corrosion.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass in view of Burns (US 20150068919 A1) and Galande
Claim 3: Glass discloses a method for cathodically protecting and/or passivating a metal section (see e.g. [0014] lines 1-2 of Glass) in an ionically conductive material (see e.g. #13 on Fig 2 of Glass), comprising
providing an anode (see e.g. #7 on Fig 1a of Glass) for communication of an electrical current to the metal section in the ionically conductive material (see e.g. [0052] of Glass),
providing a storage component of electrical energy with two poles for communicating electrical current generated by release of the electrical energy (see e.g. [0054] lines 1-2 of Glass),
electrically connecting one pole to the metal section (see e.g. [0050] lines 1-3 of Glass),
electrically connecting the other pole to the anode (see e.g. [0054] lines 4-6 of Glass), and
placing the anode in ionic contact with the ionically conductive material (see e.g. #11 on Fig 2 of Glass) such that the electrical current can flow from the storage component through the electrical connection to the metal section (see e.g. [0052] of Glass) thus reducing a total amount of electrical energy (see e.g. [0018] of Glass),
wherein the storage component is connected as a single preassembled common unit with the anode (see e.g. [0029] lines 1-2 of Glass);
and wherein the single preassembled common unit is in contact with the ionically conductive material (see e.g. #11 on Fig 2 of Glass).
Glass does not explicitly teach that replacement electrical energy is introduced into the storage component while in situ. Glass teaches “The protection of the metal section is using the sacrificial anode and power supply is preferably followed by disconnecting and removing the power supply. After the power supply has been removed, it is preferable to connect the sacrificial anode to the metal section so that a current flows between the sacrificial anode and the metal to continue protecting the metal section” (see e.g. [0016] of Glass). Glass also teaches that the power supply can be a battery or DC power supply (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Burns teaches that power sources like batteries in cathodic protection systems can be charged using solar energy (see e.g. [0029] of Burns). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Glass to include the replacement energy to the storage unit with a suitable rechargeable power source as taught in Burns because this allows the power supply of Glass to be reused.
Glass does not explicitly teach that the storage component is a capacitor. Glass discloses that the storage component can be a battery (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Galande teaches a method for protecting metal from corrosion (see e.g. abstract of Galande) using a storage device to deliver current to the metal (see e.g. [0031] of Galande). Specially, Galande teaches “energy storage devices are selected from the group consisting of capacitors, supercapacitors, batteries, hybrids thereof, and combinations thereof” (see e.g. [0005] of Galande). KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Glass so that the storage component is a capacitor as taught in Galande because Galande teaches that batteries and capacitors are suitable equivalents for storage components used to protect metal from corrosion. Additionally, like batteries, capacitors can be recharged.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass in view of Burns and Galande as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Sergi et al (US 20140021062 A1).
Claim 4: Glass in view of Burns and Galande discloses that the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component. Glass teaches that the power supply can be a battery or DC power supply (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Burns teaches that batteries in cathodic protection systems can be charged using solar energy (see e.g. [0029] of Burns) and Sergi teaches a cathodic protection system (see e.g. abstract) wherein the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component (see e.g. [0087] of Sergi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method Glass in view of Burns so that the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component as taught in Sergi so that the battery does not have to be replaced.
Claims 5 and 10: Glass in view of Burns and Galande teaches that the storage component is charged by a solar cell (see e.g. [0029] of Burns).
Glass in view of Burns and Galande does not explicitly teach that the storage component is recharged. Glass teaches that the power supply can be a battery or DC power supply (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Burns teaches that batteries in cathodic protection systems can be charged using solar energy (see e.g. [0029] of Burns) and Sergi teaches a cathodic protection system (see e.g. abstract) wherein the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component (see e.g. [0087] of Sergi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method Glass in view of Burns so that the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component as taught in Sergi so that the battery does not have to be replaced.
Claims 6 and 11: Glass in view of Burns and Galande does not explicitly teach that the storage component is subsequently re-charged by a piezo-electrical cell.
Sergi teaches the storage device can be a battery (see e.g. [0087] of Sergi). Galande teaches a method for protecting metal from corrosion (see e.g. abstract of Galande) using a charged power source to deliver current to the metal (see e.g. [0031] of Galande). Specifically, [0089] Galande teaches the following:
In some embodiments, the charged energy storage device (e.g., battery) keeps the surface in a state of constant negative potential, thereby protecting it from corrosion. In some embodiments, energy conversion storage devices (e.g., solar cells, thermoelectrics or piezoelectrics) can be used to recharge the energy storage device (e.g., battery). Therefore, in some embodiments, the methods of the present disclosure provide a combination of energy storage-conversion hybrid that can effectively provide round-the-clock corrosion protection without the need for external intervention.
KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Glass in view of Burns and Sergi by using the piezoelectrics taught in Galande to recharge the battery because Galande teaches that these are suitable apparatus for recharging batteries in corrosion prevention systems.
Claims 7 and 12: Glass in view of Burns and Galande does not explicitly teach that the storage component is subsequently automatically repeatedly re-charged. Glass teaches that the power supply can be a battery or DC power supply (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Burns teaches that batteries in cathodic protection systems can be charged using solar energy (see e.g. [0029] of Burns) and Sergi teaches a cathodic protection system (see e.g. abstract) wherein the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component (see e.g. [0087] of Sergi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method Glass in view of Burns so that the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component as taught in Sergi so that the battery does not have to be replaced. This re-charging process can be done automatically (see e.g. [0029] and [0036] of Burns).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass in view of Burns, Sergi, and Galande
Claim 8: Glass discloses a method for cathodically protecting and/or passivating a metal section (see e.g. [0014] lines 1-2 of Glass) in an ionically conductive material (see e.g. #13 on Fig 2 of Glass), comprising
providing an anode (see e.g. #7 on Fig 1a of Glass) for communication of an electrical current to the metal section in the ionically conductive material (see e.g. [0052] of Glass),
a storage component of electrical energy with two poles for communicating electrical current generated by release of the electrical energy (see e.g. [0054] lines 1-2 of Glass),
electrically connecting one pole to the metal section (see e.g. [0050] lines 1-3 of Glass),
electrically connecting the other pole to the anode (see e.g. [0054] lines 4-6 of Glass), and
placing the anode in ionic contact with the ionically conductive material (see e.g. #11 on Fig 2 of Glass) such that the electrical current can flow from the storage component through the electrical connection to the metal section (see e.g. [0052] of Glass) thus reducing a total amount of electrical energy (see e.g. [0018] of Glass),
wherein the storage component is connected as a single preassembled common unit with the anode (see e.g. [0029] lines 1-2 of Glass).
Glass does not explicitly teach that replacement electrical energy is introduced into the storage component while in situ. Glass teaches “The protection of the metal section is using the sacrificial anode and power supply is preferably followed by disconnecting and removing the power supply. After the power supply has been removed, it is preferable to connect the sacrificial anode to the metal section so that a current flows between the sacrificial anode and the metal to continue protecting the metal section” (see e.g. [0016] of Glass). Glass also teaches that the power supply can be a battery or DC power supply (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Burns teaches that batteries in cathodic protection systems can be charged using solar energy (see e.g. [0029] of Burns). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Glass to include the replacement energy to the storage unit with a suitable rechargeable battery taught in Burns because this allows the power supply of Glass to be reused.
Glass does not explicitly teach that the storage component is subsequently re-charged by a recharging power supply.
Glass also teaches that the power supply can be a battery (see e.g. [0064] of Glass) and that “The protection of the metal section is using the sacrificial anode and power supply is preferably followed by disconnecting and removing the power supply” (see e.g. [0016] of Glass). Burns teaches that batteries in cathodic protection systems can be charged using solar. Sergi teaches a cathodic protection system (see e.g. abstract) wherein the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component (see e.g. [0087] of Sergi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method Glass in view of Burns so that the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component with a recharging power supply as taught in Sergi and Burns so that the battery does not have to be replaced.
Glass in view of Burns and Sergi does not explicitly teach that the recharging power supply is an integral unit with the storage component. Galande teaches a cathodic protection method (see e.g. abstract of Galande) wherein the recharging power supply is integral with the assembly (see e.g. ‘Energy harvesting device’ on Fig 7 of Galande). The integrated design of the protection apparatus allows for ease of use and application with little user intervention needed (see e.g. [0096]-[0098] of Galande). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method Glass in view of Burns and Sergi so that the recharging power supply is an integral unit with the storage component as taught in Galande because the integration of the power source and storage component allows for ease of use and application with little user intervention needed.
Claim 9: Glass in view of Burns, Sergi, and Galande teaches that the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component (see e.g. [0029] and [0036] of Burns).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass in view of Burns, Sergi, and Galande
Claim 14: Glass discloses a method for cathodically protecting and/or passivating a metal section (see e.g. [0014] lines 1-2 of Glass) in an ionically conductive material (see e.g. #13 on Fig 2 of Glass), comprising
providing an anode (see e.g. #7 on Fig 1a of Glass) for communication of an electrical current to the metal section in the ionically conductive material (see e.g. [0052] of Glass),
a storage component of electrical energy with two poles for communicating electrical current generated by release of the electrical energy (see e.g. [0054] lines 1-2 of Glass),
electrically connecting one pole to the metal section (see e.g. [0050] lines 1-3 of Glass),
electrically connecting the other pole to the anode (see e.g. [0054] lines 4-6 of Glass), and
placing the anode in ionic contact with the ionically conductive material (see e.g. #11 on Fig 2 of Glass) such that the electrical current can flow from the storage component through the electrical connection to the metal section (see e.g. [0052] of Glass) thus reducing a total amount of electrical energy (see e.g. [0018] of Glass).
Glass does not explicitly teach that replacement electrical energy is introduced into the storage component while in situ. Glass teaches “The protection of the metal section is using the sacrificial anode and power supply is preferably followed by disconnecting and removing the power supply. After the power supply has been removed, it is preferable to connect the sacrificial anode to the metal section so that a current flows between the sacrificial anode and the metal to continue protecting the metal section” (see e.g. [0016] of Glass). Glass also teaches that the power supply can be a battery or DC power supply (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Burns teaches that batteries in cathodic protection systems can be charged using solar energy (see e.g. [0029] of Burns). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Glass to include the replacement energy to the storage unit with a suitable rechargeable battery taught in Burns because this allows the power supply of Glass to be reused.
Glass does not explicitly teach providing a recharging system attached to the structure to generate a replacement electrical energy
Glass also teaches that the power supply can be a battery (see e.g. [0064] of Glass) and that “The protection of the metal section is using the sacrificial anode and power supply is preferably followed by disconnecting and removing the power supply” (see e.g. [0016] of Glass). Burns teaches that batteries in cathodic protection systems can be charged using solar. Sergi teaches a cathodic protection system (see e.g. abstract) wherein the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component (see e.g. [0087] of Sergi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method Glass in view of Burns so that the replacement electrical energy is introduced by re-charging the storage component with a recharging power supply as taught in Sergi and Burns so that the battery does not have to be replaced.
Glass does not explicitly teach that the recharging system is piezoelectric and responsive to movement of the structure. Sergi teaches the storage device can be a battery (see e.g. [0087] of Sergi). Galande teaches a method for protecting metal from corrosion (see e.g. abstract of Galande) using a charged power source to deliver current to the metal (see e.g. [0031] of Galande). Specifically, [0089] Galande teaches the following:
In some embodiments, the charged energy storage device (e.g., battery) keeps the surface in a state of constant negative potential, thereby protecting it from corrosion. In some embodiments, energy conversion storage devices (e.g., solar cells, thermoelectrics or piezoelectrics) can be used to recharge the energy storage device (e.g., battery). Therefore, in some embodiments, the methods of the present disclosure provide a combination of energy storage-conversion hybrid that can effectively provide round-the-clock corrosion protection without the need for external intervention.
KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Glass in view of Burns and Sergi by using the piezoelectrics taught in Galande to recharge the battery because Galande teaches that these are suitable apparatus for recharging batteries in corrosion prevention systems. Since all piezoelectrics are responsive to movement/stress, the piezoelectrics of Glass in view of Burns, Sergi, and Galande would be responsible to the movement of the structure.
Claims 15: Glass does not explicitly teach that the storage component is subsequently automatically repeatedly re-charged. Glass teaches that the power supply can be a battery or DC power supply (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Burns teaches that batteries in cathodic protection systems can be charged automatically (see e.g. [0029] and [0036] of Burns). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method Glass in view of Burns so that the storage component is subsequently automatically repeatedly re-charged as taught in Burns so that the storage component can be maintained without user intervention.
Claims 16: Glass does not explicitly teach that the storage component is a capacitor. Glass discloses that the storage component can be a battery (see e.g. [0064] of Glass). Galande teaches a method for protecting metal from corrosion (see e.g. abstract of Galande) using a storage device to deliver current to the metal (see e.g. [0031] of Galande). Specially, Galande teaches “energy storage devices are selected from the group consisting of capacitors, supercapacitors, batteries, hybrids thereof, and combinations thereof” (see e.g. [0005] of Galande). KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Glass in view of Borregaard so that the storage component is a capacitor as taught in Galande because Galande teaches that batteries and capacitors are suitable equivalents for storage components used to protect metal from corrosion.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,640,877 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 14: Claim 8 of 877 claims a method for cathodically protecting and/or passivating a metal section in a structure comprising an ionically conductive material (1: “A method for cathodically protecting and/or passivating a metal section in an ionically conductive material”), comprising:
providing an anode for communication of an electrical current to the metal section in the ionically conductive material (1: “providing an anode for communication of an electrical current to the metal section”);
a storage component of electrical energy with two poles for communicating electrical current generated by release of the electrical energy (1: “providing a storage component of electrical energy with two poles”);
electrically connecting one pole to the metal section, electrically connecting the other pole to the anode and placing the anode in ionic contact with the ionically conductive material such that the electrical current can flow from the storage component through the electrical connection to the metal section thus reducing a total amount of electrical energy (1: “electrically connecting one pole to the metal section, electrically connecting the other pole to the anode and placing the anode in ionic contact with the ionically conductive material such that the electrical current can flow from the storage component through the electrical connection to the metal section”);
providing a piezoelectric recharging system attached to the structure so as to be responsive to movement of the structure to generate a replacement electrical energy (8: “the storage component is subsequently re-charged by a piezo-electrical cell”); and
wherein the replacement electrical energy is introduced into the storage component while in situ at the ionically conductive material of the structure (2: “replacement electrical energy is introduced into the storage component while in situ”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM. 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795