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
Applicant’s response of 12/4/2025 have been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1, 6, 20 have been amended, and claim 21 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-21 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response filed on 12/4/2025 has been considered. With respect to the double patenting rejection concerns raised by the applicant (see remarks, pgs.7-8), the examiner agrees that a non-statutory double patenting rejection should be applied to claim 1 of the pending application in view of claim 1 of U.S. patent 11, 444,491 as claim 1 of said U.S. patent encompasses claim 1 of the pending application in addition to having more limitations. However, the examiner believes claims 6 and 21 of the pending application are the same as claims 1 and 19 of U.S. patent 11, 444,491 and a statutory double-patenting rejection under 101 should be applied to those claims. The only difference between claims 6 and 21 of the pending application and claims 1 and 19 of said U.S. patent is the amendment made in the response where “send” in claim 1 and “transmitting” in claim 20 with respect to the information were changed to “retransmit”, which is incorrect. As stated in the claim objections below, applicant’s published disclosure, pars [0046, 0063, 0087, 0121], and the original claims, there is no support for the information to be “retransmit”. Applicant’s disclosure uses the terms “send” and “transmitting”, not “retransmit”. It is further noted that “retransmit” means to transmit the information again; however, there is no first iteration of transmitting the information to a controller in order to have a “retransmit”. It is further noted that the applicant stated “the applicant is filing herewith a terminal disclaimer…” (Remarks, pg.8), but did not actually file a terminal disclaimer.
Applicant argues what differentiates applicant’s claim 1 from the primary reference Davlantes is that Davlantes teaches “backscattering” whereas claim 1 is directed towards “retransmission” (Remarks, bridging paragraph, pgs.11, 12). The examiner respectfully disagrees, because Davlantes, figs. 3-4, pars [33-34] teaches the structure claimed of a receiver antenna array with respective rectifiers 312. These respective rectifiers inherently cause a reflection of a first portion of the first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array due to impedance differences as well-understood in the art. The examiner relied on secondary reference Johnston, pars [117, 162-163] to further illustrate this concept, which can also be found in applicant’s disclosure in par [0032]. The retransmission in claim 1 is implemented by the structure of an “antenna array” (see last wherein clause of claim 1). This structure is taught in the combination. The claim language does not recite any distinguishing structure from the prior art that would result in a particular retransmission. Applicant is encouraged to structurally distinguish their “retransmission” from Davlantes’ retransmission. With respect to the “retransmit” of information, as previously pointed out-there is no “retransmit” of information since no initial transmission of information occurs. Further, claim 1 recites “a transmitting device…adapted to retransmit…information”- “adapted to” does not require any information to be actually transmitted- just the capability to do so. Additionally, this information is not used for any particular purpose in the claim.
See below for further analysis of the claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 9-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,444,491. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. It is clear that all the elements of the application claims 1-5, 9-20 are to be found in patent claims 1-5, 8-19 (as the application claims 1-5, 9-20 fully encompasses patent claims 1-5, 18-19). The difference between the application claims 1-5, 9-20 and the patent claims 1-5, 8-19 lies in the fact that the patent claims include many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims 1-5, 8-19 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims 1-5, 9-20. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims 1-5,9-20 is anticipated by claims 1-5, 8-19 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims 1-5, 8-19 of the patent.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 6-8, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 6, 7, 19 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,444,491. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
PATENT APPLICATION 18/556,203
PATENT # 11,444,491
Claim 6: A receiver for absorbing a first RF electromagnetic beam transmitted from a transmitter, and converting it into electrical power, the receiver comprising: an array of antennas for receiving the first RF electromagnetic beam; electrical circuitry connected to receive RF electrical current from the array of antennas, the electrical circuitry comprising at least one converter for generating a DC current from the RF electrical current, and at least one component that reflects a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array; and a transmitting device associated with the receiver, adapted to retransmission from the antenna array, the second RF electromagnetic beam having the same fundamental frequency as the first RF electromagnetic beam, wherein the controller is configured to change the power transmitted by the transmitter towards the receiver, when the controller determines that the information relating to the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna array indicates that interference of the retransmitted second RF electromagnetic beam with the transmitted first RF electromagnetic beam would generate at least one local RF field intensity which exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Claim 1: A receiver for absorbing a first RF electromagnetic beam transmitted from a transmitter, and converting it into electrical power, the receiver comprising: an array of antennas for receiving the first RF electromagnetic beam; electrical circuitry connected to receive RF electrical current from the array of antennas, the electrical circuitry comprising at least one converter for generating a DC current from the RF electrical current, and the electrical circuitry comprising at least one component that reflects a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array; and a transmitting device associated with the receiver, adapted to send to a controller associated with the transmitter, information including the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna array, wherein the antenna array is configured to convert the reflected first portion of the RF electrical current into a second RF electromagnetic beam for retransmission from the antenna array, the second RF electromagnetic beam having the same fundamental frequency as the first RF electromagnetic beam, and wherein the controller is configured to change the power transmitted by the transmitter towards the receiver, when the controller determines that the information including the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna array indicates that interference of the retransmitted second RF electromagnetic beam with the transmitted first RF electromagnetic beam would generate at least one local RF field intensity which exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Claim 7: The receiver according to claim 6, wherein the change in the power transmitted by the transmitter towards the receiver comprises at least one of: (i) reducing the power of the first RF electromagnetic beam transmitted; (ii) terminating the power of the first RF electromagnetic beam transmitted; or (iii) diverting the direction of transmission of the first RF electromagnetic beam.
Claim 6: A receiver according to claim 1, wherein the change in the power transmitted by the transmitter towards the receiver comprises at least one of: (i) reducing the power of the first RF electromagnetic beam transmitted; (ii) terminating the power of the first RF electromagnetic beam transmitted; or (iii) diverting the direction of transmission of the first RF electromagnetic beam.
Claim 8: The receiver according to claim 6, wherein the threshold is an intensity level permitted by a safety regulation applicable where the receiver is intended to be used.
Claim 7: A receiver according to claim 1, wherein the threshold is an intensity level permitted by a relevant safety regulation.
Claim 21: A method of absorbing a first RF electromagnetic beam transmitted from a transmitter, and converting it into electrical power, the method comprising: absorbing the first RF electromagnetic beam on a receiver having an array of antennas for receiving the first RF electromagnetic beam; conveying an RF electrical current received from the array of antennas through electrical circuitry to a converter for generating a DC current from the RF electrical current, the electrical circuitry including at least one component that reflects a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array; and antenna array, the second RF electromagnetic beam having the same fundamental frequency as the first RF electromagnetic beam, further comprising the step of changing the power transmitted by the transmitter towards the receiver, when the controller determines that the information relating to the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna array indicates that interference of the retransmitted second RF electromagnetic beam with the transmitted first RF electromagnetic beam would generate at least one local RF field intensity which exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Claim 19: A method of absorbing a first RF electromagnetic beam transmitted from a transmitter, and converting it into electrical power, the method comprising: absorbing the first RF electromagnetic beam on a receiver having an array of antennas for receiving the first RF electromagnetic beam; conveying an RF electrical current received from the array of antennas through electrical circuitry to a converter for generating a DC current from the RF electrical current, the electrical circuitry including at least one component that reflects a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array; and transmitting from the receiver to a controller associated with the transmitter, information including the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna array, the antenna array converting the reflected first portion of the RF electrical current into a second RF electromagnetic beam for retransmission from the antenna array, the second RF electromagnetic beam having the same fundamental frequency as the first RF electromagnetic beam, wherein the controller is configured to change the power transmitted by the transmitter towards the receiver, when the controller determines that the information including the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna array indicates that interference of the retransmitted second RF electromagnetic beam with the transmitted first RF electromagnetic beam would generate at least one local RF field intensity which exceeds a predetermined threshold.
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.
Claims 1-21 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 1 recites “a transmitting device associated with the receiver, adapted to retransmit to a controller associated with the transmitter, information including…” There is no written description support for information to be retransmit from the transmitting device to the transmitter. Applicant’s published disclosure at pars [0046, 0063, 0087, 0121] states that the transmitting device is “adapted to send” and “transmitting to a controller… information”- there is no “retransmit” of information.
Claim 20, similar to claim 1, recites “retransmitting to a controller associated with the transmitter, information…” For the same reasons as discussed above, there is no written description support for retransmitting information to a controller of the transmitter.
Claims 2-19 depend on claim 1 and claim 21 depends on claim 20 and therefore inherit their deficiencies, respectively.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 11, 20, 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a transmitting device associated with the receiver, adapted to retransmit…information…” It is noted that there is no basis in the claim for “retransmit” information since there is no initial occurrence of information transmission. How can there be a “retransmit” (i.e., to transmit again) when there is no initial transmit of information? Further support is in applicant’s published disclosure, pars [0046, 0063, 0087, 0121], and the original claims that use the terms “send” and “transmitting”, not “retransmit”. Accordingly, the claim will instead be interpreted as “transmit”. Claim 20, similar to claim 1 recites “retransmitting”. For the same reasons as presented for claim 1, the claim will be interpreted as “transmitting” instead of “retransmitting”.
Claims 6 and 21 each recite “when the controller determines that the information relating to the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current…” Claims 1 and 19, however, respectively recite that the “information including the level of the first portion…” Claims 6 and 21 should be consistent with claims 1 and 20, respectively, and should be amended to recite “including” instead of “relating to”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 similarly recites “…the information relating to the level…”, which should also be corrected to “including the level…”.
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) 1-3, 9-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davlantes (2016/0094092 A1) in view of Johnston et al. (2019/0245389 A1) in further view of applicant cited Guo et al. (WO 2020/231330 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Davlantes (figs.1, 3, 4) teaches a receiver (item 132) for absorbing a first RF electromagnetic beam transmitted from a transmitter (item 100), and converting it into electrical power (pars [29, 33-35, 40]; Davlantes teaches receiving a transmitted RF beam and converting it into electrical power), the receiver comprising:
an array of antennas (rectenna array 400, fig.4, pars [34, 40]) for receiving the first RF electromagnetic beam (par [40] and related discussion; transmitted radio-frequency energy is incident on rectifying receiver, such as rectenna array 400);
electrical circuitry (figs.3, 4, respective rectifiers 312, MPPT 412, LPF 416, DC/DC 420, load, etc.) connected to receive RF electrical current from the array of antennas (pars [33-34]), the electrical circuity comprising at least one converter (for e.g., respective rectifiers 312, fig.4) for generating a DC current from the RF electrical current (pars [33-34]); and
a transmitting device (pars [27-30]; receiver communication circuitry communicating handshake signals, requests, pulses as well as other information) associated with the receiver, adapted to transmit to a controller (item 124) associated with the transmitter (fig.1), information from the receiver (pars [29-30, 40]; receiver communicating data for the transmitter to determine optimal ray path and control of pulses in connection to battery charging complete).
Davlantes teaches at least one component (i.e., respective rectifiers 312)/the structure recited in claim 3 that would inherently reflect a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array due to impedance differences as well-understood in the art. Further Davlantes teaches the structure of the antenna array (see figs.3-4, the claimed structure) that is configured to (i.e., capable of) inherently converting the reflected first portion of the RF electrical current that is inherently reflected from Davlantes’ respective rectifiers into a second RF electromagnetic beam for (“for” is intended use) retransmission from the antenna array (this is an intended benefit that would result from having the structure of the antenna array). Davlantes, however, does not explicitly disclose that the at least one component (i.e., rectifier(s)) would reflect a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna.
Johnston, however, teaches it is known in the art that the at least one component (i.e., rectifier 306) would reflect a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna (pars [117, 162-163] and related discussion; “when the impedances of the antenna 313 and the rectifier 306 are not matched, then some power from the antenna 313 is reflected off the rectifier 306 and the reflected power signals are transmitted back to the antenna 313.”)
In the combination, Davlantes’ at least one component (i.e., respective rectifiers 312) reflects a first portion of the RF electrical back towards the antenna array as discussed within Johnston, the antenna array (i.e., Davlantes teaches the claimed structure of the antenna array) is structurally capable of converting the reflected first portion into a second RF electromagnetic beam for retransmission from the antenna array, the second RF electromagnetic inherently having the same fundamental frequency as the first RF electromagnetic beam (since the frequency in Davlantes is not changed and would simply be a reflection of the frequency of the incident transmission it is a reflection of).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Davlantes to that of Johnston. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Davlantes and further illustrate that Davlantes’ respective rectifiers 312 would reflect a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array due to impedance differences as discussed within Johnston and that the antenna array is structurally configured to convert the reflected portion into a second RF beam for retransmission noting that the second RF beam would obviously have the same fundamental frequency of the transmission/the first RF beam it is a reflection of.
Davlantes in view of Johnston teach adapted to transmit information from the receiver to a controller of the transmitter (see analysis above). The combination, however, does not specify that the information includes the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna.
Guo (fig.2), however, similar to modified Davlantes teaches the at least one component (rectifier 250) reflects a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna (pg.7, line 1, “reflected signals from the rectifier 250”) and further teaches obtaining information including the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna (pg.6, line 31 to pg.7, line 11).
In the combination, Davlantes in view of Johnston’s transmitting device transmitting information to a controller associated with the transmitter would be modified to further include Guo’s information including the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the combination’s antenna array.
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’s information that is transmitted from the receiver to the transmitter to further include the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back as discussed within Guo. The motivation would have been to further assist the transmitter by including known information in order to optimize power transfer efficiency noting that the claim only requires transmitting information from the receiver without the transmitter actually using the information for any control purposes. Transmitting information that is not used for any particular purpose is obvious and well-within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner Note: The claim language does not recite any distinguishing structure from the prior art that would result in a particular retransmission and that the “information including the level…” is not used for any particular purpose in the claim.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein a second portion of the RF electrical current is converted into the DC current (Davlantes, figs.3, 4, pars [33-34]; a second portion of the RF current is converted into DC via respective rectifiers).
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the at least one component that reflects a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array is at least one of a rectifying device ((Davlantes, figs.3, 4, respective rectifiers 312 pars [33-34] and Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], Guo, pg.7, line 1; The combination of Davlantes in view of Johnston and Guo teaches the at least one component is a rectifying device that reflects a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array noting that receiver components cause some reflection due to impedance differences as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1), a rectifying bridge, a diode, or a semiconductor device.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the controller is configured to adjust the direction of transmission of the first RF electromagnetic beam to maximize the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna array (Davlantes, figs.1, 3-4, pars [33-34, 40], Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], see also rejection of claim 1; Modified Davlantes adjusts the RF beam path to find the most efficient path to the rectenna array-i.e., to maximize the level of the first portion of the reflected electrical current. Examiner Note: Claim 9 is directed to “the receiver” but then recites the operation of a transmitter controller, which is outside of the scope of the receiver/not further limiting and therefore has no patentable weight).
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9 and further teaches wherein the maximization of the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna array indicates that the first RF electromagnetic beam is impinging centrally on the antenna array (Davlantes, Figs.1, 3-4, 10, pars [33-34, 40], Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], see also rejection of claim 1; Modified Davlantes teaches the most efficient path which would correspond to a direct path/impinging centrally of the first RF beam. Note: the claim is not further limiting, because it does not recite any further limitation of the structure required to achieve the passive language/result “indicates that the first RF electromagnetic beam is impinging centrally on the antenna array”).
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the information relating to the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna array is obtained from a sensor sampling the first portion of the reflected RF electrical current (Guo, fig.2, pg.6, line 31 to pg.7, line 4, pg. 13, lines 1-8; Guo teaches measuring the reflected power using a directional coupler 210 and associated reflected power sensor 230).
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 11 and further teaches wherein the sensor is disposed at the coupled port of an output coupler (Guo, fig.2, pg.6, line 31 to pg.7, line 4, pg. 13, lines 1-8; Guo teaches the directional coupler 210 and reflected power sensor 230 electrically coupled to the directional coupler for measuring the reflected power).
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the antenna array is configured to retransmit the second RF electromagnetic beam either generally back along the direction of the first RF electromagnetic beam or generally in a direction towards which the first electromagnetic beam is reflected by the antenna array (Davlantes, figs.3-4, pars [33-35, 40] and Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], see rejection of claim 1; Modified Davlantes’ respective rectifiers reflect the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array, which is “configured to” retransmit the RF beam transmission back toward the transmitter).
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein the electrical circuitry is configured to add a predetermined time delay to the reflected first portion of the RF electrical current, such that the retransmitting of the second RF electromagnetic beam also has the added predetermined time delay (Davlantes, figs.3-4, 10, pars [33-34, 40], Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], and Guo, fig.2, see rejection of claim 1; Modified Davlantes’ electrical circuitry includes at least respective rectifiers that obviously introduces some time delay due to transmission of current and reflection through the components such that the retransmission of the RF beam has the time delay. Note: The claim does not recite a distinguishing or particular structure of the electrical circuitry that would add the time delay besides “electrical circuitry”, which includes the at least one component of claim 1 (i.e., a rectifier). Thus, the combination teaches the BRI of claim 14 as currently presented).
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 14 and further teaches wherein the predetermined time delay is generated either by circuitry geometry or by a component generating the delay (Davlantes, figs.3-4, 10, pars [33-34, 40], Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], see rejection of claim 1, 14; Modified Davlantes’ respective rectifiers and associated electrical circuitry obviously introduces and generates some time delay due to transmission of current and reflection through the components. Note: the component of the electrical circuitry recited is in claim 3 and modified Davlantes teaches the rectifying device/diode).
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 14 and further teaches wherein the predetermined time delay is configured to be sufficiently long that the controller can detect the retransmitted second RF electromagnetic beam without interference from the transmitted first RF electromagnetic beam (Davlantes, figs.1, 3-4, 10, pars [33-34, 40], Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], see rejection of claim 1; Davlantes when modified by Johnston to illustrate the reflection off the rectifier teaches the necessary component to introduce the time delay as claimed that would enable the time delay to be sufficiently long that the retransmitted RF beam received by the transmitter is without any interference from the incoming RF beam).
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the RF electrical current from each antenna array element is directed into a separate circuit for conversion to a DC current, and the DC currents from at least some of the separate circuits are added for supplying to a device (Davlantes, fig.4, pars [33-34]; respective rectifiers for antennas and combination of DC current outputs of rectifiers as illustrated in fig.4).
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination teaches the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps in claim 20 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
Specifically, the combination teaches a method of absorbing a first RF electromagnetic beam transmitted from a transmitter (Davlantes, 100, see rejection of claim 1), and converting it into electrical power (Davlantes, pars [29, 33-35, 40]; Davlantes teaches receiving a transmitted RF beam and converting it into electrical power), the method comprising:
absorbing the first RF electromagnetic beam on a receiver (Davlantes, figs. 1, 3, 4, 10, item 132) having an array of antennas (rectenna array 400, figs.3-4, 10, pars [33-34, 40]) for receiving the first RF electromagnetic beam (see rejection of claim 1);
conveying an RF electrical current received from the array of antennas through electrical circuitry (Davlantes, figs.4, 6, pars [33-34], respective rectifiers 312, MPPT 412, LPF 416, DC/DC 420, load, etc.) to a converter (Davlantes, figs.4, 6, respective rectifiers 312 and respective power conductors connecting the rectifiers to the antennas. Note: Applicant’s disclosure and claim 1 indicate that the “electrical circuitry” includes the converter as interpreted by the Examiner- thus, conveying current through the electrical circuitry includes conveying it to the converter within the electrical circuitry since “to” a converter indicates a destination within the circuitry, not after a series of other elements) for generating a DC current from the RF electrical current (Davlantes, pars [33-34]), the electrical circuitry including at least one component (for e.g., respective rectifiers 312, fig.4) that reflects a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array (Combination of Davlantes, pars [33-34], Figs.3-4, and Johnston, pars [117, 162-163] and related discussion, see rejection of claim 1; Davlantes’ respective rectifiers would inherently reflect a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna array as discussed within Johnston due to impedance differences); and
transmitting to a controller associated with the transmitter, information including the level of the first portion of the RF electrical current reflected back towards the antenna array (Davlantes, pars [29-30, 40] in combination with Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], and Guo, fig.2, pg.6, line 31 to pg.7, line 11 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1),
wherein the antenna array converts the reflected first portion of the RF electrical current into a second RF electromagnetic beam for retransmission from the antenna array (Davlantes, pars [33-34, 40] and Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], see rejection of claim 1), the second RF electromagnetic beam having the same fundamental frequency as the first RF electromagnetic beam (Davlantes, pars [33-34, 40] and Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davlantes (2016/0094092 A1) in view of Johnston et al. (2019/0245389 A1) in further view of applicant cited Guo et al. (WO 2020/231330 A1) in further view of Shin et al. (2016/0094091 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose at least one filter positioned between the at least one component and the antenna array, the filter being configured to attenuate the level of at least a first harmonic of the reflected RF electrical current.
Shin (fig.1), however, teaches at least one filter (121) positioned between the at least one component (for e.g., 123) and the antenna (110) that reflects a first portion of the RF electrical current back towards the antenna (see rejection of claim 1 with respect to reflection of RF electrical current back to the antenna array), the filter being configured to attenuate the level of at least a first harmonic of the reflected RF electrical current (pars [5-6, 16, 68, 112-114]).
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 combination to further include a filter between modified Davlantes’ at least one component and the antenna array in order to reduce unwanted harmonic signals that propagate back towards the antenna and to prevent re-radiation of RF harmonics.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 4 and further teaches wherein the attenuation of the level of the at least first harmonic of the reflected RF electrical current reduces the level of the at least first harmonic component of the retransmitted second RF electromagnetic beam (Davlantes, figs.3-4, pars [33-34], see rejection of claim 1, Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], see rejection of claim 1, Guo, see rejection of claim 1, and Shin, pars [112-114]; the combination teaches reducing the harmonics of the reflected RF electrical current via the harmonic rejecting filter, which then reduces the harmonics of the retransmitted second RF beam).
The combination does not explicitly disclose that reducing the harmonic component of the retransmitted RF beam is to a level below that allowed by a regulatory authority in the location where the receiver is intended to be used; however, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have done so since this would be considered an obvious design choice dependent on the receiver’s intended use. One skilled in the art would obviously know which location the receiver’s intended to be used and design the system so that the level of the harmonic component at which the reradiating RF beam is reduced to complies with and does not exceed the level allowed of the regulatory authority.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davlantes (2016/0094092 A1) in view of Johnston et al. (2019/0245389 A1) in further view of applicant cited Guo et al. (WO 2020/231330 A1) and in further view of Narayanan et al. (2017/0250559 A1).
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose a separate phase shifter in adjacent antenna elements of the array and to combine the phase shifted RF electric currents into a single circuit for conversion to a DC current as recited in claim 18.
Narayanan (figs.1, 4), however, teaches it is known in the art to have the RF electrical current from each antenna array element be directed into a separate phase shifter (see figs.1, 4, pars [25-28, 43-45]; each antenna array element coupled to separate phase shifters 404) adapted to (“adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform) compensate for the phase differences in the RF currents generated in adjacent antenna elements of the array (pars [25-28, 43-45]; Narayanan teaches the structure of the separate phase shifters 404 and teaches the RF currents generated in adjacent elements of the array are phase shifted via the separate phase shifters which compensates for the phase differences in the RF currents), and the phase shifted RF electric currents are combined into a single circuit for conversion to a DC current (figs.1 and 4, pars [25-28, 43-45]; phase shifted RF electric currents are combined via a combiner and provided to a rectifier for conversion to a DC current).
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 Narayanan by substituting the RF reception antenna and rectifier circuitry with the known RF reception antenna combiner circuitry of Narayanan in order to provide equivalent circuit means of combining and rectifying wireless power received from array of receiver antennas, and to provide the benefit of allowing the reception antenna to have the ability to steer reception direction by controlling phases to maximize the power captured from incoming RF power.
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 18 and further teaches wherein the phase shifts generated by the separate phase shifters are such that all of the RF electrical currents from the separate phase shifters are essentially in phase (Davlantes, figs.3-4, pars [33-34], Johnston, pars [117, 162-163], Narayanan, pars [25-28, 43-45]; Claim 19 is not further limiting as it does not further narrow the claim with a limitation of structure. The claim is descriptive of the structure of the separate phase shifters taught by Narayanan. Narayanan teaches controlling the phase shift values of the separate phase shifters so that the direction in which the power captured from the radiating source is maximized, which results in phase shifted currents being “essentially” in phase as understood in the art and in light of applicant’s disclosure. It is further noted that “essentially” does not require the phase shifted currents to be exactly in phase).
Conclusion
There is no prior art for claims 6-8, 21 and they would be allowable subject to overcoming the double patenting rejection, the lack of written description support rejection, and the claim objections set forth above.
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