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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/24/2026 and 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1, 3-14 and 18-22 are currently pending, claims 1 and 3-7 are amended from over the claims rejected in the final office action dated 04/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner, however, has opted to rely on newly founds prior art reference LEE et al. (US 2021/0184508 A1) to address the limitations of the amended claim to avoid confusion and move prosecution forward. The following is the examiner’s response to the applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues:
The Office action relies on paragraph [0074] of the Kare reference for the proposition
that the system returns to a search mode. However, the trigger for this return in the Kare
reference is the transmitter's own assessment that the receiver's location is "not sufficiently
identified." See Kare, paragraph [0074] ("Conversely, whenever the location of the reception
unit is not sufficiently identified, processing returns to block 404, and the procedure to locate a
reception unit, including transmission of a low-flux search beam over a wide-angle is performed
again."). This is fundamentally different from the amended claim 1 requirement that the system
"determine that the device has moved" and then "repeat the first mode to re-locate the device."
The Kare reference's return-to-search loop is triggered by the transmitter's confidence in its
location data-assessed by factors such as the number of returned reflection signals identifying
a pattern, time of flight, or GPS data-not by a determination that the device itself has moved.
See Kare, paragraph [0071].
Examiner responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees and refers the applicant to Page 4 of the final office action, the examiner clearly states “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.”
The examiner relies on VUKOVIC for addressing the limitation of returning to the scanning mode.
Applicant argues:
Moreover, the Kare reference locates the receiver primarily from reflections detected at
the transmitter by fiducials or retro-reflectors arranged in a determined pattern. See Kare, paragraphs [0043], [0068]. The photovoltaic focusing-status feedback described at paragraph [0069] of the Kare reference is presented only as something occurring "in some embodiments,"
where "the power beam reception unit actively participates in the power beam receiver locating procedure." See Kare, paragraph [0069]. The Office action assembles separate optional embodiments into an arrangement the Kare reference does not disclose as a whole. Amended
claim 1 requires the device itself to supply a first notification on impingement to trigger the
divergence reduction, and a second such notification on re-acquisition to trigger the repeated
second mode. The Kare reference does not disclose this arrangement.
Examiner responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees and refers the applicant to KARE, Pars.61 and 71, disclose communication between the receiver and the charger wherein the receiver communicates efficiency information and the location of the reception unit is sufficiently identified based on communication from the reception unit (e.g., wireless data communications based on an intensity of a power beam received at the reception unit). This clearly indicates that the receiver detects the received power intensity/efficiency, communicates the data to the transmitter and the transmitter uses the data to determine the receiver location.
Applicant argues:
The Vukovic reference does not fill this gap. The Vukovic reference monitors DC power
and loops back to path determination when the power level drops below a minimum threshold.
See Vukovic, paragraph [0027]. However, this is not a determination that the device has moved.
The Vukovic reference's "transmit scan" turns transmitter channels on and off across
predetermined constellation directions to find the lowest-path-loss direction. See Vukovic,
paragraphs [0024], [0029]. This is neither a determination that the device has moved nor sweeping a beam of a first divergence angle to re-locate the device as recited by claim 1 as
amended.
Additionally, neither the Kare reference nor the Vukovic reference discloses determining
the device-to-be-charged has moved and re-sweeping a wide-angle laser beam to re-locate the
device. This arrangement, as recited by claim 1 as amended, allows the system to continue charging the device even after it has moved out of the field-of-view of the laser beam in the
second mode. Paragraph [0069] of the Kare reference describes measuring an intensity of the
low-flux search beam during the first time window to help search for the device-not determining the device has moved after charging has commenced. Similarly, sweeping to re-locate the device after it has moved is not disclosed in the Kare reference.
Examiner responds:
The examiner explains that VUKOVIC discloses a charger which determines the best path for transmitting charging power to the wireless power receiving device and starts charging. When the amount of received power drops below a threshold, the process loops back to determining the best path for transmitting charging power to the wireless power receiving device. The examiner interpreted determining the best path as determining the location and a drop in the received power to indicate either the presence of an obstacle or that the device has been moved such that the previous best path for power transmission is no longer the best path. However, since VUKOVIC does not explicitly disclose that the drop in power reception is indicative of the movement of the device, the examiner is now relying on newly found prior art reference LEE et al. (US 2021/0184508 A1) to address the limitations.
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits the Vukovic reference does not qualify as prior art
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because it is not analogous to the invention of claim 1. Art is non-analogous unless it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced. An art citation not from the same field of endeavor as a claimed invention must be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem addressed by the inventor. Art is "reasonably pertinent" when it would "logically commend itself" to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. Conversely, when art is directed to a different purpose than a claimed invention, an inventor would have less motivation or occasion to consider it. See MPEP § 2141.01(a).
As stated, the device of the Vukovic reference is in the RF/phased-array wireless power field. Whereas, the device of the current application is in the field of laser charging of photovoltaic-equipped devices.
There can be no reasonable dispute the Vukovic reference's RF wireless charging
system is not in the same field of endeavor. Thus, the issue is whether the Vukovic reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Applicant. Applicant respectfully submits it is not.
The purpose of the Vukovic reference is to select a lowest-path-loss RF transmit
direction using a phased array antenna with channel-based beam width control. See Vukovic,
paragraphs [0024]-[0025]. Thus, the purpose of the Vukovic reference is to optimize RF power delivery by selecting among discrete antenna channels, which is a solution to a problem very different than that addressed by the Applicant. An inventor considering the problem of "how to paragraphs [0024]-[0025]. Thus, the purpose of the Vukovic reference is to optimize RF power delivery by selecting among discrete antenna channels, which is a solution to a problem very different than that addressed by the Applicant. An inventor considering the problem of "how to re-locate and continue laser charging a device that has moved" as recited by claim 1 as amended would not have been motivated to consider the Vukovic reference when making their invention. Persons skilled in the art would not look to RF phased-array channel selection when seeking a solution to re-locating a device for laser charging. Accordingly, it would be unreasonable to conclude the presently presented claim 1 and the Vukovic reference relate to the same problem or serve the same purpose.
In sum, the Vukovic reference is non-analogous to the claimed invention, does not
qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and cannot support the rejection of independent claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Nonetheless, even if the Vukovic reference was determined to be analogous art, a
person skilled in the art would not be motivated to look to the device of the Vukovic reference for any purpose. The Vukovic reference's beam width is set by switching antenna channels rather
than by changing a laser divergence angle. See Vukovic, paragraph [0025]. The Vukovic
reference has no photovoltaic cell, no laser, and no sweeping beam. Accordingly, even if the
Vukovic reference were considered analogous, it would not teach or suggest the features of
claim 1 as amended.
Examiner’s response:
In response to applicant's argument that VUKOVIC is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, VUKOVIC is directed to a wireless power transmitting device which is the same field of endeavor of the applicant’s invention. VUKOVIC discloses a method for detecting the best path for transmitting wireless charging to a wireless power receiving device, the examiner’s interprets the determination of the best path to include determining the location. However, the examiner-as stated above- has opted to withdraw the VUKOVIC reference and rely on newly found prior art reference to address the limitations of the amended claim.
The examiner further disagrees with the applicant’s assertion that VUKOVIC is not pertinent art since it deals with wireless charging via RF while the current application is directed to performing wireless charging using laser. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner explains that VUKOVIC is only relied on to address the method re-entering the scanning mode after charging has started based on detection that the device moved. This step is pertinent to wireless charging regardless of the energy source being used (RF or laser) such that location of the wireless power receiver is updated when a movement is detected such that a new location is determined, and the wireless charging is directed to the new location to improve charging efficiency.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim should end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-14 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 LEE et al. (US 2021/0184508 A1, hereinafter LEE).
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 in a first mode to locate the device by transmitting 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. See Fig.4, Item#404 and Par.15, discloses transmitting a safe power beam comprising a laser an Step#408 discloses identifying the location of the power beam receiver based on the power beam),
wherein the supply unit is arranged to transmit said laser beam with a first divergence angle and sweeping the laser beam (See Pars.39 and 44, disclose transmitting a power beam of a wider angle during a first time window. Par.40 discloses transmitting the low-flux search beam in a sweeping pattern) until the unit receives notification prompting the supply unit to change to a second mode following the first mode when the laser beam impinges on the photovoltaic cell (See Pars.61 and 71, disclose communication between the receiver and the charger wherein the receiver communicates efficiency information and the location of the reception unit is sufficiently identified based on communication from the reception unit (e.g., wireless data communications based on an intensity of a power beam received at the reception unit). This clearly indicates that the receiver detects the received power intensity/efficiency, communicates the data to the transmitter and the transmitter uses the data to determine the receiver location. And Par.44, discloses when the location is detected, the control circuitry 122 will direct the transmitter of the power beam circuitry 122 deliver a narrow-angle output of a high-flux power beam toward the identified location of the remote reception unit.).
wherein the supply unit is arranged in the second mode to transmit said laser beam with a second, narrower divergence angle (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).
However, KARE does not disclose wherein the system is further arranged to:
(i) determine that the device has moved, and
(ii) after said determination that the device has moved, repeat the first mode to re-locate the device by transmitting said laser beam with a wider divergence angle and sweeping the laser beam until the supply unit receives a second notification prompting the supply unit to repeat the second mode when the laser beam again impinges on the photovoltaic cell,
wherein the supply unit is arranged in the repeated second mode to transmit said laser beam with the second, narrower divergence angle.
The examiner interprets the above limitation not disclosed by KARE to mean that when it is determined that the device has moved, the process is repeated by entering the first mode, followed by the second mode after a notification is received from the device.
LEE discloses a wireless charging system wherein the system is arranged to:
(i) determine that the device has moved (See Pars.49-51, disclose that initially the wireless power transmitter forms a plurality of RF waves 211-215 while adjusting the direction of orientation of the waves [sweeping], the wireless power receiver communicates to the transmitter the received power information such as received power strength. The transmitter receives the data and determines the location of the wireless power receiver performs wireless charging using a low divergence beam [213]. Pars.52-54 disclose that when the receiver is moved, power reception is decreased and the wireless power receiver notifies the transmitter of the decreased power reception. The transmitter identifies that the reduction in received power indicates a change in the location of the wireless power receiver and that a change in transmission of the wireless charging is needed and the transmitter enters into the steering mode again where the RF waves 211-215to receive power related information again. Based on the new location, a different beam 215 is used to charge the wireless power receiver at the new location), and
(ii) after said determination that the device has moved, repeat the first mode to re-locate the device by transmitting said laser beam with a wider divergence angle and sweeping the laser beam until the supply unit receives a second notification prompting the supply unit to repeat the second mode when the power beam again impinges on the wireless power receiving device (Pars.52-54 disclose that when the receiver is moved, power reception is decreased and the wireless power receiver notifies the transmitter of the decreased power reception. The transmitter identifies that the reduction in received power indicates a change in the location of the wireless power receiver and that a change in transmission of the wireless charging is needed and the transmitter enters into the steering mode again where the RF waves 211-215to receive power related information again. Based on the new location, a different beam 215 is used to charge the wireless power receiver at the new location).
KARE and LEE 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 by KARE with the teachings of LEE by detecting that a device moved and repeating the first mode (sweeping mode at high divergence) followed by the second mode (charging at low divergence) for the benefit of improving charging efficiency by ensuring that the laser power beam is aimed at the updated device location.
Regarding claim 3, KARE and LEE disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the first 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 LEE disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the first 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 LEE 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 first 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 LEE disclose the system of claim 1 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 LEE 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 LEE 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 LEE 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 LEE 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 LEE 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 and Par.71, disclose identifying the receiver location based on reflections or data communicated from the receiver to the transmitter).
Regarding claim 14, KARE and LEE disclose the system of claim 12 as discussed above, wherein the initial determination is based on an optical or acoustic 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 21, KARE and LEE 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 LEE and in further view of KIM et al. (US 2020/0091774 A1, hereinafter KIM).
Regarding claim 22, KARE and LEE 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 LEE 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, LEE 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 LEE 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 LEE and in further view of LIU et al. (US 2017/0183095 A1, hereinafter LIU).
Regarding claim 18, KARE and LEE disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, However, KARE and LEE 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, LEE 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 LEE 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 LEE and in further view of MOSHFEGI (US 2015/0023562 A1, hereinafter MOSHFEGHI).
Regarding claims 19-20, KARE and LEE disclose the system of claim 1 as discussed above, arranged to return to the first mode when the device has moved (See LEE, Pars.49-51, disclose that initially the wireless power transmitter forms a plurality of RF waves 211-215 while adjusting the direction of orientation of the waves [sweeping], the wireless power receiver communicates to the transmitter the received power information such as received power strength. The transmitter receives the data and determines the location of the wireless power receiver performs wireless charging using a low divergence beam [213]. Pars.52-54 disclose that when the receiver is moved, power reception is decreased and the wireless power receiver notifies the transmitter of the decreased power reception. The transmitter identifies that the reduction in received power indicates a change in the location of the wireless power receiver and that a change in transmission of the wireless charging is needed and the transmitter enters into the steering mode again where the RF waves 211-215to receive power related information again. Based on the new location, a different beam 215 is used to charge the wireless power receiver at the new location. The examiner explains that the combination of KARE and LEE results in the process returning to the first mode (sweeping/steering) of KARE when a wireless power receiver movement is detected).
However, KARE and LEE 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, LEE 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 LEE 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).
Conclusion
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