DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 7(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/24/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Claims 1-35 are cancelled.
Claim 36 is amended.
Claims 47-56 are withdrawn.
Claims 36-56 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HONG (Parameter optimization and experiment verification for a beta radioluminescence nuclear battery).
Regarding claim 36, HONG teaches a photovoltaic system (see the beta radioluminescence nuclear battery) (see Abstract, Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a radiation product source that is radioactive (see the 147Pm source) (see Abstract, Fig. 1);
a conversion material (see the ZnS:Cu phosphor layer) configured to convert one or more types of radiation products emitted by the radiation product source to light (The ZnS:Cu layer converts the beta energy emitted by the 147Pm source to the light) (see Abstract, Fig. 1); and
a plurality of photovoltaic cells (see the two photovoltaic cells) (see Fig. 1);
wherein wavelengths of the light are approximately all within a bandgap wavelength range (Luminescence spectra of ZnS:Cu phosphor layers under 147Pm excitation in Fig. 3 shows the wavelengths of the light ranging from 450 nm to 650 nm (see Fig. 3); The triple junction GaAs photovoltaic cell was used for the photovoltaic cells (see Experiment verification); Since GaAs absorbs light within a bandgap wavelength ≤ 870 nm, the wavelengths of the light ranging from 450 nm to 650 nm are approximately all within the bandgap wavelength ≤ 870 nm); and
wherein the one or more types of radiation products are selected from the group consisting of fission fragments, alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, electrons, protons, and high energy photons (see the beta particles) (see Abstract, Fig.1, Results and Discussion).
Regarding claim 37, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
HONG teaches the conversion material comprises a configuration selected from the group consisting of fluorescent molecules or atoms embedded in a glass or ceramic matrix, powder, thin film, layer, conversion material surrounding the radiation product source, powder suspended in a liquid, gaseous, or fluid environment, and conversion material embedded in a waveguide (see the ZnS:Cu phosphor layer, which is fluorescent molecules embedded in a layer).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG (Parameter optimization and experiment verification for a beta radioluminescence nuclear battery) as applied to claim 36 above, further in view of XU (CsPbBr3 Quantum Dot Films with High Luminescence Efficiency and Irradiation Stability for radioluminescent Nuclear Battery Application).
Regarding claim 38, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the photovoltaic cells comprise silicon”, HONG discloses the GaAs photovoltaic cell (see Experiment verification), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “silicon”. However, XU discloses a radioluminescent nuclear battery, wherein visible light was captured using a photovoltaic device, such as gallium arsenide (GaAs) or silicon (Si) solid-state semiconductors (P14193). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the silicon (Si) solid-state semiconductor for the photovoltaic cells in the device of HONG as taught by XU, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 39, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 38.
Modified HONG teaches the bandgap wavelength range is approximately 800 nm to approximately 1050 nm (The bandgap wavelength range for the silicon (Si) solid-state semiconductor is 300 nm – 1100 nm; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected wavelength within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 40, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 39.
Modified HONG teaches the bandgap wavelength range is approximately 850 nm to approximately 950 nm (The bandgap wavelength range for the silicon (Si) solid-state semiconductor is 300 nm – 1100 nm; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected wavelength within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG (Parameter optimization and experiment verification for a beta radioluminescence nuclear battery) as applied to claim 36 above, further in view of XU II (Radioluminescent Nuclear Battery Technology Development for Space Exploration).
Regarding claim 41, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the photovoltaic cells are not multi-junction cells”, HONG discloses the triple junction GaAs photovoltaic cells (see Experiment verification), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “not multi-junction cells”. However, XU discloses a radioluminescent nuclear battery comprising single-junction GaAs photovoltaic modules (see Figs. 1, 5; The single-junction GaAs photovoltaic modules are not multi-junction cells). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the single-junction GaAs photovoltaic modules for the photovoltaic cells in the device of HONG as taught by XU II, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG (Parameter optimization and experiment verification for a beta radioluminescence nuclear battery) as applied to claim 36 above, further in view of HWANG (US 20090188551 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the plurality of photovoltaic cells are configured in a series-parallel network”, HWANG discloses when the solar cells are connected in the combination of series and parallel, a desired magnitude of voltage and current can be more easily obtained. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the multiple numbers of photovoltaic cells in combination of series and parallel interconnection in the device of HONG as taught by HWANG, because the multiple numbers of photovoltaic cells in combination of series and parallel interconnection easily provides the desired magnitude of voltage and current.
Claims 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG (Parameter optimization and experiment verification for a beta radioluminescence nuclear battery) as applied to claim 36 above, further in view of YABLONOVITCH (US 20170025984 A1).
Regarding claims 43-44, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
Regarding the claimed “a screen configured to block material sublimated or evaporated from the radiation product source from depositing on at least one of the photovoltaic cells” in claim 43 and “wherein the screen is transparent to light within the bandgap wavelength range”, YABLONOVITCH discloses a thermophotovoltaic (TPV) system using nuclear or radioactive heat [0019], wherein the TPV components can optionally include a filter 18 between the photovoltaic device 14 and the emitter 12, and the filter 18 can be configured to transmit wavelengths within the TPV wavelength range and to return wavelengths outside of the TPV wavelength range to the emitter 12 (see [0021] and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the filter between the ZnS:Cu phosphor layer and the photovoltaic cell in HONG as taught by YABLONOVITCH, because the filter transmits wavelengths within the photovoltaic wavelength range and returns wavelengths outside of the photovoltaic wavelength range to the ZnS:Cu phosphor layer. Therefore, modified KARALIS teaches a screen (see the filter) configured to block material sublimated or evaporated from the radiation product source from depositing on at least one of the reflectors photovoltaic cells (The filter has a capability of this function), wherein the screen is transparent to light within the bandgap wavelength range (The filter transmits wavelengths within the photovoltaic wavelength range).
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG (Parameter optimization and experiment verification for a beta radioluminescence nuclear battery) as applied to claim 36 above, further in view of LENERT (US 20160164451 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
Regarding the claimed “a thermal management system”, HONG does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, LENERT discloses the solar thermal photovoltaic device 10 may also include a thermal management system 26, (a chilled water cooling system), in thermal communication with the PV cell 18 (see [0023], Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when a solar cell's temperature increases, its efficiency decreases, therefore, the thermal management system (chilled water cooling system) keeps the photovoltaic device with low temperature and keeps the photovoltaic device efficiency high. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the thermal management system (chilled water cooling system) in the device of HONG as taught by LENERT, because the thermal management system (chilled water cooling system) keeps the photovoltaic device with low temperature and keeps the photovoltaic device efficiency high.
Regarding claim 46, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 35.
Modified HONG teaches the thermal management system maintains a temperature of the photovoltaic cells below approximately 10 oC (The chilled water typically ranges from 4.4 oC to 7.2 oC).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/24/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights