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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “uneven portion formed in a male-female shape” (Claim 9; Specification Paragraphs 0013 and 0052) must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording, throughout: Replacing “rotator” (25 or more occurrences) with “rotor” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 1-2. Replacing “the first power generator” with “the one or more first power generators” is suggested.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 3-4. Replacing “a first rotary shaft of which both ends are rotatably coupled to the outer ceiling surface of the electric vehicle and an inner surface of the fixed panel” with “a first rotary shaft having a first end which is rotatably coupled to the outer ceiling surface of the electric vehicle and a second end which is rotatably coupled to an inner surface of the fixed panel” is suggested.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 8-9. Replacing “one end of the first rotary shaft” with “the first end of the first rotary shaft” is suggested.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informality: wording. Replacing “rotator” (at least one occurrence in each aforementioned claim) with “rotor” is suggested.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 3. Replacing “the other end” with “the second end” is suggested.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 1-2. Replacing “the second power generator” with “the one or more second power generators” is suggested.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 1-2. Replacing “the second magnet” with “the plurality of second magnets” is suggested.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “the second stator is a cylindrical structure” with “each of the pair of second stators has a cylindrical structure” is suggested.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “the second stator” with “the pair of second stators” is suggested.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 1-2. Replacing “the third power generator” with “the one or more third power generators” is suggested.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 2-3. Replacing “electrical charge lines of the first power generator, the second power generator, and the third power generator are connected to the battery” with “electrical charge lines of the one or more first power generators, the one or more second power generators, and the one or more third power generators are connected to the battery” is suggested (emphasis added).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation “an uneven portion formed in a male-female shape” (Lines 2-3). The meaning of this limitation cannot be ascertained; Claim 9 will not be examined.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland (US 7434636 B2) in view of Sadao (JP H11150802 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Sutherland teaches a three-type self-power generation system for charging an electric vehicle battery [Sutherland Figs. 1 and 3, Reference Characters 101, 103, and 104; Sutherland Paragraph 11: “The power sources 101, 103, 104 are electrically connected to a charging unit 105, which is then in turn electrically connected to a battery controller or switch 106.”; Sutherland Paragraph 9: “The power system 100 may include a power generating device 101”; Sutherland Paragraph 10: “The power system 100 may also include a power generating device 103 such as an alternator or generator connectively attached to a wind turbine.”; Sutherland Paragraph 10: “The solar cell power source 104 may be disposed within a surface of the vehicle”; Sutherland Paragraph 27: “one or more solar panels 312 fixedly disposed within the one or more of the upper surfaces of the vehicle”], but does not teach a fixed panel, or one or more power generators on a lower surface the vehicle.
Sadao teaches a fixed panel formed on an outer ceiling surface of an electric vehicle while supported by a support column [Sadao Fig. 2; Paragraph 0007: solar cell 4]; one or more first power generators which are formed in a space between the outer ceiling surface of the electric vehicle and the fixed panel and generate electricity using wind power to charge a battery of the electric vehicle [Sadao Fig. 2, Reference Character 2; Sadao Paragraph 0005: “Equipped with a windmill 2 and rotated by receiving a strong wind pressure”]; one or more second power generators which are formed on a lower surface of the vehicle and generate electricity using a rotational force to charge the battery of the electric vehicle while the vehicle travels [Sadao Fig. 2, Reference Character 2']; and one or more third power generators which are formed on a flat surface of the fixed panel and generate electricity using sunlight to charge the battery of the electric vehicle [Sadao Fig. 2, Reference Character 4; Sadao Paragraph 0007: solar cell 4”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the three-type self-power generation system of Sutherland to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a fixed panel and a power generator formed on a lower surface in view of Sadao. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sutherland and Sadao because this would have achieved the desirable result of optimizing the arrangement of power generators, as recognized by Sadao [Sadao Abstract: “To obtain a low emission vehicle a zero emission vehicle or an energy- saving electric vehicle”]. It should be noted that wind generators formed in a space between a panel and the roof of the car are known in the art e.g., Nakajima (JP 3169807 U), Luo (CN 102248898 A), Unnithan et al. (WO 2022214892 A1), Sun (CN 202518114 U). It should be further noted that power generators formed on a lower surface of a vehicle are also known in the art e.g., Tanaka (JP 2012044852 A), Kim et al. (WO 2004090328 A1), Grayson (US 20230253859 A1), Hassan (US 8220569 B2). Further, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 2, Sutherland teaches a three-type self-power generation system but does not teach a fixed panel. Sadao teaches the three-type self-power generation system of claim 1, wherein the first power generator includes: a first rotary shaft of which both ends are rotatably coupled to the outer ceiling surface of the electric vehicle and an inner surface of the fixed panel; a wing which is formed on an outer circumferential surface of the first rotary shaft and rotated by wind introduced into the space between the outer ceiling surface of the electric vehicle and the fixed panel to rotate the first rotary shaft; a first rotator which is coupled to an outer circumferential surface of one end of the first rotary shaft and in which a first through hole through which the first rotary shaft passes is formed in a central portion of the first rotator and a plurality of magnets are disposed on an adjacent surface around the first through hole; and a first stator which is fixed to the outer ceiling surface of the electric vehicle and faces the first rotator, in which a first bearing to which the first rotary shaft passing through the first through hole is coupled is formed in a central portion of the first stator, a first stator coil is disposed on an adjacent surface around the first bearing, and which generates the electricity according to rotation of the first rotator to charge the battery of the electric vehicle [Sadao Figs. 1-3, Reference Characters 1 and 2; Sadao Paragraph 0006: “An appropriate number, appropriate shape, and appropriate type of wind turbine 2 strongly rotates the generator 1 to generate and store the strong wind pressure received by the vehicle body”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the three-type self-power generation system of Sutherland to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a fixed generator wings between a fixed panel and the roof of the vehicle in view of Sadao. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sutherland and Sadao because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a means by which electricity can be generated, as recognized by Sadao. It should be noted that while Sadao does not explicitly describe a rotor, a stator, magnets, and bearings, these items are fundamental and well known components of wind-power generators, and would be inherent and necessary features of the generator. Note further that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent; where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 3, Sutherland teaches a generator [Sutherland Abstract: “a generator for producing electrical power mechanically connected to, and driven by the rotational force of an axle of a vehicle.”] does not explicitly teach that the first magnet includes permanent magnets in which N-pole and S-pole are alternately disposed. It should be noted that permanent magnets in which alternating poles are disposed are fundamental and well known components of generators, and would be inherent and necessary features of the generator. Note further that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent; where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 11, Sutherland teaches the three-type self-power generation system of claim 1, wherein the third power generator includes one or more sunlight collecting plates [Sadao Fig. 3, Reference Character 312].
Regarding Claim 12, Sutherland teaches the three-type self-power generation system of claim 1, wherein: electrical charge lines of the first power generator, the second power generator, and the third power generator are connected to the battery or a solar power generator in parallel; an on or off contact part is formed on the electrical charge line to determine whether to charge the battery or the solar power generator; and the on or off the contact part is configured to be controlled by a control switch on a driver's seat of the vehicle [Sutherland Fig. 1, Reference Characters 101, 103, and 104; Sutherland Paragraph 11: “The power sources 101, 103, 104 are electrically connected to a charging unit 105, which is then in turn electrically connected to a battery controller or switch 106.”].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland (US 7434636 B2) in view of Sadao (JP H11150802 A) and further in view of Kato (JP 3986548 B1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Sutherland and Sadao teaches magnets but does not explicitly teach disc type structure. Kato teaches the three-type self-power generation system of claim 2, wherein each of the first rotator the first stator is a disc type structure [Kato Figs. 10 and 11; Kato Paragraph 0023: “The first rotor has a disk-shaped rotor body to which a field magnet is attached on a surface facing the power generating coil of the second rotor, and the first rotating shaft formed separately from the second rotating shaft is It can be set as the structure couple bonded with this rotor main body so that integral rotation is possible.”; Kato Paragraph 0052: “The field magnet 101 is composed of a flat permanent magnet”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the generation system of the combination of Sutherland and Sadao to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, permanent magnets in view of Kato. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sutherland, Sadao, and Kato because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving the flywheel effect, as recognized by Kato [Kato Paragraph 0023: “By attaching a field magnet to the disc-shaped rotor body, the first rotor can be flattened, which contributes to further improvement of the flywheel effect”].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland (US 7434636 B2) in view of Sadao (JP H11150802 A) and further in view of Yang (KR 1182656 B1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Sutherland and Sadao teaches a second power generator but does not explicitly teach base plates or a spring. Yang teaches the three-type self-power generation system of claim 2, wherein: one or more base plates are formed on the inner surface of the fixed panel; a second bearing coupled to the other end of the first rotary shaft is connected to the base plate; and the base plate and the second bearing are connected to an elastic rubber spring which prevents the first rotator from being separated from the first stator.
[Yang Figs. 3-5, Reference Characters 100-base plates; 241-spring; unnumbered bearings-outboard most item in contact with base plate 100 and shaft 110; Yang “Description” Paragraph 1: “spring (241) performing a stopper (235) role of pushing the stator towards the rotor”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the generation system of the combination of Sutherland and Sadao to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, base plates and a spring in view of Yang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sutherland, Sadao, and Yang because this would have achieved the desirable result of maintaining stator and rotor separation, as recognized by Y [Yang “Description” Paragraph 1: “to maintain the minimum space in the interval between the stator and rotor, and stator is isolated from the rotor by spring force.”; Yang “Advantage” Paragraph 1: “The attaching/detaching of the generator can be effectively performed. The cost is inexpensive.”]. It should be noted that while Yang is silent regarding spring material, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design choice as a reason for using an oval-shaped aperture has not been provided in the claimed invention. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see also MPEP § 2144.04). (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Further, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Claims 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutherland (US 7434636 B2) in view of Sadao (JP H11150802 A) and further in view of Liu (CN 102263486 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Sutherland and Sadao teaches a second power generator but does not explicitly teach suspension, a pair of stators, a rotor, or a tire. Liu teaches the three-type self-power generation system of claim 1, wherein the second power generator includes: a pair of suspensions which are formed on the lower surface of the electric vehicle and connected to face each other through a connecting shaft; a pair of second stators facing each other which are fixed to both ends of the connecting shaft connecting the suspensions and on which second stator coils for generating the electricity to charge the battery of the electric vehicle are disposed; a second rotator which includes a third bearing to be rotatably coupled to the connecting shaft between the pair of first stators and in which a plurality of second magnets are disposed on both adjacent surfaces around the third bearing so that the plurality of second stator coils generate the electricity; and a tire which is fastened to an outer circumference of the second rotator and comes into contact with a ground surface to rotate the second rotator while the vehicle travels [Liu Fig. 1, Reference Characters 5-suspension (typ); 3-stators; 2-rotor; 6-connecting shaft; wheel-1; Liu Paragraph 0004: “connection bridge for connection on the automobile, connection point centre shaft is movable, the tyre is installed on connection bridge of the upper tyre rotor central shaft, two ends are connected on the rear axle fork, shock absorber connected at two sides of the rear axle fork, top end is connected with the vehicle body”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the generation system of the combination of Sutherland and Sadao to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a suspension, stators, a rotor, magnets, and a tire in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sutherland, Sadao, and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a second generator, as claimed, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0004: “convenient for uneven road surface for lifting, stator (generator stator) mounted fixed on the two side and connection bridge of the rotor shaft center…perfect after the automobile starts running, the additional wheel also sends current to consume the kinetic energy of the outer heel upper for reuse in the automobile can realize the purpose of continuous running continuously.”]. It should be further noted that while Liu does not explicitly describe a rotor, a stator, magnets, and bearings, these items are fundamental and well known components of wind-power generators, and would be inherent and necessary features of the generator. Note further that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent; where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 7, Sutherland teaches a generator [Sutherland Abstract: “a generator for producing electrical power mechanically connected to, and driven by the rotational force of an axle of a vehicle.”] does not explicitly teach that the second magnet includes permanent magnets in which N-pole and S-pole are alternately disposed. It should be noted that permanent magnets in which alternating poles are disposed are fundamental and well known components of generators, and would be inherent and necessary features of the generator. Note further that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent; where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Sutherland and Sadao teaches a second power generator but does not explicitly teach stator and rotor shapes. Liu teaches the three-type self-power generation system of claim 6, wherein: the second stator is a cylindrical structure; and the second rotator is a tire rim-shaped structure which covers an outer surface of one end of the second stator [Liu Fig. 1, Reference Characters 3-stator (typ); 2-rotor]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the generation system of the combination of Sutherland and Sadao to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a pair of cylindrical stators and a tire rim-shaped structure in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sutherland, Sadao, and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable result of doubling generator efficiency, as recognized by Liu [Liu Abstract: “it will make the two sides of the rotor of the generator with variable speed rotation double-efficiency power generation”].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Sutherland and Sadao teaches a second power generator but does not explicitly teach a suspension holder or a body connection. Liu teaches the three-type self-power generation system of claim 6, wherein: a board having a suspension holder and a support plate is formed on the lower surface of the electric vehicle; and the suspensions are supported by the support plate [Liu Fig. 1, Reference Character 5 plus the top-most element of Reference Character 4; Liu Paragraph 0004: “connection bridge for connection on the automobile, connection point centre shaft is movable, the tyre is installed on connection bridge of the upper tyre rotor central shaft, two ends are connected on the rear axle fork, shock absorber connected at two sides of the rear axle fork, top end is connected with the vehicle body”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the generation system of the combination of Sutherland and Sadao to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a board having a suspension holder in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Sutherland, Sadao, and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the use of suspension, as recognized by Liu [Liu Paragraph 0004: “convenient for uneven road surface for lifting, stator (generator stator) mounted fixed on the two side and connection bridge of the rotor shaft center…perfect after the automobile starts running, the additional wheel also sends current to consume the kinetic energy of the outer heel upper for reuse in the automobile can realize the purpose of continuous running continuously.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613