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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I drawn to claims 18-30 and 34-35 and Species A, an embodiment with no counterweights in the reply filed on 11/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-25, 28 and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species (B), there being no allowable generic or linking claim; and claims 31-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention (II). Claim 18-23, 26-27, 29, and 34-35 are examined here within.
Claim Objections
Examiner notes the first instance of kHz, V and mV should be spelled out so that it is clear to what exactly the abbreviations are referring thereafter. See at least claims 22 and 27.
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.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 35 reads “The mechanical part according to claim 33”, but Examiner notes the mechanical part is introduced in claim 34. It appears the dependency on claim 33 is a typographical error and the claim should read “according to claim 34”. Correction or clarification is required. NOTE WITHDRAWN CLAIM 32 HAS A SIMILAR ISSUE. It is unclear …
This is indefinite because it is unclear from which claim, claim 35 depends. Correction/clarification is required.
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.
Claims 18, 23 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bolzmacher (US 2020/0255154 cited in the restriction requirement).
Regarding claim 18, Bolzmacher discloses a defrosting system configured to be mounted on a surface of a mechanical part to be defrosted (108), the system comprising:
- a piezoelectric actuator (110),
- a fastening device configured to fasten the actuator onto the surface (stationary portion 112 and movable portion 114 with movement amplifier 124),
- at least one control unit configured to activate the actuator through phases of extension and contraction so that it excites the mechanical part to defrost it (122), and
the actuator comprises a stack structure of prestressed piezoelectric elements acting along a longitudinal axis of said actuator (§§ [0048] In the example described, the piezoelectric structure 116 comprises a plurality of piezoelectric elements stacked in the direction of the length of the actuator 110. [0049] The actuator 110 further comprises a device 118 for compressing the piezoelectric structure 116, i.e., prestressed), and
- the fastening device is configured to rigidly fasten the actuator so that the longitudinal axis is parallel to the surface (Fig. 1),
wherein the fastening device comprises a first fastening element positioned at a first end of the actuator (@112) and a second fastening element positioned at a second end of said actuator (@114 with 124), these fastening elements being, in use, secured to the surface of the mechanical part to be defrosted (e.g., @130, Fig. 1),
wherein the fastening elements are configured so that the activation of said actuator leads to the excitation of the mechanical part according to extensional and flexural modes (Fig. 1-2; §[0070], via the control device 122),
wherein the extension and contraction of the actuator along the longitudinal axis induce extension forces parallel to said longitudinal axis (Fig. 1-2, §[0070], vibration),
wherein the extension forces also generate bending moments at the fastening area of the first fastening element and at the fastening area of the second fastening element (Examiner notes twisting of the panel occurs, i.e., bending moments on the panels at least the fastening areas, §[0070], and
wherein the fastening elements act as levers, causing a bending excitation of the mechanical part to be defrosted (§[0070]).
Regarding claim 23, Bolzmacher discloses the defrosting system according to claim 18, wherein the control unit is configured to activate the actuator at a frequency less than or equal to its resonance frequency (Examiner notes the control unit is configured to activate the actuator at a preselected modal frequency of eigenmodes of the part to be defrosted, i.e., at a frequency equal to its resonance frequency; or less than the preselected frequency, as is evidenced by §[0030]).
Regarding claim 34, Bolzmacher discloses a mechanical part (§[0043], The panel 104 for example forms part of an aircraft wing or of a nacelle of an aircraft (that is to say a cage enclosing an engine of the aircraft, generally situated under a wing), or of an evaporator in a motor vehicle engine) comprising at least one defrosting system as defined in claim 18 (see the rejection of claim 18), wherein the defrosting system is positioned on an inner or outer surface of the mechanical part (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 35, modified Bolzmacher discloses the mechanical part according to claim 33 [claim 34? – note claim 33 is withdrawn and drawn to a method], wherein said mechanical part is a wind turbine or aircraft blade, or a vane of an aircraft turbomachine (§[0043]).
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.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzmacher as applied to claim 18, and further, in view of Cheng (CN 116424559).
Regarding claim 19, Bolzmacher discloses the defrosting system according to claim 18, wherein the first fastening element and the second fastening element are each in the form of a securement or mechanical connection (Fig. 1, §[0045], §[0054]), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the securement or mechanical connection are specifically an angle bracket or L-shaped piece.
However, Cheng teaches a defrosting system configured to be mounted on the surface of a mechanical part to be defrosted (Fig. 4) comprising fastening elements in the form of an angle bracket or L-shaped piece (e.g., at least 4, 114 with 115; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the securement or mechanical connection of first fastening element and the securement or mechanical connection of the second fastening element disclosed by Bolzmacher with the angle brackets or L-shaped brackets as taught by Cheng, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the first fastening element and the second fastening element are in the form of the angle bracket or the L-shaped piece. The benefit being the practical benefits provided by the well-known geometry including but not limited to load distribution, shear and bending resistance, and versatility such as decoupling loads in the instance of vibration.
Additionally, Examiner notes It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed as substitution of functional equivalent to substitute the securement or mechanical connection of Bolzmacher with an angle brackets or L-shaped brackets, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). The benefits being the predictable outcome of gaining the known advantages of L-shaped fasteners.
