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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-44 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/25/2026. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11 and 45-48 in the reply filed on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search does not present an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are categorized in different subclasses and because the product can be made by more than one method (as set forth in the previous Office Action) meaning that the method may not necessarily be encountered during a search for the product. Additionally, due to the overwhelming amount of art to be considered in the relevant classification search areas, a complete search of both inventions would place undue burden on the examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL."
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelenbosch (2013, “Luminescent solar concentrators with fiber geometry”, Optics Express) in view of Verbunt (2012, “Increased efficiency of luminescent solar concentrators after application of organic wavelength selective mirrors”, Optics Express).
Regarding claim 1:
Edelenbosch teaches an optical waveguide (1. Introduction, the luminescent solar concentrator [LSC] is a polymer waveguide), comprising:
an optical fiber with a fiber core (2.1 Verification of the ray-trace model, the models have been verified on actual PMMA core fibers with an outer cladding [“doped PMMA core within an outer transparent PMMA cylinder”]); and
an optical active cladding structure over at least a portion of the fiber core at a first end of the optical waveguide (2.2 Scope of the study, “for the coated fibers the dye doped coating was 0.05 mm thick,” if the coating is on stated be on the fiber, then at least a portion and a first end of the optical waveguide has a cladding structure, making it an obvious design choice for a skilled artisan; Figure 2b shows a partially coated fiber as well, motivated by capturing diffuse sunlight with low loss),
wherein the optical active cladding structure comprises:
and a wavelength conversion coating over the fiber core of the optical fiber (Figure 2a, Lumogen Red 305 is applied on the fiber core),
the wavelength conversion coating being configured to convert radiation with wavelengths in a first wavelength region into radiation with wavelengths in the second wavelength region (the dye coating absorbs light at a first wavelength, making any region where 400-600 nm light is absorbed a ‘first wavelength region’; this light is then re-emitted at longer wavelengths, 600-750 nm, a second wavelength region),
Edelenbosch does not teach a Bragg mirror stacking.
Verbunt teaches an LSC waveguide (1. Introduction, also teaches LSCs in waveguides designed for solar energy harvesting, also visualized in Figure 1)
a Bragg mirror stacking (Title, “wavelength selective mirrors,” are known to be Bragg mirrors to a skilled artisan) having a high transmittance in a first wavelength region and a high reflectivity in a second wavelength region of wavelengths longer than wavelengths in the first wavelength region (Figure 4 and Table 1, the luminophore absorption region on the left as a first wavelength region, the second wavelength region on the right at longer wavelengths; Verbunt uses the same dye coating Lumogen Red 305, making the first and second wavelength regions of both disclosures equivalent),
wherein the Bragg mirror stacking is disposed over the wavelength conversion coating (2. Theoretical approach, “The wavelength selective mirrors are placed on top of an LSC to reflect photons normally escaping through the top surface of the LSC back in the waveguide”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of Edelenbosch under the teachings to Verbunt, to include a Bragg mirror stacking in the first wavelength region over the coating in Edelenbosch’s LSC. This may be accomplished using components and placement techniques known to a skilled artisan, and would be predictably result in a device which experiences fewer escape-cone losses (Edelenbosch describes this as a major loss mechanism, Verbunt shows this can be reduced by 66% in theory, Table 2; this makes the combination well motivated and obviously beneficial without any undue changes to the invention).
Regarding claim 2:
Edelenbosch in view of Verbunt teaches the optical waveguide of claim 1, wherein
the wavelength conversion coating comprises a wavelength conversion dye that is configured to emit radiation with wavelengths in the second wavelength region by stimulated emission upon being irradiated with radiation with wavelengths in the first wavelength region (Figure 2a, the left curve is the absorption, the right curve is the re-emission),
and/or wherein the first wavelength region is located between about 380 nm and about 700 nm and the second wavelength region is located between about 700 nm and about 1.4 µm (Figure 2a, the second wavelength region clearly expands into the range of 700-1400 nm).
Additionally, Edelenbosch acknowledges that dyes which extend even further in a second wavelength region are known and have greater efficiencies, making them desirable alternatives (6. Conclusions, “A highly efficient luminescent species that absorbs into the NIR and has emission just below the bandgap of Si could almost double LSC efficiencies.”)
Regarding claim 7:
Edelenbosch in view of Verbunt teaches the optical waveguide of claim 1,
wherein the optical active cladding structure is formed such that the optical fiber is at least partially covered by the wavelength conversion coating in a region at the first end (Figure 2b, fiber cross section shows a fiber where only a portion is coated with dye).
Regarding claim 8:
Edelenbosch in view of Verbunt teaches the optical waveguide of claim 1.
Edelenbosch does not teach the Bragg mirror coating.
Verbunt teaches the Bragg mirror coating (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the optical fiber is completely covered by the Bragg mirror coating along its entire length and/or its entire circumference (Figure 10, samples with 100% coverage had better photon trapping).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 under the teachings of Verbunt to include full-surface Bragg mirror stacking. This could be accomplished using methods and materials known in the art, and would predictably result in a device which is maximally capable of trapping photons for optical signal transport as intended.
Regarding claim 9:
Edelenbosch in view of Verbunt teaches the optical waveguide of claim 1.
While Edelenbosch benchmarks fibers up to 1m which concentration increasing linearly with length, they also explicitly state the positive potential of ‘long fibers’ using the disclosed methods. The reason is as follows: as seen in Figure 5a, photon concentration increases linearly with length because maximum reabsorption occurs within a short fiber segment, after which additional length only adds geometric gain.
The claimed fiber length of up to about 25,000 km is not explicitly disclosed, but the claimed range encompasses virtually any fiber length. Conventional telecom optical fibers are routinely manufactured in continuous lengths exceeding 100 km, with submarine cables spanning thousands of km. The instant app itself acknowledges lengths of fiber between “5 nm to 7500 km,” and absent any claimed exception or special technique, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to simply make the fiber longer, as the added surface area only serves to enable additional light collection, balancing against propagation losses.
The claimed range is so broad as to be essentially non-limiting – all ranges from the nanometer scale to intercontinental scale are covered by 25,000 km.
Regarding claim 10:
Edelenbosch in view of Verbunt discloses an optical waveguide system, comprising plural ones of the optical waveguide of claim 1, wherein at least some of the optical waveguides are arranged so as to cover a two-dimensional area or three-dimensional arrangement at the first ends of these optical waveguides, wherein the first ends of these optical waveguides are arranged substantially in parallel at their first ends (Section 4, “Next we considered a configuration of five coated fibers lying next to one another,” so as to cover a 2-dimensional area).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelenbosch (2013, “Luminescent solar concentrators with fiber geometry”, Optics Express) in view of Verbunt (2012, “Increased efficiency of luminescent solar concentrators after application of organic wavelength selective mirrors”, Optics Express), and further in view of Selm, (2010, Polymeric Optical Fiber Fabrics for Illumination and Sensorial Applications in Textiles, JIMSS).
Regarding claim 11:
Edelenbosch in view of Verbunt teaches the optical waveguide system of claim 10.
Edelenbosch does not teach optical fiber textiles.
Selm teaches weaving polymer optical fibers into fabrics (Figure 3, the results are shown) wherein the optical waveguides comprise a first subset of optical waveguides with their first ends being arranged substantially in parallel and a second subset of optical waveguides with their first ends being arranged substantially in parallel, wherein the optical waveguides of the first and second subsets are interwoven at their first ends such that the optical waveguides of the first subset extend across the optical waveguides of the second subset at their first ends (Figure 1, use of standard warp and weft techniques are illustrated).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the invention described in the rejection of claim 10 under the teachings of Selm into interlaced, 2-d and 3-d structures as those seen in textiles, under the principles and tools known in the art and as adapted from textile manufacture. This would predictably result in reliable 2-d arrays of fibers that maintain their relative orientations and contribute to bulk devices that are robust optical fiber ‘fabrics’ which cover a sizable area and absorb solar radiance efficiently.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelenbosch (2013, “Luminescent solar concentrators with fiber geometry”, Optics Express) in view of Verbunt (2012, “Increased efficiency of luminescent solar concentrators after application of organic wavelength selective mirrors”, Optics Express), and further in view of Byren (US 20150093085 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
Edelenbosch in view of Verbunt teaches the optical waveguide of claim 1.
Edelenbosch teaches a solid core PMMA fiber, not an air core.
Air core fibers with glass/polymeric coatings are well known in the art, by applicant’s own admission (Specification [0010], “An air core fiber provides the advantage that light transmitted via the air core experiences less damping than light transmitted in optical fibers having a glass or polymeric core,” the air core and its advantage are not disclosed to be inventive concepts by any means, and a skilled artisan is aware of them and their capabilities).
Byren et al. teaches an example of a hollow core and glass/polymeric cladding around the hollow core (Title). The advantage is clear – the latency of optical energy through dielectric materials is greater than that propagation through air, and much greater than that of empty space (Detailed description, first paragraph, alongside basic E&M knowledge).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under routine knowledge in the art and also the teachings of Byren et al., to modify the solid core PMMA fiber of Edelenbosch to be one comprising a hollow core. The manufacturing could be performed using known methods and the device would predictably benefit from the alteration by propagating optical energy through air instead of a medium to reduce propagation losses and improve optical latency.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelenbosch (2013, “Luminescent solar concentrators with fiber geometry”, Optics Express) in view of Verbunt (2012, “Increased efficiency of luminescent solar concentrators after application of organic wavelength selective mirrors”, Optics Express), and further in view of Mateen (2017, “Metal nanoparticles based stack structured plasmonic luminescent solar concentrator”, Solar Energy).
Regarding claim 4:
Edelenbosch in view of Verbunt teaches the optical waveguide of claim 1.
Edelenbosch is silent on the fluorescence enhancement.
Mateen teaches an LSC (1. Introduction) wherein the wavelength conversion coating is configured to enhance fluorescence via a plasmonic enhancement function with surface plasmon (Abstract, “we present an effective approach aimed at enhancing the edge emissions of luminescent solar concentrator based on stacking two waveguides, each containing a discrete set of metal nanoparticles (NPs) and organic luminophores”)
Section 2.2 additionally describes the plasmonic enhancement process with silver and gold particles.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 1 above under the teachings of Mateen to improve the wavelength conversion coating by enhancing fluorescence via incorporated metal nanoparticles. This may be accomplished using methods and materials known in the art, and would predictably result in a device which preserves more of the optical signal due to heightened fluorescence without altering the function of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5:
Edelenbosch in view of Verbunt, and further in view of Mateen teaches the optical waveguide of claim 4.
Edelenbosch does not teach a nanoparticle film in the coating.
Mateen teaches that
the wavelength conversion coating further comprises a nanoparticle film
Specifically, metal nanoparticles (Abstract, gold and silver) embedded in a PMMA matrix films as a coating on an LSC fiber (1. Introduction, final paragraph: “The first waveguide is coated with silver nanoparticles [AgNPs] dispersed in a luminophore [Fluorescent Yellow 10GN] doped in a PMMA film which has the capability to absorb high energy photons”,
and a silicon oxide or silica matrix material which covers the nanoparticle film (this combination, such as Au@SiO2 structures, is a standard configuration in plasmonic fluorescence enhancement, for example this material is disclosed in Jung et al. (2017, “Au/SiO2 Nanoring Plasmon Waveguides at Optical Communication Band”, Optics Express)
and over which the Bragg mirror stacking is disposed (in the combination of claim 4, Verbunt’s Bragg mirror stacking goes over the coating)
and/or wherein the nanoparticle film has a thickness in a range from about 500 nm to about 3 µm
Mateen’s nanoparticle-doped coating with thicknesses in this range (Section 2.2, 1.5-micron thickness is disclosed).
nanoparticle film thickness is a results effective variable effecting the plasmonic coupling efficiency and light absorption during operation, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to optimize to any thickness within 500 nm to 3 microns to preserve proper device function
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 4 above under the teachings of Mateen to include a nanoparticle film under the Bragg mirror stacking to improve optical signal propagation efficiency using methods and materials well established in the art.
Regarding claim 6:
Edelenbosch in view of Verbunt, and further in view of Mateen teaches the optical waveguide of claim 5.
wherein the nanoparticle film comprises nanoparticles with a size in the range from about 5 nm to about 100 nm and a shell having a thickness in the range from about 1 nm to about 80 nm (Mateen teaches Ag particles of 20 nm and 60 nm, and Au particles of 20 nm – Section 2.2; Mateen does not disclose the shell thickness explicitly, but it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to not construct a shell larger than the nanoparticle as it would insulate the material such that its properties are rendered inert, and thus the shell thickness would necessarily fall in the range of 1 to 80 nm; additionally, the shell thickness is a results effective variable which effects the electric properties of the underlying material, directing controlling the balance between fluorescent enhancement and quenching of optical signal).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 5 above under the teachings of Mateen to configure the nanoparticles of metal to have a size between 5 nm to 100 nm, with a shell between 1 and 80 nm. This could be accomplished using methods known in the art, and would predictably result in a nanoparticle implementation within the film coating the fiber that optimally enhances the fluorescent properties of the material such that signal is preserved with minimal loss and such that the nanoparticles themselves are utilized without material waste, which is costly.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armour (US 20100310766 A1), in view of Martinu (2000, Plasma deposition of optical films and coatings: A review, Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology)
Regarding claim 45:
Armour discloses a fabrication system for fabrication of an optical waveguide with a coating (Figure 1, Abstract, disclose a roll-to-roll CVD system for depositing multilayer thin films), the fabrication system comprising:
a reel on which an optical fiber is provided (Figure 1, supply roller 102 and/or receive roller 102’ have ‘web’ 104 provided on them, which is a reel of optical fiber);
an input iris separating an air environment from a vacuum environment (paragraph 31, vacuum pump 122 is coupled to the exhaust manifold 120; the substrate passes from supply roller to the deposition chamber via a passage 110. In paragraph 29, Armour further teaches barriers between chambers that can be ‘vacuum regions’ or ‘gas curtains.’ An input iris/aperture at the transition from air to vacuum is a standard means in vacuum engineering, and a basic application of ‘differential pumping’);
To the extent that Armour does not use the term ‘iris’ explicitly, providing an aperture between the air-side reel and the vacuum deposition zone is an obvious and necessary design element for any roll-to-roll CVD system, as a skilled artisan would understand.
and chamber process sections (process chambers 108; paragraph 28 teaches that they are all isolated from each other), which are each associated with pumps and irises (paragraph 29-31 show that the barriers have vacuum regions, which as explained above, are functionally equivalent/naturally implemented by irises and differential pumping).
Armour does not explicitly teach a Bragg mirror coating, wherein the chamber process sections comprise plasma low index and plasma high index sections (this makes for a Bragg mirror coating).
Martinu teaches that a PECVD is used to fabricate multilayer dielectric Bragg mirror (Abstract). This is accomplished by depositing alternating layers of materials through CVD, i.e. SiO2 for low index and TiO2 for high index.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the invention of Armour to include a Bragg mirror coating via the reel-to-reel CVD system. This may be accomplished using known methods in the CVD (as evidenced by Martinu’s PECVD system) and would predictably result in a device which imparts a Bragg mirror coating on the fibers and which ensures signal retention within the fiber during operation, reducing loss.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armour (US 20100310766 A1), in view of Martinu (2000, Plasma deposition of optical films and coatings: A review, Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology), and further in view of Edelenbosch (2013, “Luminescent solar concentrators with fiber geometry”, Optics Express).
Regarding claim 46:
Armour in view of Martinu teaches the fabrication system according to claim 45.
Armour does not teach the dye coating/quantum dot coating fabrication sections.
Edelenbosch teaches the dye coating of fibers (Lumogen 305 in 0.05 mm thick layers via casting or thermal vapor, Section 3.1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 45 above under the teachings of Edelenbosch to incorporate a fabrication section for dye coating and/or quantum dot coating at an input side upon drawing the optical fiber from the reel. This may be accomplished using an upstream coating station feeding into the roll-to-roll system as part of routine system design for a skilled artisan, and would predictably result in a device which manufactures a fiber that retains solar light more efficiently as a result of a dyed coating.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armour (US 20100310766 A1), in view of Martinu (2000, Plasma deposition of optical films and coatings: A review, Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology), and further in view of Mateen (2017, “Metal nanoparticles-based stack structured plasmonic luminescent solar concentrator”, Solar Energy).
Armour in view of Martinu teaches the fabrication system according to claim 45.
Armour does not teach that the system further comprises a fabrication section for coating with nanoparticles.
Mateen teaches applying metal nanoparticles (Abstract, Section 2.2, Au and Ag nanoparticles) in dye-doped PMMA solution by spin-coating onto LSC waveguides (like the claimed fibers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the rejection of claim 45 above under the teachings of Mateen to include a nanoparticle coating section upstream of the fiber-to-fiber reel. This is a routine addition of a known atmospheric pressure coating step to the fabrication line, and would predictably result in a fiber which benefits from the addition of metal nanoparticles for ensuring light retention and optical signal propagation along the length of the fiber.
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armour (US 20100310766 A1), in view of Martinu (2000, Plasma deposition of optical films and coatings: A review, Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology), and further in view of Edelenbosch (2013, “Luminescent solar concentrators with fiber geometry”, Optics Express) and Verbunt (2012, “Increased efficiency of luminescent solar concentrators after application of organic wavelength selective mirrors”, Optics Express).
Armour in view of Martinu teaches the fabrication system according to claim 45.
Amour does not disclose the remainder of the claim limitations, which are taught by Edelenbosch and Verbunt as shown in the rejection of claim 1, and described in detail below.
Edelenbosch teaches an optical waveguide (1. Introduction, the luminescent solar concentrator [LSC] is a polymer waveguide), comprising:
an optical fiber with a fiber core (2.1 Verification of the ray-trace model, the models have been verified on actual PMMA core fibers with an outer cladding [“doped PMMA core within an outer transparent PMMA cylinder”]); and
an optical active cladding structure over at least a portion of the fiber core at a first end of the optical waveguide (2.2 Scope of the study, “for the coated fibers the dye doped coating was 0.05 mm thick,” if the coating is on stated be on the fiber, then at least a portion and a first end of the optical waveguide has a cladding structure, making it an obvious design choice for a skilled artisan; Figure 2b shows a partially coated fiber as well, motivated by capturing diffuse sunlight with low loss),
wherein the optical active cladding structure comprises:
and a wavelength conversion coating over the fiber core of the optical fiber (Figure 2a, Lumogen Red 305 is applied on the fiber core),
the wavelength conversion coating being configured to convert radiation with wavelengths in a first wavelength region into radiation with wavelengths in the second wavelength region (the dye coating absorbs light at a first wavelength, making any region where 400-600 nm light is absorbed a ‘first wavelength region’; this light is then re-emitted at longer wavelengths, 600-750 nm, a second wavelength region),
Edelenbosch does not teach a Bragg mirror stacking.
Verbunt teaches an LSC waveguide (1. Introduction, also teaches LSCs in waveguides designed for solar energy harvesting, also visualized in Figure 1)
a Bragg mirror stacking (Title, “wavelength selective mirrors,” are known to be Bragg mirrors to a skilled artisan) having a high transmittance in a first wavelength region and a high reflectivity in a second wavelength region of wavelengths longer than wavelengths in the first wavelength region (Figure 4 and Table 1, the luminophore absorption region on the left as a first wavelength region, the second wavelength region on the right at longer wavelengths; Verbunt uses the same dye coating Lumogen Red 305, making the first and second wavelength regions of both disclosures equivalent),
wherein the Bragg mirror stacking is disposed over the wavelength conversion coating (2. Theoretical approach, “The wavelength selective mirrors are placed on top of an LSC to reflect photons normally escaping through the top surface of the LSC back in the waveguide”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the invention described in the manufacturing system of Armour, under the teachings to Edelenbosch and Verbunt, to include a Bragg mirror stacking in the first wavelength region over the coating in Edelenbosch’s LSC. This may be accomplished using components and placement techniques known to a skilled artisan, and would be a natural application of the fiber manufacturing system described in the combination of claim 45. Predictably, this would result in a fiber which experiences fewer escape-cone losses and which maintains optical signal over the length of the fiber (Edelenbosch describes this as a major loss mechanism, Verbunt shows this can be reduced by 66% in theory, Table 2; this makes the combination well motivated and obviously beneficial without any undue changes to the invention).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREET B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, THOMAS A HOLLWEG can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/PREET B PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874