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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 7/30/2026. Claims 1, 9 and 10 are amended, claims 2-8 are original, and claim 11 is previously presented, thus claims 1-11 are pending examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the domes/housing is not a single converging lens, but rather the dome/housing may include lens structures and cites Gergets ¶115 and that this teaches away from a “single converging lens”, where the “single” limitation is newly introduced to the claim limitations. The examiner agrees that Gergets fails to teach a “single converging lens” but the examiner does not agree that Gergets teaches away from using a single lens. There appears to be no specific recitation within Gergets arguing, criticizing, or otherwise discouraging a single lens. Also, there appears to be no argumentative support as to why those passages teach away from the claimed limitations. Further, the Parise reference teaches a lens which reasonably reads on the “single lens” limitation.
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure of, and that Gergets teaches away from, “an electrical line in electrical communication with the solar module, and extending into the ambient such that it can be connected to a battery of the light electric vehicle” and provides several recitations from Gergets. However, applicant fails to provide any argumentative support as to why those passages teach away from the claimed limitations. The examiner does not believe there is any recitation within Gergets that specifically argues, criticizes, or otherwise discourages the electrical line limitations. As such, the rejection is maintained below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification is silent on the “ambient” terminology mentioned in claim 1 and fails to provide antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 “an electrical line in electrical communication with the solar module, and extending into the ambient such that it can be connected to a battery of the light electric vehicle” it is unclear what is meant by “extending into the ambient”. Applicant remarks dated 3/30/2026 make reference to Figures 1a and 1b, which appear to disclose a standard electrical connection extending from the device, like a cord/cable for example, and to ¶37 in the specification, but there does not appear to be a ¶37 in the specification to refer to. The specification is silent on this “ambient” terminology. The specification does not appear to disclose anything more than a standard “electrical line” and there appears to be nothing more within the disclosure to give any additional structural limitations to this “electrical line”.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parise U.S. PGPub 2004/0142733 A1 (hereinafter Parise) in view of Gergets et al. U.S. PGPub 2012/0201041 A1 (hereinafter Gergets).
Regarding Claim 1, Parise teaches a wireless charging system (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 1; Para. [0086], “remote power system”) for use with a light electric vehicle (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 2; Para. [0086]), the wireless charging system comprising: a receiver module for mounting on the light electric vehicle (Parise, Figs. 1 and 11, Element 54 of 44; Paras. [0063] and [0067], “energy receiver/receptor” and “power receiving system”), the receiver module including a single lens (Parise, Fig. 12A, Element 106; Para. [0114], “dispersion lens” which reasonably discloses a singular lens), a solar module (Parise, Fig. 12A, Element 108; Para. [0114], “array of photovoltaic cells”) and an electrical line in electrical communication with the solar module (Parise, Fig. 11A, Connection between Element 54 to Element 13; Para. [0071]. Where the electrical line is not explicitly stated but inherent in the teaching.), a remote emitter module (Parise, Figs. 1 and 11, Element 20; Paras. [0063] – [0065], “power transmission unit”), the remote emitter module including an artificial light source (Parise, Fig. 11, Elements 22 and 5; Para. [0065], “power transmitter” and “power beam”), an actuator (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 52; Para. [0065], “transmitter aiming control”), which is in mechanical communication with the artificial light source (Parise, Fig. 11A, Connection between Element 52 to Element 22a; Para. [0070]), a microcontroller (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 48; Para. [0064], “power unit controller”), which is in electronic communication with the actuator (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 52) and a tracker (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 50; Para. [0065], “signal tracking module”. Where 48, 50 and 52 are in electronic communication, and Para. [0079]), which is in electronic communication with the microcontroller (Parise, Para. [0077]) and is one of a radio receiver or an audio receiver (Parise, Fig. 11A, Elements 4, 6 of the vehicle working with elements 46, 48, 50 and 52 of the transmission unit; Paras. [0010] – [0011], [0016] and [0067] - [0079]. Although Parise is not explicit in the type of signal other than a communication signal, it is the examiner’s opinion the “translocator with antenna” is a radio receiver as understood in paragraphs [0010] – [0011] and [0016] of Parise, and as detailed throughout the remainer of the disclosure.), and a signaller, which is one of a light source, a radio transmitter or an audio transmitter (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 4; Paras. [0063] and [0067], “Device Communication Transmitter” or “translocator”. Although Parise is not explicit in the type of signal, any type of signaller as understood by the disclosure would inherently fall within the limitation of light source, radio transmitter or audio transmitter), but does not teach a dome type converging lens for directing the light onto the photovoltaic/solar module.
Gergets, however, teaches a converging lens which is a dome (Gergets, Fig. 16, Element 200; Paras. [0113] and [0115], “domes/housings” and “for converging the sun light”), which includes an inner surface (Gergets, Fig. 16, Inner surface of Element 200; not separately labeled but obvious from the figures.), a solar module mounted proximate to the inner surface of the dome which is housed within the dome (Gergets, Fig. 16, Elements 1402-1, 1402-2 and 1402-3; Paras. [0116], Lines 1-3, “attached to the bottom of the top domes”) and an electrical line in electrical communication with the solar module (Gergets, Fig. 11, “Power” The line illustrated connecting the Controller 160 with the vehicle’s battery 146, Para. [0089], Lines 11-14; Also, Fig. 2A, Element 148, Para. [0056], Lines 4-6, “wired to the vehicle’s power system 146, i.e. battery”), and extending into the ambient such that it can be connected to a battery of the electric vehicle (Gergets, Fig. 2A, Cables 162 and 148 from solar module to vehicle battery 146; Para. [0056], Lines 4-6; And Fig. 17, Element 1310; Paras. [0120], Lines 1-3, “routed into the vehicle’s cabin”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Parise explicitly teaches a dispersion lens versus a converging lens, Parise would inherently incorporate some type of conventional light focusing commonly understood in the art. The converging lens taught by Gergets, for controlling the focus of the light to the photovoltaic cells, teaches one of the many conventional light controlling methods utilized in the art for focusing light to a photovoltaic cell to increase efficiency. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Gergets, as an alternative which is well known in the art and whether the lens disperses or converges the light would depend on the desire/needs of the inventor, and would be interchangeable in many if not all cases.
Regarding Claim 2, The combined teaching of the Parise and Gergets references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Parise teaches wherein the artificial light source is selected from the group consisting of one or more laser emitters, one or more light emitting diodes and one or more organic light emitting diodes (Parise, Para. [0065], “laser”).
Regarding Claim 11, The combined teaching of the Parise and Gergets references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Parise teaches wherein the signaller (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 4; Paras. [0063] and [0067], “Device Communication Transmitter” or “translocator”. Although Parise is not explicit in the type of signal, any type of signaller as understood by the disclosure would inherently fall within the limitation of light source, radio transmitter or audio transmitter) and the tracker (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 50; Para. [0065], “signal tracking module”) are transceivers (Parise, Paras. [0075] and claim 35) and the receiver module microprocessor, which is for electronic communication with the batteries of the LEV and is configured to determine the charge level of the batteries, and to communicate the charge level via the signaller to the tracker (Parise, Paras. [0008] and [0010]).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parise U.S. PGPub 2004/0142733 A1 (hereinafter Parise) in view of Gergets et al. U.S. PGPub 2012/0201041 A1 (hereinafter Gergets) as applied to claims 2/1 above, and further in view of Ricci U.S. PGPub 2017/0136890 A1 (hereinafter Ricci).
Regarding Claim 3, The combined teaching of the Parise and Gergets references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 2/1, but does not explicitly teach the artificial light source is selected from the group consisting of an infrared light emitter, an ultraviolet light emitter, a visible light emitter and a broad-spectrum light emitter.
Ricci, however, teaches wherein the artificial light source is selected from the group consisting of an infrared light emitter, an ultraviolet light emitter, a visible light emitter and a broad-spectrum light emitter (Ricci, Fig. 25, Elements 2475J,K,L and M; Para. [0150] and [0152]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Parise is silent as to the details of the light source, Parise would inherently incorporate some type of conventional light source commonly understood in the art. The light source taught by Ricci teaches one of the many conventional light sources utilized in the art for focusing light to a photovoltaic cell. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Ricci to provide a commonly understood light source for the light emitter of Parise.
Regarding Claim 4, The combined teaching of the Parise, Gergets and Ricci references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 3/2/1. Furthermore, Parise teaches wherein the signaller is integrated into the receiver module (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 26 in element 54; Para. [0067]).
Regarding Claim 5, The combined teaching of the Parise, Gergets and Ricci references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 3/2/1. Furthermore, Parise teaches wherein the signaller is proximate to the receiver module (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 26 in element 54; Para. [0067]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parise U.S. PGPub 2004/0142733 A1 (hereinafter Parise) in view of Gergets et al. U.S. PGPub 2012/0201041 A1 (hereinafter Gergets) and Ricci U.S. PGPub 2017/0136890 A1 (hereinafter Ricci) as applied to claims 3/2/1 above, and further in view of McCool et al. U.S. Patent 9,796,280 (hereinafter McCool).
Regarding Claim 6, The combined teaching of the Parise, Gergets and Ricci references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 3/2/1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising a remote sensor for locating in a parking stall, and a remote microcontroller which is in electronic communication with the remote sensor and the signaller.
McCool, however, teaches further comprising a remote sensor for locating in a parking stall (McCool, Fig. 2, Element 30; Col. 5, Lines 43-51), and a remote microcontroller which is in electronic communication with the remote sensor and the signaller (McCool, Fig. 2, Element 26; Col. 5, Lines 20-42).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Parise is silent as to using a separate remote sensor to detect the presence of a vehicle, Parise would inherently incorporate some type of conventional vehicle sensing commonly understood in the art. The remote sensor taught by McCool teaches one of the many conventional remote sensors utilized in the art for sensing the presence of a vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by McCool to provide a remote sensor for the system of Parise.
Regarding Claim 7, The combined teaching of the Parise, Gergets, Ricci and McCool references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 6/3/2/1. Furthermore, McCool teaches wherein the remote sensor is a force sensor (McCool, Fig. 2, Element 30; Col. 5, Lines 43-51, “pressure sensors”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Parise is silent as to using a separate remote sensor to detect the presence of a vehicle, Parise would inherently incorporate some type of conventional vehicle sensing commonly understood in the art. The remote sensor taught by McCool teaches one of the many conventional remote sensors utilized in the art for sensing the presence of a vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by McCool to provide a remote sensor for the system of Parise.
Regarding Claim 8, The combined teaching of the Parise, Gergets, Ricci and McCool references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 6/3/2/1. Furthermore, McCool teaches wherein the remote sensor is a light emitter and light detector pair (McCool, Fig. 2, Element 30; Col. 5, Lines 43-51, “visual sensors”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Parise is silent as to using a separate remote sensor to detect the presence of a vehicle, Parise would inherently incorporate some type of conventional vehicle sensing commonly understood in the art. The remote sensor taught by McCool teaches one of the many conventional remote sensors utilized in the art for sensing the presence of a vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by McCool to provide a remote sensor for the system of Parise.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parise U.S. PGPub 2004/0142733 A1 (hereinafter Parise) in view of Ricci U.S. PGPub 2017/0136890 A1 (hereinafter Ricci) and Gergets et al. U.S. PGPub 2012/0201041 A1 (hereinafter Gergets).
Regarding Claim 9, Parise teaches a method of assembling a wireless charging system (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 1; Para. [0086], “remote power system”) for charging a light electric vehicle (LEV) battery wirelessly (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 2; Para. [0086]), in situ, the method comprising: selecting a wireless charging system (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 1; Para. [0086], “remote power system”), the wireless charging system comprising: a receiver module (Parise, Figs. 1 and 11, Element 54 of 44; Paras. [0063] and [0067], “energy receiver/receptor” and “power receiving system”), the receiver module including a single lens (Parise, Fig. 12A, Element 106; Para. [0114], “dispersion lens” which reasonably discloses a singular lens), a solar module (Parise, Fig. 12A, Element 108; Para. [0114], “array of photovoltaic cells”) and an electrical line in electrical communication with the solar module (Parise, Fig. 11A, Connection between Element 54 to Element 13; Para. [0071]. Where the electrical line is not explicitly stated but inherent in the teaching.), a remote emitter module (Parise, Figs. 1 and 11, Element 20; Paras. [0063] – [0065], “power transmission unit”), the remote emitter module including an artificial light source (Parise, Fig. 11, Elements 22 and 5; Para. [0065], “power transmitter” and “power beam”), an actuator (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 52; Para. [0065], “transmitter aiming control”), which is in mechanical communication with the artificial light source (Parise, Fig. 11A, Connection between Element 52 to Element 22a; Para. [0070]), a microcontroller (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 48; Para. [0064], “power unit controller”), which is in electronic communication with the actuator (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 52) and a tracker (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 50; Para. [0065], “signal tracking module”. Where 48, 50 and 52 are in electronic communication, and Para. [0079]), which is one of a radio receiver or an audio receiver (Parise, Fig. 11A, Elements 4, 6 of the vehicle working with elements 46, 48, 50 and 52 of the transmission unit; Paras. [0010] – [0011], [0016] and [0067] - [0079]. Although Parise is not explicit in the type of signal other than a communication signal, it is the examiner’s opinion the “translocator with antenna” is a radio receiver as understood in paragraphs [0010] – [0011] and [0016] of Parise, and as detailed throughout the remainer of the disclosure.), which is in electronic communication with the microcontroller (Parise, Para. [0077]), and a signaller, which is one of a light source, a radio transmitter or an audio transmitter (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 4; Paras. [0063] and [0067], “Device Communication Transmitter” or “translocator”. Although Parise is not explicit in the type of signal, any type of signaller as understood by the disclosure would inherently fall within the limitation of light source, radio transmitter or audio transmitter); mounting the receiver module on an upper, outer surface of the LEV (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 54); and mounting the remote emitter module on a surface within range of the receiver module (Parise, Figs. 1 and 11, Element 20; Paras. [0063] – [0065], “power transmission unit”), before or after mounting the receiver module, but does not explicitly teach autonomous charging.
Ricci, however, teaches wireless charging system for autonomously charging an electric vehicle (Ricci, Para. [0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Parise does not explicitly state the charging is autonomous, Parise’s system would inherently be autonomous as commonly understood in the art since no connections need to be done by the operator/user of the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to understand based on desirability, an autonomous method, such as the one taught by Ricci, for the charging system of Parise.
The combined teaching of the Parise and Ricci references discloses the claimed invention as stated above, but does not teach a dome type converging lens for directing the light onto the photovoltaic/solar module.
Gergets, however, teaches a converging lens which is a dome (Gergets, Fig. 16, Element 200; Paras. [0113] and [0115], “domes/housings” and “for converging the sun light”), which includes an inner surface (Gergets, Fig. 16, Inner surface of Element 200; not separately labeled but obvious from the figures.), a solar module mounted proximate to the inner surface of the dome, which is housed within the dome (Gergets, Fig. 16, Elements 1402-1, 1402-2 and 1402-3; Paras. [0116], Lines 1-3, “attached to the bottom of the top domes”) and an electrical line in electrical communication with the solar module (Gergets, Fig. 11, “Power” The line illustrated connecting the Controller 160 with the vehicle’s battery 146, Para. [0089], Lines 11-14; Also, Fig. 2A, Element 148, Para. [0056], Lines 4-6, “wired to the vehicle’s power system 146, i.e. battery”), and extending into the ambient such that it can be connected to a battery of the light electric vehicle (Gergets, Fig. 2A, Cables 162 and 148 from solar module to vehicle battery 146; Para. [0056], Lines 4-6; And Fig. 17, Element 1310; Paras. [0120], Lines 1-3, “routed into the vehicle’s cabin”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Parise explicitly teaches a dispersion lens versus a converging lens, Parise would inherently incorporate some type of conventional light focusing commonly understood in the art. The converging lens taught by Gergets, for controlling the focus of the light to the photovoltaic cells, teaches one of the many conventional light controlling methods utilized in the art for focusing light to a photovoltaic cell to increase efficiency. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Gergets, as an alternative which is well known in the art and whether the lens disperses or converges the light would depend on the desire/needs of the inventor, and would be interchangeable in many if not all cases.
Regarding Claim 10, Parise teaches a method of charging a light electric vehicle (LEV) battery wirelessly (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 1; Para. [0086], “remote power system”), in situ, the method comprising: parking an LEV within range of a remote emitter module (Parise, Figs. 1 and 11, Element 20; Paras. [0063] – [0065], “power transmission unit”), wherein the LEV includes a at least one LEV battery (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 13; Para. [0071], “Energy Storage, i.e. Battery”), a receiver module (Parise, Figs. 1 and 11, Element 54 of 44; Paras. [0063] and [0067], “energy receiver/receptor” and “power receiving system”) mounted on an outer, upper surface (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 54), the receiver module including a single lens (Parise, Fig. 12A, Element 106; Para. [0114], “dispersion lens” which reasonably discloses a singular lens), a solar module between the outer, upper surface and the lens (Parise, Fig. 12A, Element 108; Para. [0114], “array of photovoltaic cells”) and an electrical line in electrical communication with the solar module and the LEV battery (Parise, Fig. 1, Element 13, “Energy Storage”, And Fig. 11A, Connection between Element 54 to Element 13; Para. [0071]. Where the electrical line is not explicitly stated but inherent in the teaching.) and wherein the remote emitter module includes an artificial light source (Parise, Fig. 11, Elements 22 and 5; Para. [0065], “power transmitter” and “power beam”), an actuator (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 52; Para. [0065], “transmitter aiming control”), which is in mechanical communication with the artificial light source (Parise, Fig. 11A, Connection between Element 52 to Element 22a; Para. [0070]), a microcontroller (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 48; Para. [0064], “power unit controller”), which is in electronic communication with the actuator and a tracker (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 50; Para. [0065], “signal tracking module”. Where 48, 50 and 52 are in electronic communication, and Para. [0079]), which is one of a radio receiver or an audio receiver (Parise, Fig. 11A, Elements 4, 6 of the vehicle working with elements 46, 48, 50 and 52 of the transmission unit; Paras. [0010] – [0011], [0016] and [0067] - [0079]. Although Parise is not explicit in the type of signal other than a communication signal, it is the examiner’s opinion the “translocator with antenna” is a radio receiver as understood in paragraphs [0010] – [0011] and [0016] of Parise, and as detailed throughout the remainer of the disclosure.), which is in electronic communication with the microcontroller (Parise, Para. [0077]); and a signaller, which is one of a light source, a radio transmitter or an audio transmitter (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 4; Paras. [0063] and [0067], “Device Communication Transmitter” or “translocator”. Although Parise is not explicit in the type of signal, any type of signaller as understood by the disclosure would inherently fall within the limitation of light source, radio transmitter or audio transmitter); the signaller sending signals (Parise, Fig. 11, Element 9; Para. [0069]); the tracker locating the LEV from signals emitted by the signaller (Parise, Para. [0065]); the tracker communicating with the microcontroller which communicates with the actuator (Parise, Para. [0077]); the actuator optimizing the position of the remote emitter module such that the artificial light source is directed to the receiver module (Parise, Para. [0096]); and the solar module collecting light from the light source and sending power to the LEV battery, thereby charging the LEV battery in situ (Parise, Para. [0071]), but does not explicitly teach autonomous charging.
Ricci, however, teaches autonomously charging a light electric vehicle (LEV) battery wirelessly (Ricci, Para. [0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Parise does not explicitly state the charging is autonomous, Parise’s system would inherently be autonomous as commonly understood in the art since no connections need to be done by the operator/user of the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to understand based on desirability, an autonomous method, such as the one taught by Ricci, for the charging system of Parise.
The combined teaching of the Parise and Ricci references discloses the claimed invention as stated above, but does not teach a dome type converging lens for directing the light onto the photovoltaic/solar module.
Gergets, however, teaches a converging lens which is a dome (Gergets, Fig. 16, Element 200; Paras. [0113] and [0115], “domes/housings” and “for converging the sun light”), which includes an inner surface (Gergets, Fig. 16, Inner surface of Element 200; not separately labeled but obvious from the figures.), a solar module mounted proximate to the inner surface of the dome, which is housed within the dome (Gergets, Fig. 16, Elements 1402-1, 1402-2 and 1402-3; Paras. [0116], Lines 1-3, “attached to the bottom of the top domes”) and an electrical line in electrical communication with the solar module and the LEV battery (Gergets, Fig. 11, “Power” The line illustrated connecting the Controller 160 with the vehicle’s battery 146, Para. [0089], Lines 11-14; Also, Fig. 2A, Element 148, Para. [0056], Lines 4-6, “wired to the vehicle’s power system 146, i.e. battery”), and extending into the ambient such that it can be connected to a battery of the light electric vehicle (Gergets, Fig. 2A, Cables 162 and 148 from solar module to vehicle battery 146; Para. [0056], Lines 4-6; And Fig. 17, Element 1310; Paras. [0120], Lines 1-3, “routed into the vehicle’s cabin”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Parise explicitly teaches a dispersion lens versus a converging lens, Parise would inherently incorporate some type of conventional light focusing commonly understood in the art. The converging lens taught by Gergets, for controlling the focus of the light to the photovoltaic cells, teaches one of the many conventional light controlling methods utilized in the art for focusing light to a photovoltaic cell to increase efficiency. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Gergets, as an alternative which is well known in the art and whether the lens disperses or converges the light would depend on the desire/needs of the inventor, and would be interchangeable in many if not all cases.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