Regarding claim 20, modified Bolzmacher discloses the defrosting system according to claim 19, wherein the fastening of the actuator via the fastening elements is such that the distance between said actuator and the surface is between 0 and 10mm (110 to 106; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Bolzmacher discloses the defrosting system according to claim 20, wherein that the distance is adjustable (Examiner notes the distance in the general structure shown Fig. 1 vs. the distance during operation in Fig. 2, concluding the distance is clearly adjustable).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzmacher as applied to claim 18.
Regarding claim 22, Bolzmacher discloses the defrosting system according to claim 18, wherein the control unit is configured to activate the actuator according to a frequency between 1KHz and 200KHz (Examiner notes the control unit is configured to activate the actuator preferably above 1 kHZ and below 20 kHZ which is a frequency between 1kHz and 200kHz; see at least §[0068]), and
according to a voltage (Examiner notes the control unit is configured to an electrical signal and therefore a voltage §[0022]), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the voltage is between 100V and 400V.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the controller so that it is configured to activate the actuator according to the voltage that is specifically between 100V and 400V, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The benefit being optimizing the control unit for the particular intended use of the defrosting system, e.g., material of and configuration of and/or within the specific mechanical part to be defrosted, etc.
Claims 26-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolzmacher, as applied to claim 18, and further, in view of Rico et al. (ES 2931375), hereinafter Rico.
Regarding claim 26, Bolzmacher discloses the defrosting system according to claim 18, wherein the actuator is connected to the control unit, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the actuator is connected to:
- a first circuit configured to activate said actuator in defrosting mode, and
- a second circuit configured to make said actuator operate according to a frost- detection mode.
However, Rico teaches a defrosting system configured to be mounted on a surface of a mechanical part to be defrosted in the same field of endeavor including an actuator that is specifically connected to a control unit comprising a first circuit configured to activate the actuator in a defrosting mode (Examiner notes the circuit that is configured to apply the high voltage signal to the excitation module, see pg. 10, para. 3 - 5 of the attached translation: the device (1) comprises an excitation module that includes a function generator (6) connected
to a signal amplifier (4) and that can be monitored by means of an oscilloscope (5). The excitation module, which is shown in detail in Figure 1B, is connected to one of the electrodes (3) and to ground and to the other electrode in the case of continuous electrodes. In the case of interdigitated electrodes, the connection would be made to one of the two "combs" of tracks that make it up and to the other "comb" and to ground… In addition, as shown in figure 1B, the device (1) comprises an automated switching unit (8), which alternates the connection by electrically joining the electrodes (3), ground and the vector network analyzer (7) or the amplifier signal (4), electrodes and ground (3). This alternation makes it possible to alternatively measure the resonance conditions with the vector network analyzer (7) or apply the high voltage AC signal with the excitation module), and a second circuit configured to make said actuator operate according to a frost-detection mode (Examiner notes the circuit that is configured to measure the resonance conditions, see reproduction of page 10, para. 4 - 5 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the actuator disclosed by Bolzmacher with the control unit comprising the first circuit configured to activate an actuator in the defrosting mode, and the second circuit configured to make an actuator operate according to the frost-detection mode, as taught by Rico, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the actuator is connected to the first circuit configured to activate the actuator in the defrosting mode, and the second circuit configured to make the actuator operate according to the frost-detection mode. The benefit being an actuator that is dual mode integrating detection functions with elimination functions (page 7 of attached translation, line 4).
Regarding claim 27, modified Bolzmacher discloses the defrosting system according to claim 26, wherein the second circuit comprises a voltage generator used to activate the actuator according to a voltage between 1 mV and 10 V (function generator 6, Rico above) and a means for analyzing impedance of said actuator (vector network analyzer 7, Rico above).
Regarding claim 29, Bolzmacher discloses the defrosting system according to claim 26, wherein the control unit is coupled to a switch (8, see Rico reproduced above) having at least two positions:
a first position in which the actuator is connected to the first circuit configured to make said actuator operate according to a defrosting mode (Examiner notes the circuit that is configured to apply the high voltage signal to the excitation module, see pg. 10, para. 3 - 5 of the attached translation), and
a second position in which said actuator is connected to the second circuit configured to make said actuator operate according to the frost-detection mode (Examiner notes the circuit that is configured to measure the resonance conditions, see reproduction of page 10, para. 4 - 5 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Strobl (US 2015/0129720 A1) teaches a device, that when attached along the edge of a material, will propagate mechanical vibration or shock motion created by the device into the material with sufficient magnitude in order to remove solid debris, such as ice, and/or liquid debris, such as water, from the surface of the material is disclosed. With the addition of a pulser/receiver and/or a frequency spectrum electronic unit, the device could also function as a debris detector. Additional vibrator sub-units could also be attached to the material surface or embedded in the material to either augment the converter and coupler units’ vibration energy source or to provide an alternate vibration energy source if the converter and coupler units were inactive or unattached. Example of applications for the device include ice detection/removal from aircraft wings, wind turbine blades, adhesive removal on/or between two materials, cookware cleaning, and the removal of paint from a material surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642