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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2026,08/26/2025,03/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US PG Pub 20130334903 hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Official Notice.
Re-claim 1, Kim discloses a kinetic-energy harvester (Fig.1b), comprising: a magnet (110,160) comprising a coil-facing surface (surface facing 120); a coil array (120) comprising a plurality of conductive coils (170), wherein the coil array (120) is offset from the magnet in a first direction (perpendicular to 130), such that an air gap is defined between the coil-facing surface of the magnet (see fig.1a) and the coil array (120); and a cantilever beam spring (180) coupling the magnet to the coil array (see fig.1b) and configured to enable movement of the coil array , relative to the magnet, about a vibration axis that is perpendicular to the first direction (130,see P[0033], The cantilever 180 in this implementation is a silicone rubber plate used to suspend the coil array, and which vibrates as a cantilever when the coil array moves in response to external vibration).
Kim is silent on stating the harvester is “kinetic” energy harvester.
However, Examiner takes official notice based on definition of Kinetic energy and indicates that it is known in the art that kinetic energy is that any moving object has kinetic energy, it is the possession of energy due to device motion, therefore the device of Kim is a Kinetic energy harvester.
PNG
media_image1.png
423
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
276
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
232
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
577
643
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Kim as modified discloses the kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1, wherein the coil-facing surface (annotated fig.1b) of the magnet comprises a non-planar surface (surface is not single surface, see fig.1b).
Re-claim 3, Kim as modified discloses the kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1, wherein the coil-facing surface of the magnet (120,520) and the coil array (515) are mirrored surfaces, such that a thickness of the air gap (gap between at least one 515) defined between the coil-facing surface of the magnet (one 520) and the coil array (at least the 2 facing one magnet 515) is uniform (uniform gap in between one magnet and 2 coils, see fig.5a annotation).
Re-claim 4, Kim as modified discloses the kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1, wherein the coil-facing surface of the magnet and the coil array are asymmetrical surfaces (annotated fig.5a), such that a thickness of the air gap (annotated fig.5a) defined between the coil-facing surface of the magnet and the coil array varies (annotated fig.5a).
Re-claim 5, Kim as modified discloses the kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1, wherein: the coil array (515) further comprises a base (110,510); and the plurality of conductive coils are fixed to the base (fixed to 110, 510).
Re-claim 6, Kim as modified discloses the kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1, wherein the coil array comprises at least three conductive coils (see fig.1a, 3 coils, 515).
Re-claim 7, Kim as modified discloses the kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1, wherein the coil array comprises at least nine conductive coils (see fig.4a, at least 9 coils shown).
Re-claim 8, Kim as modified discloses the kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1, wherein the coil array comprises a convex surface (see annotated fig.1a showing 120 have convex shape in the outside).
Re-claim 9, Kim as modified discloses the kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1, wherein the coil array comprises a concave surface (see annotated fig.1a showing 120 have concave shape in the inside).
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified in view of Cheung (US PG Pub 20070052302 hereinafter “Cheung”).
Re-claim 10, Kim as modified discloses the kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1,
Kim fails to explicitly teach the magnet material is neodymium.
However, Cheung teaches wherein the magnet (P[0047],magnet are neodymium) is a neodymium magnet (P[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to specify the material making the magnet of Kim wherein the magnet is made of neodymium as suggested by Cheung to use as grade 38 for good magnetic flux of a powerful magnet material (Cheung, P[0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11,12 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.
Claim 13-20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re-claim 11, recites “inter alia” 11. The kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1, wherein: the coil array comprises a plurality of coil plates; each one of the plurality of coil plates comprises at least one of the plurality of conductive coils; each one of the plurality of coil plates is separated from an adjacent one of the plurality of coil plates by a plate-gap; and the plate-gap is adjustable so that at least one of a distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of coil plates is adjustable or an angle defined between the adjacent ones of the plurality of coil plates is adjustable. “
The combination of claim 11 with claim 1 is unique and is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record, ai search, ip.com search, any combination of referenced does not teach such combination of claim limitations.
Re-claim 12, recites “inter alia” 12. The kinetic-energy harvester of claim 1, wherein the coil array further comprises a transmitter; the plurality of conductive coils are configured to forward electrical power produced by the plurality of conductive coils to the transmitter; and the transmitter is configured to transfer the electrical power wirelessly to a second device using electromagnetic induction”.
The combination of claim 12 with claim 1 is unique and is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record, ai search, ip.com search, any combination of referenced does not teach such combination of claim limitations.
Re-claim recites “ 13. An acoustic detection system comprising: a vibration-generating object; a kinetic-energy harvester embedded within a first location of the vibration-generating object, configured to convert vibrations, at the first location of the vibration-generating object when the vibration-generating object is generating vibrations, into electrical power, and configured to wirelessly transmit the electrical power, the kinetic-energy harvester comprising: a magnet comprising a coil-facing surface; a coil array comprising a plurality of conductive coils, wherein the coil array is offset from the magnet in a first direction, such that an air gap is defined between the coil-facing surface of the magnet and the coil array; and a cantilever beam spring coupling the magnet to the coil array and configured to enable movement of the coil array, relative to the magnet, about a vibration axis that is perpendicular to the first direction; and an acoustic sensor embedded within a second location of the vibration-generating object, which is separate from the first location, wherein the acoustic sensor is configured to: wirelessly receive the electrical power from the kinetic-energy harvester; detect acoustic signals proximate to the second location of the vibration-generating object using the electrical power; and convert detected acoustic signals into acoustic data.”
The combination of claim 13 is unique and is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record, ai search, ip.com search, any combination of referenced does not teach such combination of claim limitations.
Claims 14-16 are allowed based on dependency from claim allowed 13.
Re-claim 17, is similar to claim 13 which has same reasons of allowance.
The combination of claim 17 is unique and is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record, ai search, ip.com search, any combination of referenced does not teach such combination of claim limitations.
Claims 18-20 are allowed based on dependency from claim allowed 17.
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