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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants argument that “In the cited Alpert reference, on the other hand, the transmitted beam, 20 of Fig. 3, between the transmitter, T of Fig.3, and the receiver, R of Fig. 3, is an intra-cavity beam, with the rear cavity mirror, 12 of Fig. 3, being located in the transmitter, T, and the output coupler retroreflector, 18 of Fig. 3, being located within the receiver, R. In the Alpert system, since the photovoltaic cell, 16 of Fig. 2, of the receiver is located immediately at the outside of the output coupler retroreflector mirror, there is effectively no extra-cavity transmitted beam. In the cited Alpert system, the only transmitted beam between the "transmitter" and the "receiver" is all intra-cavity, where it would be impossible to place a rotatable mirror without seriously degrading or terminating the lasing.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant. Alpert does not disclose that any of the figures 2, 3 or 12 are intra cavity systems or beams.
In fact Fig. 2 teaches a system to power a mobile electronic device as a receiver, and a fixed position for the transmitter, thus NOT an intra-cavity beam as incorrectly assumed by applicant. In para 0089 Alpert teaches T and R form a laser resonator, in which significant power circulates in the form of a laser beam(s), which may advantageously be in the infra-red. Since this arrangement of mirrors constitutes a ring resonator, two counter propagating beams may exist, and, with some arrangements of the mirrors, up to 6 beams. Clearly using mirrors to redirect the laser as stated numerous times by the Examiner. In addition as known and showed by the prior mirrors and mirror like devices are commonly used to redirect the beam, as shown in the cited figures.
With respect to applicants arguments that “to clearly clarify the nature of the laser of the present application, in that the transmitted beam in which the rotatable mirror is situated, is the beam emitted out of the laser cavity” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the interpretation of the Examiner that the amendments do not significantly change the structure of the claimed invention to overcome the combination of the prior art of record.
The Examiner would like to remined applicant that during examination patent examiners must interpret claim language as broadly as is reasonable in light of the patent specification also known as BRI. As currently amended the claims are not significantly distinguished form the combination of prior art.
The prior art are in overlapping fields and the teachings of one could be used interchangeably with minor modifications well within the skill of those in the art.
All other remarks are considered yet not found persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 - 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert et al (US 2010/0320362) in view of Graham et al (US 2010/0012819).
Regarding claim 1, Alpert teaches a system for optical wireless power transmission from a laser to at least one remotely located power receiving apparatus, the system comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit a beam of laser power emitted from the output coupler of the laser, to the at least one remotely located power receiving apparatus (see para 0009-0011), the at least one power receiving apparatus configured to receive the transmitted beam and convert it into electrical power (see Fig. 12) at least one beam characteristic analyzer configured to detect at least one of optical power level and beam shape (see para 0011) of a beam propagating from the laser power transmitter to the power receiving apparatus (see para 0043 and 0059); wherein the at least one beam characteristic analyzer is further configured to detect at least one of (i) partial blocking of the beam (see para 0092), and (ii) impingement of the beam on transparent objects and wherein the al least one beam characteristic analyzer is further configured to detect full blocking of the beam; and a safety system adapted to receive feedback from the at least one beam characteristic analyzer, the safety system adapted to perform at least one of (i) changing the small signal gain medium of the laser; (ii) changing the scan speed of the beam steering apparatus; (iii) changing the scan position of the beam steering apparatus; or (iv) recording a scan position defining the position of the power receiving apparatus, when the safety system indicates the presence of a safety hazard (see Fig. 10 para 0017, 0201 and 0202).
Yet, Alpert does not disclose that a controllable rotatable mirror disposed in the path of the transmitted beam adapted to change the angular directional orientation of the transmitted beam.
However, Graham in the same field teaches a controllable rotatable mirror disposed in the path of the transmitted beam adapted to change the angular directional orientation of the transmitted beam (see 42, 44, para 055 and Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alpert with the teachings of Graham by having a controllable rotatable mirror disposed in the path of the transmitted beam adapted to change the angular directional orientation of the transmitted beam in order to provide a high-speed precision actuator to redirect and stabilize the final output without disturbing the laser’s internal resonant state.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the safety system is further adapted to receive feedback from at least one temperature sensor, the at least one temperature sensor detecting at least one of (i) a temperature of the transmitter, (ii) a temperature of the power receiving apparatus, a temperature of at least one pre-determined component of the laser power transmitter and (iv) a temperature of the surrounding area in which the system is situated (see para 0027; Alpert).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the at least one beam characteristic analyzer is further configured to analyze the beam at more than one position along the beam (see detectors 112 para 0209; Alpert).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches wherein the safety system is further adapted to receive feedback from at least one sensor, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect at least one of (i) smoke in the beam's surrounding, (ii) humidity of the beam's surrounding and (iii) current drawn by the laser (see detector 62, CPU 52, para 0058, 0072-0073, 0076; Graham).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches wherein the safety system is further adapted to receive feedback from at least one intrusion sensor, the at least one intrusion sensor detecting at least one of (i) a foreign object traversing the beam and (ii) a foreign object approaching the beam (see para 0011; Alpert).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the safety system is further adapted to receive feedback from at least one intrusion sensor, the at least one intrusion sensor detecting at least one of (i) partial blocking of the beam, (ii) impingement of the beam on transparent objects and (iii) full blocking of the beam (see Fig. 10 para 0017, 0201 and 0202; Alpert).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches wherein the safety system is further adapted to assess the potential for a safety hazard at least one pre-scheduled time (see Fig. 10 para 0017, 0201 and 0202; Alpert).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert et al and Graham et al in view of Hyde (US 2010/0079008).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches a system for optical wireless power transmission, yet fails to teach wherein the at least one beam characteristic analyzer is further configured to detect at least one of (i) a symmetry of the beam, (ii) a polarization of the beam, (iii) a coherence of the beam, (iv) a divergence of the beam, (v) a frequency of the beam and (vi) an M2 parameter of the beam.
Hyde in the field of beam power source teaches the at least one beam characteristic analyzer is further configured to detect at least one of (i) a symmetry of the beam, (ii) a polarization of the beam, (iii) a coherence of the beam, (iv) a divergence of the beam, (v) a frequency of the beam and (vi) an M2 parameter of the beam (see para 0079).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alpert and Graham with the teachings of Hyde by having the at least one beam characteristic analyzer is further configured to detect at least one of (i) a symmetry of the beam, (ii) a polarization of the beam, (iii) a coherence of the beam, (iv) a divergence of the beam, (v) a frequency of the beam and (vi) an M2 parameter of the beam in order to provide a determination of power exchanged and possible losses that can arise to lack of proper alignment or any other interference between power exchange.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches a system for optical wireless power transmission, yet fails to teach wherein the laser power transmitter is configured to receive the recorded scan position defining the position of the power receiving apparatus.
Hyde in the field of beam power source teaches the laser power transmitter is configured to receive the recorded scan position defining the position of the power receiving apparatus (see para 0084).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alpert and Graham with the teachings of Hyde by having the laser power transmitter is configured to receive the recorded scan position defining the position of the power receiving apparatus in order to properly determine the general location of the power receiver and thus focus or direct the beam to the general location.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alpert et al and Graham et al in view of Angerstein (US 4,674,093).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches a system for optical wireless power transmission, yet fails to teach wherein the laser power transmitter is connected to a laser protector, the laser protector being configured to protect the laser power transmitter from excessive negative voltage.
Angerstein in the field of circuit arrangement for lasers teaches wherein the laser power transmitter is connected to a laser protector, the laser protector being configured to protect the laser power transmitter from excessive negative voltage (see Col 2 line 2-5).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alpert and Graham with the teachings of Angerstein by having the laser power transmitter is connected to a laser protector, the laser protector being configured to protect the laser power transmitter from excessive negative voltage in order to provide a safety mechanism that can prevent current flowing in the opposite direction thus preventing damages to the transmitter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIM ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7114. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-6:30pm.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached on (571) 272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIM ORTIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2836