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
The request for rejoinder is denied as the rejection of claim 18 is maintained; therefore, the technical feature of claim 18 does not constitute a special technical feature in light of Bolzmacher. Claims 24-25, 28, 30-33 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2024 have been fully considered.
Regarding the claim objections, the objections are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection(s), the rejection is withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 rejections, the arguments have been considered in full but are respectfully found unpersuasive. Applicant appears to be relying on the disclosure of the instant application throughout the Remarks. The office notes a claim rejection being inconsistent with the disclosure of the instant application does not necessarily mean the rejection does not fully anticipate the claim language. Specifically, (Re: “First”, pg. 9, beginning first full paragraph), the office asserts Bolzmacher teaches a rigid connection, specifically the stationary portion 112 that is secured to the mechanical part. The mere fact that another portion of the actuator is designed to move via a component or components of the fastening device (e.g., a movement amplifier) does not invalidate the rigid connection at stationary portion 112. Additionally, the particular claim language of the clause of the claim in question (i.e., claim 18) reads “the fastening device is configured to rigidly fasten the actuator so that the longitudinal axis is parallel to the surface”, therefore the fastening device rigidly fastening the actuator to the surface particularly via frame 102 is inconsequential and the related argument is non-persuasive.
(Re: “Second”, pg. 10, beginning at the first full paragraph). Applicant appears to improperly assert that claim 18 now requires “a fastening element positioned at the second end of the actuator and secured to the surface of the mechanical part” – see last lines of page 9, Remark’s. The argument is moot as this was always a requirement of claim 18; the office notes the original rejection of this particular clause of claim 18 is maintained as originally asserted.
(Re: “Third”, pg. 10, beginning third paragraph from the bottom). The office notes a “force transmission mechanism” is not claimed outside of the extension and contraction of the actuator along the longitudinal axis, specifically through actuator phases of extension when placed under voltage and through actuator phases of contraction when it is not placed under voltage and goes back to its original position, so that it excites the mechanical part to defrost it. Bolzmacher anticipates this means of force transmission as is detailed in the 102 Rejections sections above.
Lastly, Applicant claims “teaching away” (pg. 12, in the first lines of page 12 of the Remarks). The office notes the argument is inconsequential and non-persuasive. The rejection of claim 18 does not rely on a motivation to modify. Further, while Bolzmacher does seek to reduce damage, it does not do so by teaching away from secure fastening of the actuator at both ends. The two features are not mutually exclusive, and the office asserts Bolzmacher anticipates both. Therefore, the reduction of damage is just an additional benefit that may be gained if desired. See specifically §§[0061]-[0063] reproduced here for convenience:
[0061] When the control device 122 supplies an electrical signal to the piezoelectric structure 116, the latter elongates with respect to its initial length. This elongation causes the separation of the movable portion of the actuator 110 by a distance 202 with respect to its stationary portion 112. The movable portion 114 of the actuator 110 pushes the loading portion 126 of the movement amplifier 124, which deforms and causes the movement of the movement transmission portion 130 by a distance 204 greater than the distance 202. The panel 106 is thus pushed by the movement transmission portion 130 and deforms while being raised by the distance 204.
[0062] When the electrical signal decreases, or even disappears, the piezoelectric structure 116 retracts to its initial length. The panel 104 and the movement amplifier 124 are, because of their deformation, recalled to their initial state.
[0063] Thus, by varying the electrical signal at a certain frequency, it is possible to make the panel 104 vibrate at this frequency. If the vibration frequency is close to a modal frequency of an eigenmode of the panel 104, it may happen that the latter deforms more than the distance 204 provided for by the functioning of the actuator 110. The panel 104 draws with it the movement transmission portion 130 of the movement amplifier 124, so that the loading portion 126 of the movement amplifier 124 moves by a distance greater than the distance 202 provided by the functioning of the actuator 110. In this case, because the loading portion 126 of the amplifier 124 is not connected to the movable portion 114 of the actuator 110, the loading portion 126 of the amplifier 124 separates from the movable portion 114 of the actuator 110 without pulling it. Thus the actuator 110 is not subjected to a traction that would risk damaging it.
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 (defrosting device 108 configured to be mounted on a surface of a mechanical part to be defrosted i.e., a surface of a panel 104 via a frame 102, §[0045]), 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 when placed under voltage and through phases of contraction when it is not placed under voltage and goes back to its original position, so that it excites the mechanical part to defrost it (control unit 122; see specifically §§[0061]-[0063]), 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; per §[0045], at least the stationary portion of the fastening device is “secured to the frame” evidencing rigid fastening of actuator 110 via 112 of the fastening device),
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 (the second side of the actuator comprises fastening element 124 @114; per §[0059] specifically “the side opposite the loading portion 126 is secured to the frame 102 via fastening element 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 34, 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 1 Kilohertz (KHz) 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 100 volt (V) 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 millivolt (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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 at 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
Prosecution Insights