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
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tenghamn (U.S. 2012/0250456).
Regarding claim 1, Tenghamn teaches passive sensor device comprising: a sensing control module (see figure 5: sensor node) configured to operatively perform a detection process on a device to be detected and generate a detection result; an energy harvesting module 502 mounted on a main body of the device 26 to be detected and configured to convert the harvested vibration energy from the device to be detected into alternating current energy (see para. 0027, ‘FIG. 5 shows an illustrative sensor node having an energy harvesting module. The module includes an energy harvesting device 502 that converts vibratory motion into electrical energy’); and a power management module configured to receive the alternating current energy from the energy harvesting module, convert the alternating current energy to direct current energy (see para. 0027, ‘Circuitry coupled to the harvesting device includes a recharging circuit 504 to convert alternating current from the harvesting device 502 into direct current’), and supply power to the passive sensor device based on the direct current energy (see para. 0027, ‘As power is required by the sensor node, the regulator draws on the harvesting device 502 and the storage device 506 as necessary to supply it‘).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenghamn in view of Neal et al. (U.S. 8,816,633, hereafter referred to as Neal).
Regarding claim 2, Tenghamn wherein the power management module comprises: a rectifier module 504 configured to convert the alternating current energy into first direct current energy; a regulator module 508; and a charging management module 510 configured to supply power to the passive sensor device by using direct current energy in the energy storage element (see figure 5; see para. 0027).
However, Tenghamn does not explicitly teach wherein the regulator module is configured to receive the first direct current energy from the rectifier module, perform a voltage regulation on the first direct current energy to generate second direct current energy; an energy tracking module configured to receive the second direct current energy from the regulator module and charge an energy storage element based on the second direct current energy.
Neal teaches a similar passive sensor system wherein a regulator module 232 is configured to receive a first direct current energy 224 from a rectifier module 222, perform a voltage regulation on the first direct current energy to generate second direct current energy 236; an energy tracking module configured to receive the second direct current energy from the regulator module and charge an energy storage element 244 based on the second direct current energy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Tenghamn with the teaching of Neal in order to ensure a constant/desired voltage level.
Regarding claim 3, Tenghamn further teaches wherein the charging management module is further configured to: detect current quantity of electric charge of the energy storage element; compare the current quantity of electric charge of the energy storage element with a preset quantity of electric charge threshold, and transmit a power-reaching signal to the sensing control module in the case that the current quantity of electric charge is greater than the preset quantity of electric charge threshold (see para. 0027, 0028, ‘An energy monitor 510 collects status measurements from the energy storage device 506 and the regulator 508...These status measurements are supplied to a power management circuit 514 in the sensor node which uses these measurements to determine the operating parameters of the sensor node electronics and thereby manage their power requirements. A power switching circuit 512 operates under control of the power management circuit 514 to deliver power to those portions of the sensor node electronics 511 that the power management circuit 514 selects based on the amount of stored energy and the rate at which additional energy is being harvested’).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenghamn in view of Neal, and further in view of Franchitti et al. (U.S. 2021/0143659, hereafter referred to as Franchitti).
Regarding claim 4, Tenghamn nor Neal explicitly teach wherein the sensing control module is pre-configured to be in a low-charge operating mode, and the sensing control module is further configured to: receive the power-reaching signal from the charge management module; and switch from the low-charge operating mode to a normal operating mode in response to the power-reaching signal, wherein power consumption in the normal operating mode is higher than that in the low-charge operating mode.
Franchitti does teach a device comprising a sensor 20, and an energy harvester 30, wherein a sensing control module 90 has at least a low power mode (or low-charge operating mode; see para. 0036) and a normal operating mode (see para. 0034) wherein a battery capacity calculation yields 90%; wherein the selection of each mode is based on the calculated available energy capacity of the internal rechargeable battery and/or specific events detailed (see para. 0031). Franchitti further teaches wherein power consumption in the normal operating mode is higher than that in the low-charge operating mode (see para. 0036, low-power mode has a reduced schedule of operation to conserve energy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Tenghamn with the teachings of Neal and Franchitti in order to prevent a permanent failure.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenghamn in view of Neal, and Franchitti, and further in view of Hou et al. (WO 2022/041325, hereafter referred to as Hou).
None of the above-mentioned references explicitly teach wherein the sensing control module comprises: a sensor module configured to operatively detect a performance state of the device to be detected, and generate a detection signal; and a controller module configured to operatively receive the detection signal and determine a detection result of the device to be detected based on the detection signal.
Hou teaches a similar device which includes a rectifier module, a vibration energy harvester, and a sensor module (see page 2); wherein the sensor module configured to operatively detect a performance state of the device to be detected, and generate a detection signal; and a controller module configured to operatively receive the detection signal and determine a detection result of the device to be detected based on the detection signal (see page 1, ‘the importance of real-time monitoring of train structural health and operating status has become increasingly prominent’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Tenghamn with the teachings of Neal, Franchitti, and Hou in since it is known in the art as a normal function of this specific sensor system.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenghamn in view of Park et al. (U.S. 2020/0374604, hereafter referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches a gateway device configured to receive the detection result from the passive sensor device and transmit the detection result to an external device; and the external device comprising at least one of a cloud platform and a user device, and configured to receive the detection result from the gateway device, and display or store the detection result; wherein the gateway device is further configured to receive instruction information from the external device and transmit the instruction information to the passive sensor device (see figure 13; see para. 0165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Tenghamn with the teaching of Park in order to reduce power consumption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 11 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights