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 Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/181,060 received March 30, 2026. Claims 1, 9 and 10 are amended, claims 2-8 are left as original, and claim 11 is newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 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 lens (Parise, Fig. 12A, Element 106; Para. [0114], “dispersion 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 lens (Parise, Fig. 12A, Element 106; Para. [0114], “dispersion 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 lens (Parise, Fig. 12A, Element 106; Para. [0114], “dispersion 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed March 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art reference.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues, “Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite, "a converging lens, which is a dome"”. Parise fails to teach or contemplate a camera, radio receiver or audio receiver, but discloses a translocator antenna. Further, the dispersion lens is specifically used with a laser light emitter in order to distribute the laser beam over the array of solar cells.
With regard to Lin, the converging lens is a convex lens, which is defined as a lens that is thicker in the center than at the edges. Thus, there is a requirement for a ring net (collar) 103 to retain the convex lens in the opening 102 of the base 10. In contrast, as can be seen in Figures 2A and 2B of the application as originally filed, the dome sits directly on the surface of the body of the vehicle, both providing protection for the solar module and converging the light on the solar module. Applicant has also amended the claim to recite, "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". In contrast, Lin discloses that there is an electrical connection between the solar collector and the charging trough. Thus, the electrical connector is within the portable solar cell charging device and does not extend into the ambient for attachment to an LEV battery. Accordingly, the device of Lin would not be operable with the device of Parise.
Examiner’s Response
The examiner will address the response to the arguments stated with regard to independent claim 1 since the arguments for independent claims 9 and 10 address the same items.
The primary reason for this new ground(s) of rejection is due primarily to the change in the applicant’s claims to state the converging lens is “a dome”, the solar module “is housed within the dome”, and the electrical line “extends into the area within the light electric vehicle”.
Due to these amendments, the Lin prior art reference is being replaced by the Gergets reference to cover these specific limitations.
With regard to applicant’s argument “Parise fails to teach or contemplate a camera, radio receiver or audio receiver, but discloses a translocator antenna.”. 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.
It is not clear from applicant’s statement “Further, the dispersion lens is specifically used with a laser light emitter in order to distribute the laser beam over the array of solar cells.”, what the argument is since it does not appear to relate to the claims as submitted. That is, the instant application uses an emitter of light to expose light onto solar module(s) on a vehicle in order to charge the battery of the vehicle, which appears to be the same as the limitation applicant argues.
As stated above, the Lin prior art reference has been changed to another reference (Gergets) in order to address the new limitations of the claims as now amended; therefore the arguments toward the Lin reference are made moot.
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 JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
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.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights