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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, and 13-17 as amended in applicant’s response filed 30 July 2025 are presently under consideration. Claims 4-6, 8-10 and 12 remain cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the prior office action but new issues of indefiniteness raised by applicant’s amendments to the claims are detailed below.
Applicant’s arguments and remarks where applicable are addressed below.
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 1-3, 7, 11, and 13-17 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.
Claim 1 recites “one of a photo-electrochemical cell or a photovoltaic cell (122) mounted on an un-mirrored edge of the LSC1, or optically connected to the un-mirrored edge of the crystal by a waveguide (120), to receive the photoluminescence trapped within LSC1” but claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for the recitation “the crystal” as a crystal was never previously explicitly recited and it’s not clear what crystal is being referenced by the recitation of the crystal. Thus the scope of claim 1 cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “a top-hat, multi-layer reflector (104) to reflect photo-luminescence within the escape cone of the crystal” where it’s unclear what crystal is being referenced in this recitation as claim 1 previously recites “the crystal” and “an un-doped semiconductor crystal”. The scope of claim 1 cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite. If this recitation means to reference the un-doped semiconductor crystal, the claim language should specify this distinction.
Claim 1 recites “mirrors attached to all edges of the quantum dot concentrator” which appears to be indented under limitations directed to the LSC2 which is not previously recited as having or being a quantum dot concentrator, rather LSC2 is claimed as a having one or more quantum wells. Thus it’s unclear what “quantum dot concentrator” is being referenced in this recitation. Thus the scope of claim 1 cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 1 recites ”a mirror attached to the bottom surface (114)” but it’s unclear which bottom surface is being referenced in this recitation as there are multiple elements previously recited inherently having a bottom surface. Thus the scope of claim 1 cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “at least one solar cell mounted on an un-mirrored edge, or optically connected to the un-mirrored edge of the crystal” where it’s unclear what crystal is being referenced in this recitation as claim 1 previously recites “the crystal” and “an un-doped semiconductor crystal”. The scope of claim 1 cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-3, 7, 11, and 13-17 are also rejected as indefinite by depending from indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the second luminescent solar concentrator LSC2 further comprises the crystal containing one or more quantum wells” where it’s unclear what “the crystal containing one or more quantum wells” is referencing. LSC2 is already defined as comprising an un-doped semiconductor crystal having one or more quantum wells in claim 1, and it’s not clear what additional crystal containing one or more quantum wells is being referenced as no other crystal containing one or more quantum wells was previously defined. The scope of claim 2 cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “a multi-quantum well solar cell (322) mounted on an un-mirrored edge of the crystal” where it’s unclear what crystal is being referenced in this recitation as the LSC2 is defined as comprising an un-doped semiconductor crystal and further has “the crystal containing one or more quantum wells” in claim 2 and it’s not clear what crystal is being referenced by this recitation in claim 2. The scope of claim 2 thus cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 16 is also rejected as indefinite by depending from indefinite claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “the photo-electrochemical cell having metal nanoparticle catalysts” but claim 1 already recites the photo-electrochemical cell having metal nanoparticle catalysts and it’s not clear if claim 3 is reciting new metal nanoparticle catalysts of the photo-electrochemical cell or means to reference the metal nanoparticle catalysts defined in claim 1. The scope of claim 3 thus cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “wherein on the bottom surface of the LSC2 is a multilayer band-pass filter (114)” but claim 1 already defines “a mirror attached to the bottom surface (114)” where it’s not clear if the number 114 means to reference the multilayer band-pass filter or the bottom surface, and further as the bottom surface already has a mirror, it’s not clear if the multilayer band-pass filter is a further limitation of the mirror or a separate element. The scope of claim 7 thus cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “the multi-quantum well cell (322)” in line 9 but claim 7 and claim 1 from which claim 7 depends lacks antecedent basis for this recitation as a multi-quantum well cell (322) was never previously defined. The scope of claim 7 thus cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 17 is also rejected as indefinite by depending from indefinite claim 7.
Claim 14 recites “a photovoltaic cell mounted on the edge of LSC1 or LSC2 or at the end of a waveguide at 122 or 322 has band-gap optimized for photovoltaic efficiency in the luminescence from LSC1 or LSC2 respectively” where it’s not clear if the recited “a photovoltaic cell” in claim 14 is referencing the photovoltaic cell (122) defined in claim 1 or a new photovoltaic cell. It’s not clear if “the end of a waveguide” recited in claim 14 is a new waveguide or waveguide (120) defined in claim 1. It’s not clear what configuration mounted “at 122 or 322” means to encompass in the claim. 122 was previously used to reference photovoltaic cell (122), but does this mean the photovoltaic cell recited in claim 14 is this photovoltaic cell (122) or is a new cell mounted with or to the photovoltaic cell (122). Further it’s not clear what “322” references as it was never defined previously in claim 14 or claim 1 from which claim 14 depends. “322” is used to reference a multi-quantum well solar cell (322) in claim 2, but claim 14 does not depend from this claim and thus it’s not clear what “322” references in claim 14. The scope of claim 14 thus cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites “LSC1 is removed so that concentrated focused light from the non-tracking lens (102) falls only on the upper surface of the LSC2” but LSC1 is a necessary limitation of the claimed photovoltaic concentrator system of claim 1 and cannot be removed. Thus claim 15 is rejected for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 recites “LSC1 is removed so that concentrated light from the non-tracking lens (102) falls only on the upper surface of the LSC2” but LSC1 is a necessary limitation of the claimed photovoltaic concentrator system of claim 2 and cannot be removed. Thus claim 16 is rejected for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recites “LSC1 is removed so that concentrated light from the non-tracking lens (102) falls only on the upper surface of the LSC2” but LSC1 is a necessary limitation of the claimed photovoltaic concentrator system of claim 7 and cannot be removed. Thus claim 17 is rejected for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally argues the examiner did not conduct a proper analysis of the claim to determine whether or not they meet the requirements of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments to this point have been fully considered but are not found persuasive as applicant merely alleges the examiner has not met the burden of conducting a proper analysis of the claim to determine whether or not they meet the requirements of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) without pointing out where the examiner did not meet the necessary burden in the prior office action.
Applicant’s further arguments are moot in view of the new rejections set forth above necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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 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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726