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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding objections to the specification:
The specification was objected to due to multiple informalities. As the bracketed reference numerals do not explicitly refer to the numbered claims and are instead different embodiments of the invention, the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding objections to the claims:
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 were objected to due to multiple informalities. The Applicant amended the claims to correct the informalities, therefore the objections were withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 were rejected as being obvious over Takeuchi in view of Nagaya. Claims 4-7 and 11-14 were rejected as being obvious over Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen. Claims 8 and 15 were rejected as being obvious over Takeuchi in view of Nagaya, Chen, and Natori.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argued that Nagaya does not teach a piezoelectric ceramic material being applicable at an electric field strength of 800 V/mm or more as it discloses a sonar having an amplitude of 500 V/mm or smaller. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Nagaya does disclose the piezoelectric actuator working condition as a sonar being equal to or smaller than 500 V/mm, it also discloses an ultrasonic motor being operated at equal to or smaller than 1000 V/mm and a laminated actuator being operated at equal to or smaller than 3000 V/mm. As Takeuchi has a laminated structure and operates at an ultrasonic range, it would be reasonable to suggest that it could operate at those electric field strength ranges at 800 V/mm or more. The Applicant also argued that Takeuchi does not touch on a power-generating system. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ultrasonic probe radiates ultrasonic beams which are then reflected and converted into an electrical signal, generating power (Column 1 lines 18-24). Therefore, the claims remain rejected.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,736,631 to Takeuchi et al. (hereinafter Takeuchi; cited by Applicant on 10/18/2023) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0159028 to Nagaya et al. (hereinafter Nagaya).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi teaches a power-generating method of generating power form a power-generating element (FIG. 2, 21) whose electric polarization state is changed by phase transition (Column 2 lines 23-35), the method comprising:
an electric-field application process of applying an electric field to the power-generating element to change a phase transition temperature of the power-generating element (Column 2 line 52-Column 3 line 8) by an electric-field application unit (FIG. 2, 25) for applying the electric field to the power-generating element without changing a temperature of the power-generating element; and
a power-generating process of changing the electric polarization state in the power-generating element by application of the electric field and control of the application (Column 3 line 5-8).
Takeuchi does not teach a frequency of an electric-field application cycle for the power-generating element being 1.5 Hz or more, and an electric field strength being 800 V/mm or more.
However, Nagaya teaches a piezoelectric actuator with a piezoelectric ceramic comprising barium titanate (Paragraph [0158]) having an electric field applied to it of 1.5 Hz or more (Paragraph [0195]) and an electric field strength of 800 V/mm or more (Paragraph [0194]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Takeuchi with the electric field parameters of Nagaya as it provides a proper scheme for utilizing the piezoelectric element.
Regarding claim 2, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya teaches the power-generating method according to claim 1, wherein Takeuchi further teaches the electric-field application process changing the phase transition temperature of the power-generating element to repeat a first state where the phase transition temperature exceeds an outside air temperature (Column 3 lines 1-2) and a second state where the phase transition temperature is less than the outside air temperature (Column 3 lines 2-8).
Regarding claim 3, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya teaches the power-generating method according to claim 1, wherein Takeuchi further teaches a temperature difference between the phase transition temperature of the power-generating element to which no electric field is applied and an outside air temperature of the power-generating element being 50° or less (Column 3 lines 1-23).
Regarding claim 9, Takeuchi teaches a power-generating system comprising a power-generating element (FIG. 2, 21) whose electric polarization state is changed by phase transition (Column 2 line 52-Column 3 line 8) and a power-generating unit (FIG. 2; 22, 23, 24, 25)) for generating power from the power-generating element, wherein
the power-generating unit includes:
no temperature changing unit that changes an outside air temperature of the power-generating element (Column 3 lines 18-19);
an electric-field application unit (FIG. 2, 25) that applies an electric field to the power-generating element to change a phase transition temperature of the power-generating element (Column 3 lines 1-33);
an extraction unit (FIG. 2; 22, 23, 24) for extracting the power generated due to change of the electric polarization state in the power-generating element; and
a control unit (Column 3 lines 9-52) for controlling the electric field applied by the electric-field application unit, wherein the control unit applies the electric field to the power-generating element to cause change of the phase transition temperature of the power-generating element.
Takeuchi does not teach a frequency of an electric-field application cycle for the power-generating element being 1.5 Hz or more, and an electric field strength being 800 V/mm or more.
However, Nagaya teaches a piezoelectric actuator with a piezoelectric ceramic comprising barium titanate (Paragraph [0158]) having an electric field applied to it of 1.5 Hz or more (Paragraph [0195]) and an electric field strength of 800 V/mm or more (Paragraph [0194]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power-generating system of Takeuchi with the electric field parameters of Nagaya as it provides a proper scheme for utilizing the piezoelectric element.
Regarding claim 10, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya teaches the control unit applying the electric field to the power-generating element to change the phase transition temperature of the power-generating element, causing a first state where the phase transition temperature exceeds an outside air temperature (Column 3 lines 1-2) and a second state where the phase transition temperature is less than the outside air temperature to be repeated (Column 3 lines 2-8).
Claims 4-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and in further view of “Piezoelectric and electrostrictive strain behavior of Ce-doped BaTiO3 ceramics” to Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 4, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya teaches the power-generating method according to claim 1.
Takeuchi in view of Nagaya does not teach the power-generating element containing at least one selected from the group consisting of barium titanate [BaTiO3], barium zirconate titanate [Ba (Zr,Ti)O3], and barium calcium zirconate titanate [(Ba,Ca)(Zr,Ti)O3].
However, Chen teaches a piezoelectric element comprising barium titanate (Page 3424, paragraph 1) used in ferroelectric applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Takeuchi in view of Nagaya with the barium titanate of Chen due to its desirable strain characteristics and lack of toxic lead (Page 3424, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen teaches the power-generating method according to claim 4, wherein Chen further teaches the power-generating element further containing a doping rare earth element (Page 3424, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen teaches the power-generating method according to claim 5, wherein Chen further teaches the doping rare earth element containing Ce (Page 3424, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 7, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen teaches the power-generating method according to claim 5, wherein Chen further teaches the doping rare earth element containing Ce (Page 3424, paragraph 2), and a content ratio of Ce with respect to a total amount of metal elements in the power-generating element being 0.00005 mol% or more and 50 mol% or less (Page 3424, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 11, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya teaches the power-generating system according to claim 9.
Takeuchi in view of Nagaya does not teach the power-generating element containing at least one selected from the group consisting of barium titanate [BaTiO3], barium zirconate titanate [Ba (Zr,Ti)O3], and barium calcium zirconate titanate [(Ba,Ca)(Zr,Ti)O3].
However, Chen teaches a piezoelectric element comprising barium titanate (Page 3424, paragraph 1) used in ferroelectric applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power-generating system of Takeuchi in view of Nagaya with the barium titanate of Chen due to its desirable strain characteristics and lack of toxic lead (Page 3424, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya teaches the power-generating system according to claim 11, wherein Chen further teaches the power-generating element further containing a doping rare earth element (Page 3424, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya teaches the power-generating system according to claim 12, wherein Chen further teaches the doping rare earth element containing Ce (Page 3424, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 14, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya teaches the power-generating system according to claim 12, wherein Chen further teaches the doping rare earth element containing Ce (Page 3424, paragraph 2), and a content ratio of Ce with respect to a total amount of metal elements in the power-generating element being 0.00005 mol% or more and 50 mol% or less (Page 3424, paragraph 3).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0020157 to Natori et al. (hereinafter Natori).
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen teaches the power-generating method according to claim 4.
Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen does not teach the power-generating element being annealed in an oxidizing atmosphere.
However, Natori teaches a ferroelectric element comprising a perovskite (Paragraph [0294]) formed as a result of annealing in an oxidizing atmosphere (Paragraph [0272]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power-generating method of Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen with the annealed element of Natori as it can be further stabilized and its ferroelectric characteristics can be stably improved (Paragraph [0273]-[0274]).
Regarding claim 15, Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen teaches the power-generating system according to claim 11.
Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen does not teach the power-generating element being annealed in an oxidizing atmosphere.
However, Natori teaches a ferroelectric element comprising a perovskite (Paragraph [0294]) formed as a result of annealing in an oxidizing atmosphere (Paragraph [0272]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power-generating system of Takeuchi in view of Nagaya and Chen with the annealed element of Natori as it can be further stabilized and its ferroelectric characteristics can be stably improved (Paragraph [0273]-[0274]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834