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 Objections
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding Claims 3-4, and 6-7, Applicant recites, “an FR antenna”. The term “FR” is a typo and should recite “RF” corresponding to radio frequency. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “in hollow-carved design”. This passage is grammatically incorrect but would be correct if the word “a” was inserted after the word “in” and before the phrase, “hollow-carved design”. Appropriate action 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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1-20, Applicant recites “ubiquitous energy fusion and harvesting system”. Its unclear how the term “ubiquitous” further limits this system. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claims 1-20, Applicant recites, “ubiquitous energy fusion and harvesting system”. In regards to the term “fusion”, Applicant’s attention is directed towards MPEP 2173.03, “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970)”. In the instant case, the claim makes reference to the system being capable of “fusion” while the specification discloses that the system is generating power via solar cells, a thermoelectric layer, a radio frequency harvesting layer and an additional layer can be present that utilizes kinetic energy. It appears that Applicant is utilizing the word “fusion” to further limit that these elements are cooperating together. Where the indefiniteness arises is that the use of the word “fusion” implies that there may be some other type of fusion power generation that was not disclosed in the specification thus rendering the scope of these claims as uncertain, additionally prior art teachings may make this otherwise definite claim take on a reasonable degree of uncertainty. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claims 1-20, Applicant recites, “light-heat-radio frequency (RF) fusion energy-harvesting devices”. In regards to the term “fusion”, Applicant’s attention is directed towards MPEP 2173.03, “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970)”. In the instant case, the claim makes reference to the system being capable of “fusion” while the specification discloses that the system is generating power via solar cells, a thermoelectric layer, a radio frequency harvesting layer and an additional layer can be present that utilizes kinetic energy. It appears that Applicant is utilizing the word “fusion” to further limit that these elements are cooperating together. Where the indefiniteness arises is that the use of the word “fusion” implies that there may be some other type of fusion power generation that was not disclosed in the specification thus rendering the scope of these claims as uncertain, additionally prior art teachings may make this otherwise definite claim take on a reasonable degree of uncertainty. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claims 1-20, Applicant recites, “light-heat-kinetic-RF fusion energy-harvesting devices”. In regards to the term “fusion”, Applicant’s attention is directed towards MPEP 2173.03, “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970)”. In the instant case, the claim makes reference to the system being capable of “fusion” while the specification discloses that the system is generating power via solar cells, a thermoelectric layer, a radio frequency harvesting layer and an additional layer can be present that utilizes kinetic energy. It appears that Applicant is utilizing the word “fusion” to further limit that these elements are cooperating together. Where the indefiniteness arises is that the use of the word “fusion” implies that there may be some other type of fusion power generation that was not disclosed in the specification thus rendering the scope of these claims as uncertain, additionally prior art teachings may make this otherwise definite claim take on a reasonable degree of uncertainty. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “and piezoelectric array cooling sheets; the piezoelectric array cooling sheet”. Its unclear if this term is meant to be recited in plural or singular format lending ambiguity to the meaning of the claim. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant recites, “and piezoelectric array cooling sheets; the piezoelectric array cooling sheet”. Its unclear if this term is meant to be recited in plural or singular format lending ambiguity to the meaning of the claim. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “with a bottom thereof”. Its unclear which bottom Applicant is further limiting. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites, “the heat-conducting layer”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites, “a heat-dissipating circuit board” in preceding claim 1, while reciting “the circuit board” in claim 9. Its unclear if the second recitation of “the circuit board” is referencing back to the heat-dissipating circuit board or if a new distinct circuit board is being limited. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “a heat-dissipating circuit board” in preceding claim 1, while reciting “the circuit board” in claim 9. Its unclear if the second recitation of “the circuit board” is referencing back to the heat-dissipating circuit board or if a new distinct circuit board is being limited. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “a heat-dissipating circuit board” in preceding claim 1, while reciting “the circuit board” in claim 11. Its unclear if the second recitation of “the circuit board” is referencing back to the heat-dissipating circuit board or if a new distinct circuit board is being limited. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant recites, “energy storage elements” in preceding claim 1, while reciting “energy storage element” in claim 12. Its unclear if the second recitation of “energy storage element” is referencing back to the energy storage elements (plural) or if this passage is only limiting one of the energy storage elements. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant recites, “for storing electric energy harvested by a system”. Its unclear if this newly introduced system is intended to recite “the ubiquitous energy fusion and harvesting system” or if electric energy is being provided to a new distinct system. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 17, Applicant recites, “the antenna”. Its unclear if this is referencing the RF antenna already recited or if a different antenna is being referenced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 17, Applicant recites, “and the RF antenna is typically designed as a patch antenna in a shape of a combination of Koch curves and geometrical curves as well as a micro-strip antenna, depending on the frequency of RF signals in the environment”. Its unclear if these limitations are required or if only one of them is required. Its also unclear if any of them are required due to the word “typically”. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “the antenna”. Its unclear if this is referencing the RF antenna already recited or if a different antenna is being referenced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “and the RF antenna is typically designed as a patch antenna in a shape of a combination of Koch curves and geometrical curves as well as a micro-strip antenna, depending on the frequency of RF signals in the environment”. Its unclear if these limitations are required or if only one of them is required. Its also unclear if any of them are required due to the word “typically”. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant recites, “the antenna”. Its unclear if this is referencing the RF antenna already recited or if a different antenna is being referenced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant recites, “and the RF antenna is typically designed as a patch antenna in a shape of a combination of Koch curves and geometrical curves as well as a micro-strip antenna, depending on the frequency of RF signals in the environment”. Its unclear if these limitations are required or if only one of them is required. Its also unclear if any of them are required due to the word “typically”. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 20, Applicant recites, “the antenna”. Its unclear if this is referencing the RF antenna already recited or if a different antenna is being referenced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 20, Applicant recites, “and the RF antenna is typically designed as a patch antenna in a shape of a combination of Koch curves and geometrical curves as well as a micro-strip antenna, depending on the frequency of RF signals in the environment”. Its unclear if these limitations are required or if only one of them is required. Its also unclear if any of them are required due to the word “typically”. Appropriate action is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lal et al. (US 2023/0137071 A1); and
Damaraju et al. (US 2021/0099127 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726