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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-14 and 17-22 are currently pending, claim 1 is currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous objection to the claims, the previous objection to claims 2, 6, 9-14 and 17-20 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The examiner provided newly found prior art reference VUKOVIC (US 2020/0313469 A1) to address the newly added limitations. Please see the new grounds of rejection below.
Regarding claim 17, applicant argues that GLOVER does not determine alignment between a photovoltaic cell and a laser has deteriorated or scanning. The examiner directs the applicant to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment to claim 1, the new grounds of rejection address the aforementioned newly added limitations (alignment deterioration and scanning based on the deteriorated alignment).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14, 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARE et al. (US 2018/0123403 A1, hereinafter KARE) in view of VUKOVIC (US 2020/0313469 A1, hereinafter VUKOVIC).
Regarding claim 1, KARE discloses a system for wirelessly charging a device, said device comprising:
a photovoltaic cell for converting incident light into electrical energy (See Fig.3, Item#128 and Par.35, disclose a power conversion array comprising a photovoltaic array),
the system further comprising a supply unit arranged to transmit a laser beam to the photovoltaic cell of the device (See Fig.3, Item#104, discloses a power beam transmitter and Par.65 disclose the power beam is a laser-based power beam),
wherein the supply unit is arranged to transmit said laser beam with a first divergence angle during a first mode (See Pars.39 and 44, disclose transmitting a power beam of a wider angle during a first time window) and a second, narrower, divergence angle during a second mode following the first mode (See Pars.15 and 44, discloses transmitting a second narrower angle power beam during a second time window towards an identified location of the remote reception unit. Par.15 discloses transmission a high-divergence beam during first time period and low-divergence during a second time period), wherein the supply unit is arranged to change from the first mode to the second mode based on information relating to the location of the device (See Par.44, discloses the change from the first transmission at wider angle to the second transmission of narrower angle is based on identified location of the remote reception unit).
However, KARE does not disclose wherein the system is further arranged to:
(i) determine that an alignment between the photovoltaic cell and the laser beam has deteriorated, and
(ii) after said determination, enter a subsequent scanning mode.
VUKOVIC discloses a method and apparatus for wireless charging wherein the apparatus is further arranged to:
(i) determine that an alignment between the receiver and the charger has deteriorated (See Fig.2A, Step#208 an Par.27, disclose monitoring the DC power received by the receiver, the alignment is considered to be deteriorated if it falls below the minimum threshold. The examiner explains that charging starts in step #207 and if the received power is determined to be with charging limits in step#208 then charging continues until the received amount of power is determined to be deteriorated after which the process loops back to Step#203), and
(ii) after said determination, enter a subsequent scanning mode (See Fig.2A, Steps#203-204 and Par.24, discloses when the received power is determined to be below a threshold i.e. deteriorated, the process loops back to determining the preferred path. The process of determining the preferred path comprising sending a scanning beam to determine the best path/direction for delivering power to the receiver. This is considered a subsequent scan to determine the new updated location and corresponding path to deliver power to the receiver. Step#204 and Par.26 disclose a step of determining if the receivers are within range [interpreted to also be part of the scan process; direction/path + range]).
Even though VUKOVIC does not disclose the charger is a laser charger and the receiver comprises a photovoltaic cell, the examiner explains that the same teachings of alignment are applicable to various far-field wireless charging techniques (i.e. laser or radio frequency charging) by ensuring that the power beam is directed towards the receiving device to increase the charging efficiency.
KARE and VUKOVIC are analogous art since they both deal with wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed KARE with the teachings of VUKOVIC by determining that alignment between the receiver and the charger has deteriorated and entering a subsequent scanning mode for the benefit of increasing the charging efficiency by adjusting the beam path to match the new location of the receiver.
Regarding claim 2, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, arranged to obtain the information relating to the location of the device by scanning the laser beam over a scan volume during the first mode (See KARE, Pars.39 and 44, disclose transmitting a power beam of a wider angle during a first time window) and the supply unit receiving a notification prompting the supply unit to change to the second mode when the laser beam impinges on the photovoltaic cell (See KARE, Pars.61 and 66, discloses a communication circuit in the receiver which uses the power transmitted during the first window to operate a communication circuit to send back data to the power transmitter. Par.71 discloses location data is identified using communication data sent from the receiver to the transmitter. Fig.4, Steps#412-414, disclose that once location is identified, the transmitter transitions from the wider divergence to the high-divergence beam to the low-divergence beam [Par.15]).
Regarding claim 3, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 2 as discussed above, wherein the notification comprises a retro-reflection of the laser beam back to the supply unit (See KARE, Par.15 and 34, disclose the receiver comprising plurality of retro-reflectors).
Regarding claims 4-5, KARE and VUKOVIC discloses the system of claim 2 as discussed above, wherein the notification comprises a signal sent over an independent communication channel (See KARE, Fig.3 and Par.60, discloses a wireless transceiver 172 on the transmitter side and the data transmitter 174 on the receiver side to communicate over a channel independent from the power transfer comprising a radio signal).
Regarding claim 6, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 4 as discussed above, wherein the laser beam in the first mode has sufficient power density to provide enough power to the device to be able to transmit the notification signal (See KARE, Par.66, discloses the power conversion array is configured to convert power from the low-flux search beam 106a, when it strikes the power conversion array, into a small amount of electrical power. This electricity may be used by the reception unit 108 to power control circuits, communications circuits to send information to the transmission unit 102 regarding reception of the low-flux search beam 106a).
Regarding claim 7, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 2 as discussed above, wherein the supply unit is arranged during the second mode to scan the beam over a second, smaller scan volume based on said location information (See KARE, Fig.4, Step#410 and 412, disclose aiming the beam at a smaller area based on the detection during the first time window and determining if the location is sufficiently identified).
Regarding claim 8, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 7 as discussed above, wherein the supply unit is arranged to carry out one or more further iterations of beam reduction and scanning (See KARE, Fig.4, discloses an iterative loop where beam goes back to low power mode in step 404 to identify the location of the receiver. The aimed power beam in step#410 is considered stronger since it is aimed at the location of the receiving device than the original beam. Par.40 discloses that step#404 may include two or more intensity levels; a first lower intensity and a second higher intensity. Repeating the process as disclosed in Fig.4 means going back from the second higher intensity to the first lower intensity).
Regarding claim 9, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, arranged to conduct a power delivery optimisation phase comprising a feedback loop wherein the beam is moved in response to a power value reported by the device to the supply unit (See KARE, Fig.4, Step#410 and Pars.45 and 69, disclose aiming the beam at a location of the identified location of the receiver which is identified based on communicated received intensity).
Regarding claim 10, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 9 as discussed above, arranged to halt the power delivery optimisation phase when a suitable power value is reported by the device (See KARE, Fig.4, Step#412 and 414, disclose halting optimization when the location is sufficiently identified).
Regarding claims 11-12, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, arranged to determine a scan zone during the first mode in which the laser beam is scanned on order to locate the device (See KARE, Fig.4, Step#404-406, disclose determining a scan zone to locate the device, Step#410-412, disclose aiming the beam at the zone and determining if the device is sufficiently identified).
Regarding claim 13, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 12 as discussed above, wherein the initial determination is based on a signal transmitted by the device (See KARE, Fig.4, Step#408, discloses identifying the receiver location based on reflections or data communicated from the receiver to the transmitter [Par.71]).
Regarding claim 14, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 12 as discussed above, wherein the initial determination is based on an optical signal reflected by the device to be charged (See KARE, Fig.4, Step#406 and Par.33, disclose retro-reflectors to reflect the beam signal).
Regarding claim 17, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the system is arranged to return subsequently to the first mode and then to the second mode based on information relating to a revised location of the device (See VUKOVIC, Fig.2A, Steps#208 and 203-204, disclose when received charging deteriorates in step#208 [an indication of movement of the receiver] the process loops back to steps#203-204 to determine the path and range of the receiver then charging is adjusted in steps #206-207. The examiner explains that the combination of KARE and VUKOVIC results in the process returning to the first mode of KARE when deterioration between receiver and charger is detected).
Regarding claim 21, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the supply unit comprises at least one steerable reflector for directing the laser beam (See KARE, Par.45, discloses adjusting the orientation of an output mirror).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARE in view of VUKOVIC and in further view of KIM et al. (US 2020/0091774 A1, hereinafter KIM).
Regarding claim 22, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the supply unit comprises a steerable mirror (See Par.45, discloses adjusting the orientation of an output mirror).
However, KARE and VUKOVIC do not disclose wherein the supply unit comprises a plurality of steerable micro-mirrors.
KIM discloses adjusting the beam direction using a plurality of steerable mirrors (See Par.93, discloses motorized mirrors, Par.95, discloses using micromirror).
KARE, VUKOVIC and KIM are analogous art since they all deal with beam power transmission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by KARE and VUKOVIC with the teachings of KIM by using steerable micro-mirrors for the benefit of reducing the size of the beam adjustment mechanism.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARE in view of VUKOVIC and in further view of LIU et al. (US 2017/0183095 A1, hereinafter LIU).
Regarding claim 18, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, However, KARE and VUKOVIC do not disclose wherein the supply unit is arranged to use information relating to a movement of the device, between moments when the laser beam is determined to have been incident upon the photovoltaic cell of the device, to estimate a movement path of the device.
LIU discloses wherein the supply unit is arranged to use information relating to a movement of the device, between moments when the laser beam is determined to have been incident upon the photovoltaic cell of the device, to estimate a movement path of the device (See LIU, Par.31, discloses using path information to change the aiming of the laser beam based on information received from GPS. Using GPS data is interpreted to mean previous location points along which the device was detected and received a beam).
KARE, VUKOVIC and LIU are analogous art since they all deal with wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by KARE and VUKOVIC with the teachings of LIU by using the device path to aim the laser beam for the benefit of continuously providing efficient charging to a moving device.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARE in view of VUKOVIC and in further view of MOSHFEGI (US 2015/0023562 A1, hereinafter MOSHFEGHI).
Regarding claims 19-20, KARE and VUKOVIC disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, arranged to return to the first mode when the device has moved (See VUKOVIC, Fig.2A, Steps#208 and 203-204, disclose when received charging deteriorates in step#208 [an indication of movement of the receiver] the process loops back to steps#203-204 to determine the path and range of the receiver then charging is adjusted in steps #206-207. The examiner explains that the combination of KARE and VUKOVIC results in the process returning to the first mode of KARE when deterioration between receiver and charger is detected).
However, KARE and VUKOVIC do not disclose using a previous known location of the device to determine a scan zone.
MOSHFEGHI discloses determining a search region based on a distance from a centered of an area where the device was previously located (See Par.69-70 and claim 5).
KARE, VUKOVIC and MOSHFEGHI are analogous art since they all deal with position detection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by KARE and VUKOVIC with the teachings of MOSHFEGHI by determining a scan zone based on a distance from the previous location of the device benefit of continuing to charge the device efficiently even when it moves from its original charging location by confidently determining the region for the position of the device at the current time (See Par.70).
References considered but not relied upon:
Zeine et al. (US 2017/0338698 A1): discloses a wireless charger system comprising a radio frequency beam, wherein the charger detects an obstacle between the charger and the receiver and finds higher efficiency alternate paths that are not blocked by an obstacle.
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 AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights