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 Embodiment I (Fig.8C), represented by claims 1-8, 17-20, in the reply filed on 3/5/2026 is acknowledged. Further, claims 9-16 were canceled and claims 21-28 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-8, 17-28 remain pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Newly added claims 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “the controller is configured to: receive a first power sample and a second power sample from the reflector, determine, based on the first power sample and the second power sample, a positional adjustment for a rectenna…” There is no written description support for the controller to receive a second power sample from the reflector when determining a positional adjustment for a rectenna. Applicant’s published disclosure, par [0051] states that “…controller 818 is configured to receive information from power meter 808a and power meter 808b or rectenna 816…” and in par [0052] “…controller 818 receives information from power meter 808b or rectenna 816…based on this information, controller 818 can determine a positional adjustment…” That is, contrary to what claim 21 recites, applicant’s disclosure supports receiving a first power sample from the reflector and a second power sample from the rectenna when determining the positional adjustment for the rectenna.
Claims 22-28 depend on claim 21 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 21.
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.
Claims 21-28 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 21 recites “…the controller is configured to: receive a first power sample and a second power sample from the reflector, determine, based on the first power sample and the second power sample, a positional adjustment for a rectenna…” It is unclear how the controller can determine a positional adjustment for the rectenna from receiving two samples from the reflector without a sample or any measurement being taken at the rectenna side itself. This is further evidenced by applicant’s published disclosure at pars [0051-0052], which requires a first sample from the reflector and a second sample from the rectenna. Furthermore, claim 21 is incongruent and contradicts claim 23 which states “…sample power at the rectenna and generate the second power sample.” For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood, namely that the second power sample is from the rectenna.
Claim 23 recites “…a second power meter coupled to the rectenna, wherein the second power meter is configured to sample power at the rectenna and generate the second power sample.” Claim 23 is incongruent with claim 21, because claim 23 recites the second power sample is generated from power sampled at the rectenna while claim 21 recites the “second power sample from the reflector”. It is unclear which one the applicant intends. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 22, 24-28 depend on claim 21 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 21.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, 21-23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 positively recites “a reflector”, “a waveguide” and “a controller” that receives information from an unclaimed rectenna. Claim 1 further recites a “positional adjustment” for the unclaimed “rectenna”. However, while adjusting the position of the rectenna is key to the claim, the rectenna itself is not positively claimed (i.e., given its own paragraph as in claim 17). Applicant is encouraged to positively claim the rectenna in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “… the controller is configured to: receive first information regarding power sampled from the reflector” and “receive second information regarding power sampled at the rectenna”, however, the reflector itself does not sample power and is incapable of transmitting information for the controller to receive. Additionally, the rectenna itself is not known as an information transmitting component that the controller receives. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim to more clearly indicate how the “information regarding power sampled” is obtained and communicated to the controller. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “an generate a first power sample” and “an generate a second power sample”. The “an” should be amended to “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites positively recites “a reflector”, “a waveguide” and “a controller” that determines a positional adjustment for an unclaimed rectenna and sends a signal to adjust the unclaimed rectenna. While determining and adjusting the position of the rectenna is key to the claim, the rectenna itself is not positively claimed. Applicant is encouraged to positively claim the rectenna in claim 21. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites “receive a first power sample from the reflector and a second power sample from the rectenna…” The examiner notes that the reflector and rectenna are structurally not known as power sampling and information transmitting components for the controller to receive. Thus, the recitation of “from the reflector” and “from the rectenna” appear to be misleading. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22 and 23, respectively recite “an generate the first power sample” and “an generate the second power sample”. The “an” should be amended to “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-4, 17-18, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseliakhovich (2014/0354064) in view of Hoover (2015/0204928) in further view of Kato (2013/0099586) in further view of Zeine (8,854,176 B2).
Regarding Claim 1,
Tseliakhovich teaches a system, comprising:
a reflector (pars [22, 32, 36]; reflector antenna 57) configured to transmit a signal (53, par [32]) to a rectenna (41, par [38]; “rectenna 41 designed to absorb microwave energy 53”);
a waveguide (see figs.2-3, pars [21, 30-32]) coupled to the reflector (see figs.2-3; the waveguide is coupled to the reflector as it guides a beam into reflector antenna 57); and
a controller (97) coupled to the waveguide (pars [30-32]; controller 97 is coupled to the transmitter 24 in which the waveguide is included- thus, the controller 97 is “coupled” to the waveguide).
Tseliakhovich further teaches adjusting the position of the reflector to produce maximum energy at the location of the rectenna (41, pars [28, 32, 38]; mechanical steering and rotating the reflector antenna to produce maximum energy).
Tseliakhovich does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to determine, a positional adjustment for the rectenna, and generate an instruction for the rectenna to adjust its position based on the positional adjustment.
Hoover (figs.1-6), however, teaches the controller (116, 118) is configured to determine a positional adjustment for the receiver that includes a receiver coil/antenna (110, 114, pars [22, 29, 31, 37, 39, 42]; the controller determines the positional adjustment for the receiver coil/antenna by determining the position associated with the highest measured power efficiency), and generate an instruction for the receiver system to adjust its position based on the positional adjustment (pars [29, 31, 36-37, 39, 42]; controller 116 generates an instruction for the receiver system including the positioning system 114 to adjust by rotating the receiver coil/antenna 110 based on the positional adjustment associated with the highest measured efficiency).
In the combination, Tseliakhovich is modified so that in addition to adjusting the position of the reflector (i.e., the transmitter side), the controller is also capable of adjusting the position of the rectenna (i.e., the receiver side) by determining a positional adjustment for Tseliakhovich’s rectenna based on measured power efficiency and generating an instruction for the rectenna to adjust its position based on the positional adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tseliakhovich to that of Hoover. The motivation would have been because Hoover teaches that positional adjustment is not only restricted to the reflector/transmitter side but can also be implemented on the receiver side by adjusting the position of the rectenna (in the combination) to maximize the efficiency and the power received at the rectenna. This, in turn, results in a more robust and dynamic system that is capable of adjusting the position of either/both the reflector and the rectenna to maximize the power received at the rectenna.
The combination does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to receive first information regarding power sampled from the reflector, receive second information regarding power sampled at the rectenna.
Kato, however, is from the same field of invention (i.e., wireless power) and further teaches it is known that the controller (17) is configured to receive first information regarding power sampled from a transmitter (pars [25, 27-28, 45-46]; 15 measures the “power transmission amount transmitted” by the transmitter noting that there are no intervening components between 15 and transmitter antenna 13 and inputs it to controller 17. This reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of power “sampled” as the claim does not structurally identify how “sampled” is being done), receive second information regarding power sampled indirectly at the rectenna (pars [25, 27, 44, 46] and related discussion; Kato teaches item 27 samples power at the rectenna 21, 22 via 23 by detecting the received power reception amount and controller 17 receives said second information via 18, 28).
In the combination, the teachings of the combination of Tseliakhovich in view of Hoover would be further modified to sample power in the feed path of the reflector in order to obtain information regarding power sampled “from the reflector” (i.e., broadly associated with the reflector), and to sample power received indirectly at the rectenna and for the controller to receive both samples to determine the efficiency and, in turn, the positional adjustment for the rectenna.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Kato. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps of the combination, particularly Hoover, who already teaches measuring the efficiency of power being transmitted by the transmitter and received at the receiver in order to adjust the position of the receiver. Kato fills in the gaps by showing how said efficiency is measured, which is to sample the power transmitted from the reflector (in the combination) and the power received indirectly at the rectenna (in the combination) to determine the efficiency and, in turn, the positional adjustment for the rectenna with the highest measured efficiency.
The combination, particularly Kato, teaches to sample power indirectly (via 23) at the rectenna (21, 22). The combination, however, does not explicitly disclose the sampling power at the rectenna.
Zeine (Fig.7), however, teaches it is known in the art for sampling power at the rectenna (750, 770; Col.8, line 64 to Col.9, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Zeine of the second power meter configured to sample power at the rectenna. The motivation would have been to directly measure the received power at the rectenna independent of downstream dc/dc converter regulation and losses.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches a power meter (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 1, Kato, fig.1, 15, pars [25, 27-28, 45]; Kato’s 15 measures the “power transmission amount transmitted” by the transmitter and inputs it to controller 17, which reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “power meter” as applicant’s disclosure defines a power meter as the controller “receive power measurements from power meter” in par [68] of the disclosure. Note: the claimed “power meter” is not structurally distinguished from Kato’s detector 15) coupled to the waveguide and the controller (Tseliakhovich, pars [21, 30-32] and Kato, fig.1, pars [25, 27-28, 45]; Tseliakhovich teaches the waveguide and the controller 97 are coupled and Kato teaches the power meter 15 is coupled to the controller 17. Thus, the combination teaches the power meter is coupled to the waveguide and the controller), wherein the power meter is configured to: sample power from the reflector (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 1, Kato, pars [25, 27, 45-46] and related discussion; Tseliakhovich teaches the reflector antenna and Kato teaches item 15 is in the feed path to transmitter antenna 13 without intervening components and effectively samples power from the transmitter intermittently and/or continuously detecting the power transmission amount transmitted. Thus, in the combination, the power meter is applied to the reflector to sample power from it), and generate the first information (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 1, Kato, pars [25, 27, 45-46] and related discussion; Kato teaches generating the first information corresponding to the sampled power and inputting it to the controller 17).
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the rectenna is coupled to a power meter (Kato, fig.1, 21, 22 coupled to 27, pars [25, 27, 44, 46] and Zeine, fig.7, 750, 770 coupled to power meter 740; Col.8, line 64 to Col.9, lines 1-10), and wherein the power meter is configured to: sample power from the rectenna (Kato, fig.1, pars [25, 27, 44, 46] and Zeine, fig.7, Col.8, line 64 to Col.9, lines 1-10), and generate the second information (Kato, fig.1, pars [25, 27, 44, 46] and Zeine, fig.7, Col.8, line 64 to Col.9, lines 1-10; the combination teaches generating the second information corresponding to the sampled power from the rectenna input to controller 17 via 18, 28).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the positional adjustment comprises an adjusted tilt angle for the rectenna (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 1 and Hoover, pars [27-29, 37-39, 41-42]; Tseliakhovich teaches the rectenna at the receiver side. Hoover teaches the adjusting the positional adjustment includes orienting and rotating the receiver antenna/coil about the first axis and second axis which changes the angle of the receiver antenna/coil and corresponds to adjusting the tilt angle associated with the highest efficiency. Thus, the combination teaches the rectenna’s positional adjustment comprises an adjusted tilt angle).
Regarding Claim 17,
Tseliakhovich teaches a system, comprising:
a reflector (pars [22, 32, 36]; reflector antenna 57) configured to transmit a signal (53, par [32]);
a waveguide (see figs.2-3, pars [21, 30-32]) coupled to the reflector (see figs.2-3; the waveguide is coupled to the reflector as it guides a beam into reflector antenna 57);
a rectenna (41, par [38]; “rectenna 41 designed to absorb microwave energy 53”) configured to receive the signal (53);
a controller (97) coupled to the waveguide (pars [30-32]; controller 97 is coupled to the transmitter 24 in which the waveguide is included- thus, the controller 97 is “coupled” to the waveguide).
Tseliakhovich further teaches adjusting the position of the reflector to produce maximum energy at the location of the rectenna (41, pars [28, 32, 38]; mechanical steering and rotating the reflector antenna to produce maximum energy).
Tseliakhovich does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to determine, a positional adjustment for the rectenna, and send a signal to the rectenna to adjust its position based on the positional adjustment.
Hoover (figs.1-6), however, teaches the controller (116, 118) is configured to determine a positional adjustment for the receiver that includes a receiver coil/antenna (110, 114, pars [22, 29, 31, 37, 39, 42]; the controller determines the positional adjustment for the receiver coil/antenna by determining the position associated with the highest measured power efficiency), and send a signal to the receiver system to adjust its position based on the positional adjustment (pars [29, 31, 36-37, 39, 42]; controller 116 has a communication port to communicate and instruct the receiver system via positioning system 114 (i.e., send a signal) to adjust by rotating the receiver coil/antenna 110 based on the positional adjustment associated with the highest measured efficiency).
In the combination, Tseliakhovich is modified so that in addition to adjusting the position of the reflector (i.e., the transmitter side), the controller is also capable of adjusting the position of the rectenna (i.e., the receiver side) by determining a positional adjustment for Tseliakhovich’s rectenna based on measured power efficiency and sending a signal to adjust the rectenna’s position based on the positional adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tseliakhovich to that of Hoover. The motivation would have been because Hoover teaches that positional adjustment is not only restricted to the reflector/transmitter side but can also be implemented on the receiver side by adjusting the position of the rectenna (in the combination) to maximize the efficiency and the power received at the rectenna. This, in turn, results in a more robust and dynamic system that is capable of adjusting the position of either/both the reflector and the rectenna to maximize the power received at the rectenna.
The combination does not explicitly disclose a first power meter coupled to the waveguide, wherein the first power meter is configured to sample power at the reflector and generate a first power sample; a second power meter coupled to the rectenna, wherein the second power meter is configured to sample power and generate a second power sample and the controller is configured to receive the first power sample and the second power sample.
Kato, however, is from the same field of invention (i.e., wireless power) and further teaches it is known to have a first power meter (fig.1, 15, pars [25, 27-28, 45]; 15 measures the “power transmission amount transmitted” by the transmitter. Since 15 measures the power amount transmitted and inputs it to controller 17, it reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “power meter” as applicant’s disclosure defines a power meter as the controller “receive power measurements from power meter” in par [68] of the disclosure. Note: the claimed “power meter” is not structurally distinguished from Kato’s detector 15), wherein the first power meter (15) is configured to sample power at the transmitter and generate a first power sample (pars [25, 27, 45-46] and related discussion; Kato teaches item 15 is connected without any intervening components to the feed path to the transmitter antenna/coil 13 and “detects a power transmission amount transmitted by the transmission unit”- this is effectively sampling power at the transmitter and generating said first sample/ power transmission amount to controller 17); a second power meter (fig.1, 27; pars [25, 27, 35, 38, 44]; 27 measures the amount of power reception received by the rectenna 21, 22. Note: the claimed “power meter” is not structurally distinguished from Kato’s detector 27) coupled to the rectenna (fig.1, 21, 22), wherein the second power meter (27) is configured to sample power indirectly at the rectenna via 23 and generate a second power sample (pars [25, 27, 44, 46] and related discussion; Kato teaches item 27 samples power at the rectenna 21, 22 via 23 by detecting the received power reception amount and generating said second sample input to controller 17 via 18, 28) and the controller (17) is configured to receive the first power sample and the second power sample (pars [25, 27]; controller 17 receives first power sample from 15 and second power sample from 27 via 18, 28).
In the combination, the teachings of the combination of Tseliakhovich in view of Hoover would be further modified to include the first power meter, as discussed within Kato, coupled to modified Tseliakhovich’s waveguide (i.e., in the feed path of the reflector) in order to sample power at the reflector and a second power meter coupled to the rectenna, as discussed within Kato, to sample power received and for the controller to receive both samples to determine the efficiency and, in turn, the positional adjustment for the rectenna.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Kato. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps of the combination, particularly Hoover, who already teaches measuring the efficiency of power being transmitted by the transmitter and received at the receiver in order to adjust the position of the receiver. Kato fills in the gaps by showing how said efficiency is measured, which is to have a first power meter and a second power meter to sample the power transmitted at the reflector (in the combination) and the power received coupled to the rectenna (in the combination) to determine the efficiency and, in turn, the positional adjustment for the rectenna with the highest measured efficiency.
The combination, particularly Kato, teaches the second power meter (27) indirectly coupled to the rectenna (21, 22) to indirectly (i.e., via 23) sample power at the rectenna. The combination, however, does not explicitly disclose the second power meter sampling power at the rectenna.
Zeine (Fig.7), however, teaches it is known in the art for the second power meter (740) to be sampling power at the rectenna (750, 770; Col.8, line 64 to Col.9, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Zeine of the second power meter configured to sample power at the rectenna. The motivation would have been to directly measure the received power at the rectenna independent of downstream dc/dc converter regulation and losses.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 17 and further teaches wherein the positional adjustment comprises an adjusted tilt angle for the rectenna (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 17 and Hoover, pars [27-29, 37-39, 41-42]; Tseliakhovich teaches the rectenna at the receiver side. Hoover teaches the adjusting the positional adjustment includes orienting and rotating the receiver antenna/coil about the first axis and second axis which changes the angle of the receiver antenna/coil and corresponds to adjusting the tilt angle associated with the highest efficiency. Tseliakhovich’s rectenna’s position adjustment is modified to adjust its tilt angle).
Regarding Claim 23,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and the combination further teaches a second power meter (Kato, fig.1, 27; pars [25, 27, 35, 38, 44]; second power meter read on by 27, which measures the amount of power reception received by the rectenna 21, 22. Note: the claimed “second power meter” is not structurally distinguished from Kato’s detector 27) coupled to the rectenna (Kato, fig.1, 21, 22), wherein the second power meter is configured to sample power indirectly at the rectenna and generate the second power sample (Kato, pars [25, 27, 44, 46] and related discussion; Kato teaches item 27 samples power at the rectenna 21, 22 via 23 by detecting the received power reception amount and generating said second sample input to controller 17 via 18, 28).
The combination, particularly Kato, teaches the second power meter (27) indirectly coupled to the rectenna (21, 22) to indirectly (i.e., via 23) sample power at the rectenna. The combination, however, does not explicitly disclose the second power meter sampling power at the rectenna.
Zeine (Fig.7), however, teaches it is known in the art for the second power meter (740) to be sampling power at the rectenna (750, 770; Col.8, line 64 to Col.9, lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Zeine of the second power meter configured to sample power at the rectenna. The motivation would have been to directly measure the received power at the rectenna independent of downstream dc/dc converter regulation and losses.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseliakhovich (2014/0354064) in view of Hoover (2015/0204928) in further view of Kato (2013/0099586).
Regarding Claim 21,
Tseliakhovich teaches a system, comprising:
a reflector (pars [22, 32, 36]; reflector antenna 57) configured to transmit a signal (53, par [32]);
a waveguide (see figs.2-3, pars [21, 30-32]) coupled to the reflector (see figs.2-3; the waveguide is coupled to the reflector as it guides a beam into reflector antenna 57); and
a controller (97) coupled to the waveguide (pars [30-32]; controller 97 is coupled to the transmitter 24 in which the waveguide is included- thus, the controller 97 is “coupled” to the waveguide).
Tseliakhovich further teaches adjusting the position of the reflector to produce maximum energy at the location of a rectenna (41, pars [28, 32, 38]; mechanical steering and rotating the reflector antenna to produce maximum energy).
Tseliakhovich does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to determine, a positional adjustment for the rectenna, and send a signal to the rectenna to adjust its position based on the positional adjustment.
Hoover (figs.1-6), however, teaches the controller (116, 118) is configured to determine a positional adjustment for the receiver that includes a receiver coil/antenna (110, 114, pars [22, 29, 31, 37, 39, 42]; the controller determines the positional adjustment for the receiver coil/antenna by determining the position associated with the highest measured power efficiency), and send a signal to the receiver system to adjust its position based on the positional adjustment (pars [29, 31, 36-37, 39, 42]; controller 116 has a communication port to communicate and instruct the receiver system via positioning system 114 (i.e., send a signal) to adjust by rotating the receiver coil/antenna 110 based on the positional adjustment associated with the highest measured efficiency).
In the combination, Tseliakhovich is modified so that in addition to adjusting the position of the reflector (i.e., the transmitter side), the controller is also capable of adjusting the position of the rectenna (i.e., the receiver side) by determining a positional adjustment for Tseliakhovich’s rectenna based on measured power efficiency and sending a signal to adjust the rectenna’s position based on the positional adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tseliakhovich to that of Hoover. The motivation would have been because Hoover teaches that positional adjustment is not only restricted to the reflector/transmitter side but can also be implemented on the receiver side by adjusting the position of the rectenna (in the combination) to maximize the efficiency and the power received at the rectenna. This, in turn, results in a more robust and dynamic system that is capable of adjusting the position of either/both the reflector and the rectenna to maximize the power received at the rectenna.
The combination does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to receive a first power sample from the reflector and a second power sample from the rectenna.
Kato, however, is from the same field of invention (i.e., wireless power) and further teaches it is known that the controller (17) is configured to receive a first power sample from a transmitter (pars [25, 27-28, 45-46]; 15 measures the “power transmission amount transmitted” by the transmitter noting that there are no intervening components between 15 and transmitter antenna 13 and controller 17 receives it. This reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of power “sample” as the claim does not structurally identify how “sample” is being done) and a second power sample from the rectenna (pars [25, 27, 44, 46] and related discussion; Kato teaches item 27 indirectly samples power from the rectenna 21, 22 via 23 by detecting the received power reception amount and controller 17 receives said second information via 18, 28).
In the combination, the teachings of the combination of Tseliakhovich in view of Hoover would be further modified to sample power in the feed path of the reflector in order to receive a first power sample “from the reflector”, and to sample power indirectly from the rectenna and for the controller to receive both samples to determine the efficiency and, in turn, the positional adjustment for the rectenna.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Kato. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps of the combination, particularly Hoover, who already teaches measuring the efficiency of power being transmitted by the transmitter and received at the receiver in order to adjust the position of the receiver. Kato fills in the gaps by showing how said efficiency is measured, which is to sample the power transmitted from the reflector (in the combination) and the power received from the rectenna (in the combination) to determine the efficiency and, in turn, the positional adjustment for the rectenna with the highest measured efficiency.
Regarding Claim 22,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and further teaches a first power meter (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 21, Kato, fig.1, 15, pars [25, 27-28, 45]; Kato’s 15 measures the “power transmission amount transmitted” by the transmitter and inputs it to controller 17, which reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “power meter” as applicant’s disclosure defines a power meter as the controller “receive power measurements from power meter” in par [68] of the disclosure. Note: the claimed “power meter” is not structurally distinguished from Kato’s detector 15) coupled to the waveguide and the controller (Tseliakhovich, pars [21, 30-32] and Kato, fig.1, pars [25, 27-28, 45]; Tseliakhovich teaches the waveguide and the controller 97 are coupled and Kato teaches the power meter 15 is coupled to the controller 17. Thus, the combination teaches the power meter is coupled to the waveguide and the controller), wherein the first power meter is configured to sample power at the reflector (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 21, Kato, pars [25, 27, 45-46] and related discussion; Tseliakhovich teaches the reflector antenna and Kato teaches item 15 is connected without any intervening components to the feed path to the transmitter antenna/coil 13 and “detects a power transmission amount transmitted by the transmission unit”- this is effectively sampling power at the transmitter antenna/coil. Thus, in the combination, the power meter is applied to the reflector to sample power at it), and generate the first power sample (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 21, Kato, pars [25, 27, 45-46] and related discussion; Kato teaches item 15 generating said first sample/ power transmission amount to input to controller 17).
Regarding Claim 24,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and further teaches wherein the positional adjustment comprises an adjusted tilt angle for the rectenna (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 21 and Hoover, pars [27-29, 37-39, 41-42]; Tseliakhovich teaches the rectenna at the receiver side. Hoover teaches the adjusting the positional adjustment includes orienting and rotating the receiver antenna/coil about the first axis and second axis which changes the angle of the receiver antenna/coil and corresponds to adjusting the tilt angle associated with the highest efficiency. Tseliakhovich’s rectenna’s position adjustment is modified to adjust its tilt angle) or an adjusted height for the rectenna (limitation written in the alternative and not required to be read into the claim).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseliakhovich (2014/0354064) in view of Hoover (2015/0204928) in further view of Kato (2013/0099586) in further view of Zeine (8,854,176 B2) in further view of Liu et al. (2023/0133184 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the positional adjustment comprises an adjusted tilt angle for the rectenna (see rejection of claim 4). Additionally, it is noted that Tseliakhovich’s rectenna equipped in the aerial vehicle would obviously have its height adjusted as the aerial vehicle follows flight paths.
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the positional adjustment comprises an adjusted height for the rectenna.
Liu, however, teaches it is known in the art for the positional adjustment to comprise an adjusted height for a receiver (pars [26, 28] and related discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the positional adjustment for the rectenna to further comprise an adjusted height as taught by Liu. The motivation would have been because height is a known parameter for positional adjustment that directly affects power reception efficiency; by adjusting the height of the rectenna to an optimal height, the efficiency at which the rectenna receives wireless power is maximized.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the positional adjustment comprises an adjusted tilt angle for the rectenna (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 1 and Hoover, pars [27-29, 37-39, 41-42]; Tseliakhovich teaches the rectenna at the receiver side. Hoover teaches the adjusting the positional adjustment includes orienting and rotating the receiver antenna/coil about the first axis and second axis which changes the angle of the receiver antenna/coil and corresponds to adjusting the tilt angle associated with the highest efficiency. Thus, the combination teaches the rectenna’s positional adjustment comprises an adjusted tilt angle). Additionally, it is noted that Tseliakhovich’s rectenna equipped in the aerial vehicle would obviously have its height adjusted as the aerial vehicle follows flight paths.
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the positional adjustment further comprises an adjusted height for the rectenna.
Liu, however, teaches it is known in the art for the positional adjustment to comprise an adjusted height for a receiver (pars [26, 28] and related discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the positional adjustment for the rectenna further comprise an adjusted height as taught by Liu. The motivation would have been because height is a known parameter for positional adjustment that directly affects power reception efficiency; by adjusting the height of the rectenna to an optimal height, the efficiency at which the rectenna receives wireless power is maximized.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 recites the same limitations as discussed above in the rejection of claim 5 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 recites the same limitations as discussed above in the rejection of claim 6 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseliakhovich (2014/0354064) in view of Hoover (2015/0204928) in further view of Kato (2013/0099586) in further view of Liu et al. (2023/0133184 A1).
Regarding Claim 25,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 21 and further teaches wherein the positional adjustment comprises an adjusted tilt angle for the rectenna (Tseliakhovich, see rejection of claim 21 and Hoover, pars [27-29, 37-39, 41-42]; Tseliakhovich teaches the rectenna at the receiver side. Hoover teaches the adjusting the positional adjustment includes orienting and rotating the receiver antenna/coil about the first axis and second axis which changes the angle of the receiver antenna/coil and corresponds to adjusting the tilt angle associated with the highest efficiency. Thus, the combination teaches the rectenna’s positional adjustment comprises an adjusted tilt angle). Additionally, it is noted that Tseliakhovich’s rectenna equipped in the aerial vehicle would obviously have its height adjusted as the aerial vehicle follows flight paths.
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the positional adjustment further comprises an adjusted height for the rectenna.
Liu, however, teaches it is known in the art for the positional adjustment to comprise an adjusted height for a receiver (pars [26, 28] and related discussion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the positional adjustment for the rectenna to further comprise an adjusted height as taught by Liu. The motivation would have been because height is a known parameter for positional adjustment that directly affects power reception efficiency; by adjusting the height of the rectenna to an optimal height, the efficiency at which the rectenna receives wireless power is maximized.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (subject to correction of the claim objections set forth above).
With respect to dependent claim 7, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the limitations of “wherein the controller is further configured to: generate a plurality of instructions, wherein the plurality of instructions contain a plurality of respective height adjustments for the rectenna; receive a plurality of power measurements from the rectenna corresponding to each height adjustment in the plurality of height adjustments; and determine the positional adjustment based on the plurality of power measurements.”
With respect to dependent claim 8, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the limitations “wherein the controller is further configured to: generate a plurality of instructions, wherein the plurality of instructions contain a plurality of respective tilt angle adjustments for the rectenna, receive a plurality of power measurements from the rectenna corresponding to each tilt angle adjustment in the plurality of tilt angle adjustments; and determine the positional adjustment based on the plurality of power measurements.”
Conclusion
There is no prior art for claims 26-28. They would be allowable if amended to address the 112a and 112b rejections set forth above, and rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights