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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I (claims 1-9) and the embodiment of Fig 1 in the reply filed on 08/03/26 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for:
“supplying the RF radiation input to the flight FEL from a transmitter remote from the flight FEL”,
does not reasonably provide enablement for:
“supplying the electromagnetic radiation input to the flight FEL from a transmitter remote from the flight FEL” (claim 1),
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The term “electromagnetic radiation” is very broad and encompasses many regions of radiation including ELF, VLF, RF (radio waves), microwaves, IR, visible light, UV, X-rays and Gamma rays. However, applicant’s disclosure makes it clear that the device only works with RF radiation. Radio waves are transparent to the troposphere, while other frequencies are diffracted and scattered by the water molecules and other particles, thereby preventing the signal from reaching the FEL. Also, the transmitted radio wave signal then needs to be received by a rectifying antenna, converted to electricity that is then used to activate the electron beam generator and the remaining RF signal is also used to seed the FEL laser. The current available technology is not capable of using the entire electromagnetic radiation spectrum to accomplish all these functions. In other words, the species of using RF radiation to remotely power FEL does not enable the genus of using the entire electromagnetic radiation spectrum.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1 and should be amended accordingly. For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The term “a wavelength of between about 3-20 µm” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitney et al. (2020/0295522) found in IDS, hereinafter ‘522.
Regarding claim 1, ‘522 discloses a method of supplying electromagnetic radiation input to flight Free Electron Laser [low Earth orbit Orbital Debris Removal (ODR) systems using megawatt-class MOPA FELs, Abstract; figure 3], the method comprising:
“supplying the electromagnetic radiation input to the flight FEL from a transmitter remote [distance not defined] from the flight FEL” [a separate electron source 311 supplies a master oscillator/power amplifier Free Electron Laser MOPA FEL 30, MOPA FEL 30 is capable of being airborne or in space; figure 3; paragraphs 0010, 0050, 0078]
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-9, ‘522 discloses the method as described above:
2. “wherein the transmitter is positioned on the surface of the Earth” [transmits via a ground-based mirror system; figure 3; paragraph 0010].
3. “wherein supplying the electromagnetic radiation input includes transmitting the electromagnetic radiation at a radio frequency” [the electron source operates at a radio frequency, RF; paragraph 0050].
4. “wherein supplying the electromagnetic radiation input includes supplying the electromagnetic radiation input as a non-gaussian beam” [electron source 311 generates electron bunches of slightly more or slightly less electric field than other electron bunches and further accelerates 314 causing distortion by tuning, thus forming a non-gaussian profile; paragraphs 0050-0053, 0055].
6. “wherein supplying the electromagnetic radiation input includes supplying the electromagnetic radiation input at a radio frequency” [the electron source operates at a radio frequency, RF; paragraph 0050].
7. “wherein supplying the electromagnetic radiation input includes supplying the electromagnetic radiation input at a frequency that is substantially transparent to the troposphere” [at 750 MHZ, atmospheric transmission is 80%; Table 1; paragraph 0034].
8. “wherein supplying the electromagnetic radiation input to the flight FEL includes supplying the electromagnetic radiation input to the flight FEL while the flight FEL is positioned in or above the stratosphere” [the FEL may be in space; paragraph 0078].
9. “wherein the FEL is configured to
a) receive the electromagnetic radiation input and
b) generate a laser beam having a wavelength of between about 3-20 µm based at least partially on the electromagnetic radiation input” [the MOPA FEL receives input from an electron source 311 and is optimized to produce photons in the infrared IR wavelengths; paragraphs 0050, 0051].
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘522 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greason (2020/0195057) found in IDS, hereinafter ‘057.
‘522 discloses the method of claim 1, but lacks the explicit teaching:
5. “wherein supplying the electromagnetic radiation input includes supplying the electromagnetic radiation input as a Whisper Beam transmission.”
‘057 discloses a process 1300 for generating a Whisper Beam wherein at 1310 a first antenna is configured to transmit a beam of electromagnetic energy; figure 13; paragraphs 0068, 0075, 0187.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the relevant date to modify the method as taught by ‘522 to include Whisper Beam transmission as taught by ‘057, in order to generate Whisper Beams for wireless long-distance power transmission able to focus high energy at great distances (‘057; Abstract).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 which lists other references with similar features as the invention. However, none of them anticipate all the features of the pending claims.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571) 272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (571) 272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights