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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/28/24. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and/or” should be replaced with “at least one of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "ones of the plurality of flaps…" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 10 depends from claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, 14, 17- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petroni et al. (US20170033713, hereinafter Petroni).
Regarding claim 1, Petroni discloses an energy extraction arrangement (60), comprising: a surface (80) at least in part defining a flow pathway (F); and a flap (4) hingedly secured to the surface (82), the flap exposed to a fluid flow along the surface, during use. See Figs. 4 and 6-8.
Regarding claim 2, wherein during use, the flap and/or the hinge is deflected due to changes in the flowing fluid.
Regarding claim 3, the flap comprises a piezoelectric material. See paragraph [0025].
Regarding claim 4, the hinge is separate from the flap and secured to the flap to provide the hinged connection to the surface.
Regarding claim 5, in Fig. 6, the piezoelectric structure is formed at the connection portion where the flap connects with the wall, therefore, the hinge portion comprises a piezoelectric material.
Regarding claim 6, the flap includes a lip geometry configured to cause lift and or drag, during use. See Figs. 7 and 8.
Regarding claim 7, the flap comprises an airfoil.
Regarding claim 11, the flap extends from the hinge in a downstream/downstream direction.
Regarding claim 14, the flap when at rest is substantially normal to the surface.
Regarding claim 17, Petroni discloses the method for extracting energy from a non-diverted primary fluid flow, the method comprising: deflecting solely by the primary fluid flow a flap hingedly connected to a surface defining in part a flow pathway for the primary fluid flow; and generating an electrical potential by the deflecting.
Regarding claim 18, the deflecting is at the hinge.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the deflecting is based upon fluid flowing in a direction that encounters the hinge first and a remainder of the flap second. See Figs. 7-8 and its descriptions.
Claims 1-5, 9-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US20110309723, hereinafter Lu).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses an energy extraction arrangement (Fig. 1), comprising: a surface (frame 104) at least in part defining a flow pathway (122); and a flap (117) hingedly secured to the surface, the flap exposed to a fluid flow along the surface, during use. See Fig. 3B and its description.
Regarding claims 2-5, and 9-13, Lu discloses the claimed invention, please refer to Figs. 1-4 and the written description. Lu discloses the piezoelectric elements, the plurality of flaps, flaps overlapping the at least one direction, and the flaps lying substantially flat on the surface.
Regarding claims 17-20, Lu discloses the method for extracting energy as claimed.
Claims 1, 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphee (US20130119669).
Regarding claim 1, Murphee discloses an energy extraction arrangement (150), comprising: a surface (100) at least in part defining a flow pathway (152); and a flap hingedly secured to the surface (cantilever structure attached at a fixed end 108), the flap exposed to a fluid flow along the surface, during use. See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 2, wherein during use, the flap and/or the hinge is deflected due to changes in the flowing fluid.
Regarding claim 17, the method as claimed is inherent in the disclosure of Murphee.
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 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.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petroni or Lu.
Regarding claim 8, Petroni and Lu disclose the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the flap comprising a W or gable shape. It has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a specific shape for the flap in order to improve the aerodynamic oscillation and optimize the energy conversion of the system.
Claims 15-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochoa et al. (US8564179) in view of Lu.
Regarding claims 15 and 21, Ochoa discloses a borehole energy extraction system comprising an active element of the energy conversion device (204) that may include any suitable material that converts flexing or movement of a portion or all of the device, and the corresponding mechanical stress and strain, into electrical energy. Lu discloses an energy conversion structure comprising a flap hingedly secured to a surface, the flap exposed to a fluid flow along the primary flow pathway, during use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the energy conversion structure disclosed by Lu as the energy extraction system disclosed by Lu to generate electrical energy from the flow of fluids within the borehole.
Regarding claim 16, it should be noted that the claimed limitation is not directed to a structural limitation and is considered to be met by the structure of the references.
Regarding claim 21, Ochoa discloses the energy conversion device (204) may be positioned in a plurality of locations within the drill string (200).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kolm ‘318 discloses an energy harvester comprising a piezoelectric element and a vane to enhance the aerodynamic oscillation. Kolm ‘236 discloses a piezoelectric structure attached to the surface of a tubular structure. Fripp teaches the use of piezoelectric structure in a downhole structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on 571-270-7938. 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.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
