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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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(s) 14, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wensi Wang et al. (“A Rotating Machine Acoustic Emission Monitoring System Powered by Multi-source Energy Harvester”).
Regarding claim 14, Wang et al. disclose:
An electronic sensor (AE, abstract, pages 1-5) for an electric motor (pre-amble, patentable weight not given), the sensor comprising:
an electrical energy accumulator configured to generate a charging voltage (page 2, 2nd para, amplifier, filter/ ADC/VEH);
a thermoelectric generator configured to generate a recovered voltage (page 2, TEG, para 2);
an energy recovery circuit interposed between the thermoelectric generator and the electrical energy accumulator (page 2, last para super capacitors);
a short, medium or long distance signal transceiver (page 2, AEM system, USB interface);
wherein: the energy recovery circuit (page 2, last para super capacitors) is configured to receive the recovered voltage and to generate therefrom a charging current;
the electrical energy accumulator (page 2, 2nd para, amplifier, filter/ ADC/VEH) is configured to be recharged at least in part by means of the charging current;
the transceiver is supplied by means of the charging voltage (page 2, AEM system, USB interface).
Wang et al. disclose the invention as discussed above, except for literally mentioning the exact locations of the components.
However, a skilled artisan would readily recognize the benefits of arranging the components in a certain way, based on cost, desired cooling and proximity to adjacent parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Wang et al. to arrange the components as claimed.
The motivation to do so would be based on cost, desired cooling and proximity to adjacent parts.
Regarding claim 20/14, Wang et al. disclose wherein the electrical energy accumulator is a supercapacitor (page 2, 2nd column).
Regarding claim 22/14, Wang et al. disclose further comprising a transducer adapted to generate a detection signal of operating parameters associated with the electric motor, including a temperature thereof or vibrations, wherein the transducer is supplied, alternatively, by means of the charging voltage or of a battery voltage (pages 4 2nd column to page 5 1st column).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19,21,23-32 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 15/14 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…a battery configured to generate a battery voltage; a selector configured to generate a voltage selected between the charging voltage and the battery voltage, as a function of a selection signal; a control unit supplied by means of said selected voltage, wherein the control unit is configured to generate a recovery enable signal indicative of an activation or deactivation of an operation of the energy recovery circuit; wherein: the control unit is configured to compare the charging voltage with respect to a voltage threshold value and to generate, as a function of said comparison, the recovery enable signal indicative of the activation of the operation of the energy the energy recovery circuit is configured to receive the recovery enable signal indicative of said activation and to generate the selection signal indicative of the selection of the charging voltage; the control unit is supplied by means of the selected voltage equal to the charging voltage.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 16-19,24, 27-29 are also allowable for depending on claim 15.
In claim 21/14 inter alia, the specific limitations of “wherein the thermoelectric generator comprises a hot surface adapted to be in thermal contact with a hot portion of a motor casing and comprises a cold surface adapted to be in contact with a heat sink, wherein the thermoelectric generator is configured to generate a voltage drop at its ends which is a function of a temperature difference between the hot and cold surface.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 23/22 inter alia, the specific limitations of “wherein a control unit is configured to operate: in an active mode, in which the control unit is configured to execute a firmware program for charging the electrical energy accumulator; in a stand-by mode, in which the control unit is configured to switch from the stand-by mode to the active mode in case of receiving the detection signal carrying motor operating parameters or in case of receiving an external activation command.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 25 inter alia, the specific limitations of “a first heat sink fixed to a portion of the casing and a second heat sink fixed to the thermoelectric generator of the sensor, wherein the electronic sensor is fixed to a portion of the casing, wherein the thermoelectric generator has a laminar shape comprising a first surface in thermal contact with said portion of the casing and a second surface in thermal contact with the second heat sink of the sensor.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 26,30-32 are also allowable for depending on claim 25.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights