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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Examiner finds that only one claims 12-20 are method claims but are substantially have same subject matter as allowed claims, therefore restriction is being withdrawn. All claims are being examined as indicated below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BYD (Chinese Patent Document CN20406839U hereinafter “BYD”) in view of Wenzhou (Chinese Patent Document CN214756109U hereinafter “Wenzhou”).
Re-claim 1, BYD discloses a vibration self-generating battery of a water quality low-power sensor (P-0006,Fig.1-4,vbbrating self generating battery suitable for low power sensors) applicable to multiple scenarios, comprising a positive electrode magnetic cap (802), a battery outer cylinder (8,801), a negative electrode magnetic cap (801, end of ), a circuit module (701), a supporting component (501,3, mandrel), an electromagnetic induction generating unit (1), and, wherein the positive electrode magnetic cap (802) is arranged at an upper side of the battery outer cylinder (801), and the negative electrode magnetic cap (cap end of 801, negative terminal) is arranged at a lower side of the battery outer cylinder (bottom of 801); the electromagnetic induction generating unit (1,3,4) is arranged at the center of the battery (inside in fig.1), and the supporting component (3) and the circuit module (7) are arranged below (below when turned up or down, or when horizontal, it is below the unit) the electromagnetic induction generating unit (701) in turn (See fig.4, fig.2,fig.1)
BYD fails to explicitly teach a friction nano generating unit, the friction nano generating unit is arranged close to an inner wall of the battery outer cylinder.
However, Wenzhou, a friction nano generating unit (3), the friction nano generating unit (3) is arranged close to an inner wall (close to wall 1, specially at bottom) of the battery outer cylinder (3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the generation device of BYD wherein it has a combination of a friction nano generating unit, the friction nano generating unit is arranged close to an inner wall of the battery outer cylinder as suggested by Wenzhou to provide a hybrid compound friction nano generator in a light weight hand carry device, using friction and electromagnetic nono structure to generate power (Wenzhou).
PNG
media_image1.png
739
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
671
555
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
439
601
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 3, BYD discloses the vibration self-generating battery of a water quality low-power sensor applicable to multiple scenarios according to claim 1, wherein a convex surface of the positive electrode magnetic cap is a N pole, and a concave surface of the positive electrode magnetic cap is an S pole; and an inner side of the negative electrode magnetic cap is a N pole, and an outer side of the negative pole magnetic cap is an S pole (see annotated fig.2, N and S poles are poles of the battery, one positive and one negative).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BYD in view of Wenzhou, and in further view of Nakamura et al. (US PG Pub 20110204715 hereinafter “Nakamura”).
Re-claim 2, BYD as modified discloses the vibration self-generating battery of a water quality low-power sensor applicable to multiple scenarios according to claim 1,
BYD fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery outer cylinder is made of an insulating material, is waterproof and moisture proof.
However, Nakamura suggests that the battery outer cylinder is made of an insulating material (2,seal in space 2a like rubber, see P[0034), is waterproof and moisture proof (P[0034-0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the generation device of BYD wherein the battery outer cylinder is made of an insulating material, is waterproof and moisture proof as suggested by Nakamura to provide waterproof for the battery and protection (Nakamura, P[0034-0035]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re-claim 4, recites “inter alia”, 4. The vibration self-generating battery of a water quality low-power sensor applicable to multiple scenarios according to claim 1, wherein the circuit module comprises capacitors, a negative electrode copper bar, diodes, a PCB (printed circuit board), and a positive electrode magnetic bar; two capacitors form an energy storage circuit, four diodes form a rectifying circuit, and the negative electrode copper bar and the positive electrode magnetic bar form a current steering circuit.”
PNG
media_image4.png
699
319
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
474
476
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
232
447
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prior art of record, ip.com search, AI Sim Search references alone or combined fail to suggest or teach the combination of limitation of claim 4 with claim 1. The combination is unique.
Re-claim 9, recites “inter alia” 9. A power generating method of the vibration self-generating battery of a water quality low-power sensor applicable to multiple scenarios according to claim 1, wherein a circular perforated magnet loses balance due to seawater vibration, and makes irregular reciprocating motion along a hollow conductive shaft, which causes a friction copper foil outside the circular perforated magnet to make contact with and separate from a friction PTFE inner film, such that static electricity is generated by the friction copper foil and the friction PTFE inner film; and the static electricity generates an electromotive force difference on a contact surface of the friction copper foil and the friction PTFE inner film, and a copper foil ring conducts a current generated by the electromotive force to charge a capacitor;
the circular perforated magnet makes reciprocating motion due to the seawater vibration, and relative motion is generated between the circular perforated magnet and the enameled coil, which makes a magnetic induction line in the enameled coil change to generate alternating he circular perforated magnet makes reciprocating motion due to the seawater vibration, and relative motion is generated between the circular perforated magnet and the enameled coil, which makes a magnetic induction line in the enameled coil change to generate alternating electromotive force at both ends of the enameled coil, so as to charge the capacitor.”
The prior art of record, ip.com search, AI Sim Search references alone or combined fail to suggest or teach the combination of limitation of claim 9 with claim 1. The combination is unique.
Regarding claim 10 and 11 contain the same subject matter as claim 9, and are allowable, claims are same as 9, they have the same allowability description.
Regarding claims 5-8,12-20 are allowed based on dependency from allowable claim as indicated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights