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 .
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/879,449. Claims 1-4 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP2023/030914, filed on 8/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification (see paragraph [0010]) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive as the meaning of the term “Super EV” cannot be determined (see detailed explanation below). A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “Claime” should be changed to - -Claim- -. 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.
Claims 1-4 are 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.
The term “super” in Claim 1, line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “super” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes a “super” EV.
Claim 1, line 1 states, “EV” which is unclear. Specifically, the term “EV” is unclear as the acronym has not been previously defined. The term “EV” is ordinarily understood to stand for “electric vehicle”. However, the list of structures provided in paragraph [0001] to clarify the term “EV” contradicts the ordinary meaning of the term (note, paragraph [0001] does not provide a strict definition for the term “EV”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite as there is an inconsistency between the ordinary meaning of the term “EV” and Applicant’s description of the term.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the combined use" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this limitation should be changed to - -a combined use- -.
Claim 1, line 2 states, “a formed body” which is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what structure(s) may be associated with the “formed body”, e.g., a formed body of an electric vehicle.
As best understood, Claim 1 appears to recite a “use” claim rendering the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the claim falls within one of the statutory classes under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
The term “super” in Claim 2, line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “super” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes a “super” EV.
Claim 2, line 1 states, “EV” which is unclear. Specifically, the term “EV” is unclear as the acronym has not been previously defined. The term “EV” is ordinarily understood to stand for “electric vehicle”. However, the list of structures provided in paragraph [0001] to clarify the term “EV” contradicts the ordinary meaning of the term (note, paragraph [0001] does not provide a strict definition for the term “EV”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite as there is an inconsistency between the ordinary meaning of the term “EV” and Applicant’s description of the term.
Claim 2, line 1 states, “the fact that it eliminates the disadvantages of capacitors” which is unclear rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, in addition to a lack of antecedent basis for the terms “the fact” and “the disadvantages”, it is unclear what constitutes “the disadvantages of capacitors” and what structural differences of Applicant’s “EV” “eliminates” the disadvantages.
Claim 2, line 2 states, “makes the most of their advantages” which is unclear rendering the claim indefinite. Specifically, in addition to a lack of antecedent basis for the terms “the most” and “their advantages”, it is unclear what constitutes “their advantages” and what structural differences of Applicant’s “EV” “makes the most” of the advantages.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the EV’s structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to and what constitutes “EV structure”.
As best understood, Claim 2 appears to recite a “use” claim rendering the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the claim falls within one of the statutory classes under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
The term “super” in Claim 3, line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “super” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes a “super” EV.
Claim 3, line 1 states, “EV” which is unclear. Specifically, the term “EV” is unclear as the acronym has not been previously defined. The term “EV” is ordinarily understood to stand for “electric vehicle”. However, the list of structures provided in paragraph [0001] to clarify the term “EV” contradicts the ordinary meaning of the term (note, paragraph [0001] does not provide a strict definition for the term “EV”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite as there is an inconsistency between the ordinary meaning of the term “EV” and Applicant’s description of the term.
As best understood, Claim 3 appears to recite a “use” claim rendering the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the claim falls within one of the statutory classes under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
The term “super” in Claim 4, line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “super” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes a “super” EV.
Claim 4, line 1 states, “EV” which is unclear. Specifically, the term “EV” is unclear as the acronym has not been previously defined. The term “EV” is ordinarily understood to stand for “electric vehicle”. However, the list of structures provided in paragraph [0001] to clarify the term “EV” contradicts the ordinary meaning of the term (note, paragraph [0001] does not provide a strict definition for the term “EV”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite as there is an inconsistency between the ordinary meaning of the term “EV” and Applicant’s description of the term.
The term “efficiently” in Claim 4, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “efficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes absorbing solar energy “efficiently”.
As best understood, Claim 4 appears to recite a “use” claim rendering the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether the claim falls within one of the statutory classes under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, as best understood, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims each appear to recite a “use” claim making it unclear whether the claims fall within one of the statutory classes under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see MPEP 2173.05(q)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CIOCANEL et al. (US 2017/0200570 A).
Regarding Claim 1 as best understood, CIOCANEL et al. discloses a super EV (Figs. 16A and 16B) characterized by the combined use of a capacitor for both energy storage and creating a formed body (paragraph [0033], “structural supercapacitors”, “the supercapacitor structure…integrated into a wing suitable for an aircraft”; paragraph [0034], “supercapacitors can form the door panels or other body panels of a vehicle”).
Regarding Claim 2 as best understood, CIOCANEL et al. discloses a super EV (Figs. 16A and 16B) characterized by the fact that it eliminates the disadvantages of capacitors and makes the most of their advantages by using capacitors to create the EV's structure (paragraph [0033], “structural supercapacitors”, “the supercapacitor structure…integrated into a wing suitable for an aircraft”; paragraph [0034], “supercapacitors can form the door panels or other body panels of a vehicle”).
Regarding Claim 3 as best understood, CIOCANEL et al. discloses the super EV of claim 1 (described in detail above) used with a freezer, an automobile frame, a truck bed, a van, a car body, a snow vehicle, a general passenger vehicle, an icebreaker, a general ship, a general residence, a solar panel rack, a household generator, offshore power generation, or an aircraft. (Figs. 16A and 16B; paragraph [0033], “structural supercapacitors”, “the supercapacitor structure…integrated into a wing suitable for an aircraft”; paragraph [0034], “supercapacitors can form the door panels or other body panels of a vehicle”)
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CIOCANEL et al. (US 2017/0200570 A1) in view of JP 2021-75192 A. Note, although already cited on the IDS filed 12/27/2024 all reference herein to JP 2021-75192 A is made to the English language translation provided with this action.
Regarding Claim 4 as best understood, CIOCANEL et al. disclose the super EV of claim 1, described in detail above, but does not disclose the super EV used in a device that deploys solar panels in a vertical direction and extends horizontally to absorb solar energy efficiently.
JP 2021-75192 A discloses an electric vehicle (see Figs. 1-2) including solar panels (13) deployed in a vertical direction and extends horizontally to absorb solar energy efficiently (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the super EV of CIOCANEL et al. the super EV used in a device that deploys solar panels in a vertical direction and extends horizontally to absorb solar energy efficiently, as disclosed by JP 2021-75192 A, for the predictable result of allowing solar charging of the capacitors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WOOD, SR. et al. discloses a super capacitor based power module for a lift gate (see ABSTRACT).
MAYDANIK (US 2021/0214055 A1) discloses a capacitor based marine system (see paragraph [0069]).
SEARCY (US 2021/0197687 A1) discloses a car windshield capacitor system (see ABSTRACT).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights