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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 4-7, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,199,480 B2 to Fripp et al.
Fripp et al. clearly teaches a Vibration Based Power Generator, comprising:
a housing (120);
a port (see Figure 10) in the housing;
a first member (116) whose position relative to the housing depends upon a Bernoulli effect on the member from a fluid flow (arrows in Figure 10) through the port; and
a piezoelectric (see column 7, lines 10-22 and 54-67; column 8, lines 1-8; column 11, lines 10-35; column 17, lines 8-19 and 60-67) voltage generator (126) operably connected to the member (see Figure 10).
With regards to claim 2, Fripp et al. discloses:
the Bernoulli effect of the flowing fluid causes the member to move cyclically, during use.
With regards to claim 4, Fripp et al. discloses:
the generator being a cantilevered structure (see Figure 10).
With regards to claim 5, Fripp et al. discloses:
the member being affixed to the generator (see Figure 10).
With regards to claim 6, Fripp et al. discloses:
the generator comprises a spring (see column 7, lines 45-53; column 10, lines 23-34; and column 12, line 66 to column 13, line 7).
With regards to claim 7, Fripp et al. discloses:
the member being drawn toward the housing with increasing fluid flow velocity (see Figure 10).
With regards to claim 11, Fripp et al. discloses:
the magnitude of the Bernoulli effect is based upon viscosity of the fluid flowing through the arrangement.
With regards to claim 12, Fripp et al. discloses a method for generating electricity, comprising the steps of:
flowing a fluid past a member, the fluid creating pressure change dependent upon flow velocity;
causing a movement of the member by the pressure change;
physically deforming a piezoelectric generator with the movement; and
generating a voltage with the deforming.
With regards to claim 13, Fripp et al. discloses:
the pressure change being caused by the Bernoulli effect.
With regards to claim 14, Fripp et al. discloses:
the pressure change being a reduced pressure.
With regards to claim 15, Fripp et al. discloses:
a structure having a flow path for a fluid (see Figure 10);
an energy harvesting arrangement as described in paragraph 4 above, disposed within at least a portion of the flow path (see Figure 10).
With regards to claim 16, Fripp et al. discloses:
the flow path being a diverted portion of another flow path (see Figure 10).
With regards to claim 17, Fripp et al. discloses:
the structure being a tubular member (see Figures 7 and 10) of a wellbore system (see Figure 1).
With regards to claim 19, Fripp et al. discloses:
a borehole (see Figure 1) in a subsurface formation;
a string (14) in the borehole; and
an arrangement as described in paragraph 4 above, disposed within or as a part of the string.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,199,480 B2 to Fripp et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,970,877 to Russell et al.
Fripp et al. discloses a Vibration Based Power Generator as described in paragraph 4 above.
However, it fails to disclose the first member being a disk.
Russell et al. discloses Power Generation in Underground Drilling Operations, comprising:
a vibrating flexible disc (10) of piezoelectric material (see column 2, lines 12-25).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the disc disclosed by Russell et al. on the Vibration Based Power Generator disclosed by Fripp et al., for the purpose of generating electrical output from the vibration caused by the mud flow past the disc.
Claims 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,199,480 B2 to Fripp et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0140604 A1 to Chen et al.
Fripp et al. discloses a Vibration Based Power Generator as described in paragraph 4 above.
However, it fails to disclose a second member disposed adjacent the port and on an opposing side of the housing from the first member whose position relative to the housing depends upon flow through the port.
Chen et al. discloses Harvesting Energy From Flowing Fluid, comprising:
a second member disposed adjacent the port and on an opposing side of the housing from the first member (see Figures 8, 9, and 10) whose position relative to the housing depends upon flow through the port.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the dual member arrangement disclosed by Chen et al. on the Vibration Based Power Generator disclosed by Fripp et al., for the purpose of increasing the amount of energy generated by the generator.
With regards to claim 10, Chen et al. discloses:
a second port in the housing, the second port being adjacent a second member, the second member position relative to the housing being dependent upon flow through the second port (see Figures 8, 9, and 10); and
a second piezoelectric voltage generator operably connected to the second member (see Figures 8, 9, and 10).
With regards to claim 18, Chen et al. discloses:
the structure being an inflow control device (see Figures 2 and 4-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest an energy harvesting arrangement as recited by dependent claim 8, wherein:
the housing includes a stop that prevents the member from eliminating flow through the port.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEDRO J CUEVAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2021. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/PEDRO J CUEVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights