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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9, 13 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Makihara et al. (US 20210125758).
9. Makihara et al. teach:
An electric device/test machine 40 comprising:
an electromagnetic induction coil 11;
an elastic body 20 containing a magnetized magnetic powder (abstract) and configured to generate a magnetic field passing through the electromagnetic induction coil (fig 1) and to change a magnetic flux density of the magnetic field when elastically deformed by receiving an external force (figs 2A and 2B show the changing density before and after the elastic body is compressed);
a rectifier unit/power generation system 50 (the rectifier unit is inherent since there is an oscillatory motion to induce the current that is to be stored in the battery 51, figs 9A and 9B and MPEP 2112) configured to rectify an induced current induced in the electromagnetic induction coil by a change in the magnetic flux density (from the compression of the suspension 61, fig 9B);
a load unit/detection device 80 configured to operate by receiving the induced current from the rectifier unit/power generation system 50; and
a case/vehicle body 60B and flange 65T (the vehicle body and flange make a 2-part housing that is similar in function and structure to applicants case, applicant’s fig 3) accommodating the electromagnetic induction coil and the elastic body and being extensible and contractible together with the elastic body (fig 9B).
13. Makihara et al. teach:
The electric device according to claim 9, wherein the load unit includes a wireless circuit (The alarm device 85 has a wireless setup and it is included with the detection device just as applicant’s disclosed load unit, fig 11) configured to output a wireless signal (the detection device sends a wireless signal to the alarm device, para 0076 last three sentences) in response to the receiving of the induced current from the rectifier unit.
14. Makihara et al. teach:
The electric device according to claim 9, wherein the elastic body is a foamed elastomer (abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara et al. in view of Yamaoka et al. (GB 2253677).
10. Makihara et al. has been discussed above, re claim 9; but does not teach that the case is a non-magnetic body.
Yamaoka et al. teach that the case/reservoir tube 112 and outer tube 123 together is a non-magnetic body (page 20 last two sentences). This would prevent interference with the electromagnetic nature of the coil and elastic body and provide protection from the elements, improving the reliability of the device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Makihara et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the case is a non-magnetic body, as taught by Yamaoka et al. so as to improve the reliability of the device.
11. Makihara et al. in view of Yamaoka et al. teach:
The electric device according to claim 9, wherein the case (Of Yamaoka et al.) includes a pair of cylindrical bodies 112 and 123 partially fitted to each other (Yamaoka et al. fig 8).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makihara et al. in view of Wilson (US 20040100100).
12. Makihara et al. has been discussed above, re claim 9; but does not teach that the rectifier unit includes a secondary battery that is charged by the induced current to enable power supply to the load unit.
Wilson teaches that the rectifier unit 76a includes a secondary battery 84 that is charged by the induced current (from coil 32) to enable power supply to the load unit (of Makihara et al.) which ensures that Makihara et al. load unit will be powered which improves its reliability.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Makihara et al. such that the rectifier unit includes a secondary battery that is charged by the induced current to enable power supply to the load unit, as taught by Wilson so as to improve the devices reliability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
