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 . Claims 1-7 are pending.
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.
Claims 6-7 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.
In claim 6, “a low viscosity hydraulic oil” is indefinite because its insulating and heat conducting properties have not been specified. Claim 7 is rejected for depending on claim 6. In this Office action, it is assumed that “a low viscosity hydraulic oil” meets the criteria listed in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skotte et al. (WO 2021172998 A1) in view of Brzezinski, D. (US 3242250 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
776
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Skotte discloses an energy capturing device (see the title: “ENERGY HARVESTING BUOY”) comprising:
a generator (generator, annotated fig. 1) for converting linear motion or rotational motion into alternating current electrical energy (see the description section: “The present invention is especially related to an energy harvesting buoy utilizing a translator in the form of a magnetic lead screw for transferring linear force from a relative movement between the translator and a float into a generator unit for producing electric energy, wherein the translator is retained by a standing water column.”); and
an electrical conditioning system (control unit, annotated fig. 1) comprising: an input terminal; an active rectifier (“The energy harvesting buoy 10 is preferably provided with a control unit 500 arranged to convert the harvested alternating phase current to DC current for storage in the energy storage 400 and/or for transfer to shore or a user via a cable.”); and
an output terminal (output terminal, annotated fig. 1);
wherein the energy capturing device is configured such that alternating current electrical energy from the energy capturing device is passed to the input terminal of the electrical conditioning system (see the previous quotation), said alternating current electrical energy being converted on passing through the active rectifier to direct current electrical energy at the output terminal of the electrical conditioning system (implied, that’s the definition for converting AC to DC which is done by the control unit); and
wherein the active rectifier and the generator are sealed in a waterproof housing (housing 10, fig. 1; sealing is implied to prevent water from getting side and damaging the generator and the control unit).
Skotte does not disclose: said waterproof housing being filled with a heat dissipating liquid having a thermal conductivity between 0.17 and 1.0 W/mK, a dynamic viscosity between 0 and 40 cP and a dielectric constant between 0 and 4 to dissipate heat from the active rectifier and the generator.
Brzezinski teaches placing electromagnetic assemblies in a housing filled with oil to remove heat from the electromagnet assemblies (col. 1, lines 12-17, “Electromagnets when energized generate heat and it has been proposed to position the electromagnets in an oil filled housing so that the oil acts as a heat transfer agent to conduct heat from the core and coil assembly of the electromagnet to the housing where it can be readily dissipated to the ambient atmosphere.”; see also fig. 3, below, wherein electromagnet 18 is placed inside the housing 20 and the housing is filled with oil 30).
PNG
media_image2.png
437
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Neither Skotte nor Brzezinski disclose: the heat dissipating liquid having a thermal conductivity between 0.17 and 1.0 W/mK, a dynamic viscosity between 0 and 40 cP and a dielectric constant between 0 and 4. This is because a person having ordinary skills in the art is aware of global standards such as ASTM D3487 and IEC 60296 that specify such parameters for electrical insulating liquids. In other words, determining operating ranges for such result effective variables are within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art.
To properly cool the generator and the active rectifier using an electrically insulating liquid, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: said waterproof housing being filled with a heat dissipating liquid having a thermal conductivity between 0.17 and 1.0 W/mK, a dynamic viscosity between 0 and 40 cP and a dielectric constant between 0 and 4 to dissipate heat from the active rectifier and the generator.
Regarding claim 2, Skotte as modified by Brzezinski in claim 1 discloses the energy capturing device according to claim 1 wherein Skotte further discloses the active rectifier is affixed to the generator (see the control unit 500 in fig. 1 that includes a rectifier).
Regarding claim 3, Skotte as modified by Brzezinski in claim 1 discloses the energy capturing device according to claim 1 wherein Skotte further discloses the active rectifier and the generator sealed in the waterproof housing are submerged in a waterway (implied for an “energy harvesting buoy”).
Regarding claim 6, Skotte as modified by Brzezinski in claim 1 discloses the energy capturing device according to claim 1 but does not disclose: wherein the heat dissipating liquid is a low viscosity hydraulic oil.
“A low viscosity hydraulic oil” is indefinite as already discussed in the previous section because its dielectric constant and thermal conductivity have not been specified and it’s not clear what is meant by “low.” In general, hydraulic oils are electrically insulative. As discussed regarding claim 1, selecting a heat dissipative oil is within the skills of a person having ordinary skills in the art.
For cooling the generator and the active rectifier, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that if the low viscosity hydraulic oil meets the criteria stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Skotte as modified by Brzezinski in claim 1 discloses the energy capturing device according to claim 6 wherein the low viscosity hydraulic oil has a dynamic viscosity between 4 and 40 cP (this range for dynamic viscosity was already discussed in claim 1).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skotte et al. (WO 2021172998 A1) in view of Brzezinski, D. (US 3242250 A) and further in view of McShane et al. (US 6037537 A).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Skotte as modified by Brzezinski in claim 1 discloses the energy capturing device according to claim 1 wherein the heat dissipating liquid is an oil having a thermal conductivity between 0.17 and 1.0 W/mK, a dynamic viscosity between 0 and 40 cP and a dielectric constant between 0 and 4 (the ranges for dynamic viscosity and dielectric constant were discussed in claim 1).
Skotte and Brzezinski do not disclose: the heat dissipating liquid is an oil derived from one or more plants, wherein the oil derived from one or more plants is canola oil, soybean oil or sesame oil.
McShane teaches vegetable oil based dielectric coolant for “use in electrical distribution and power equipment, including transformers.”, (col. 1, lines 7-10). As for the motivation, McShane states: “For over a century, mineral oils derived from crude petroleum have been used extensively as insulating and cooling liquids in electrical equipment. However, as safety standards became more demanding for many indoor and vault equipment installations, such oils were replaced to a great extent by non-flammable liquids, such as askarel (polychlorinated biphenyl-PCB) fluids. Beginning in the 1930's, PCB's, which are generally considered to be nonflammable, were widely utilized as replacements for mineral oils as insulating liquids in electrical equipment. Nonflammability is a required property for insulating oils that are used in equipment placed within or around building structures, as it is necessary to minimize the hazard of fire and explosion damage in the event of electrical faults within the equipment.”, (see col. 1, lines 30-45). McShane further states: “Suitable vegetable oils include: soya, sunflower, rapeseed (canola), cottonseed, olive, safflower, jojoba, lesquerella, and veronia. All have fire points above 300.degree. C.”, (see col. 4, lines 43-48).
To meet safety standards, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that: the heat dissipating liquid is an oil derived from one or more plants, wherein the oil derived from one or more plants is canola oil, soybean oil or sesame oil.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights