DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/4/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 5-17 and 21 are 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 1 recites the limitation "a light output light" in the second clause. It is unclear what is meant by “a light output light”. It appears the intention is to recite “a light output”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the optical-to-electrical module is located to receive the light output and convert the light output into electricity” and “the silicon surfaces…within the optical-to-electrical module…the light output received in the optical-to-electrical module to generate an electric potential as a function of the silicon surfaces.” It appears the electric potential and the electricity in the claim are referencing the same thing, such that it is unclear if there is a difference. Clarification is requested.
Further, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “the optical-to-electrical module is located to receive the light output and convert the light output into electricity” and the claim also recites “the silicon surfaces…within the optical-to-electrical module…the light output received in the optical-to-electrical module to generate an electric potential as a function of the silicon surfaces” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ortabasi (US 2009/0272424).
Regarding claim 1, Ortabasi discloses a solar energy system (10; see Figure 1), comprising:
a polyangular, specular, mini-structure in the form of a hollow chamber (secondary concentrator 20; it is disclosed the concentrator is similar to the one in US 6,057,505 by Ortabasi as incorporated by reference ([0041]), where it can be seen in Figure 4 the concentrator is polyangular and specular, where Figure 6 shows there is a cover on the top such that it is a hollow chamber) with an exterior surface and an interior surface (inherent to the concentrator structure as shown in Figure 1), the interior surface having reflective facets disposed at angular orientations on the interior surface to define a light reflective interior of the chamber (inner surfaces mirrored 22; [0041]; see Figure 4 of US 6,057,505 incorporated by reference),
the mini-structure having a light-receiving aperture (where light 18 enters through the second stage concentrator 20; see Figure 1) and a light transmission aperture (aperture 24) extending between the exterior and interior surfaces at respective locations on the mini-structure (see Figure 1), the light receiving aperture adapted to receive light therethrough and transmit the light into the hollow chamber (see light 18 in Figure 1), the light transmission aperture being in optical communication with the interior of the chamber (see Figure 1);
wherein the angularly oriented, reflective facets are located to reflect light having a first lux value when impinged upon by the light entering through the light receiving aperture sufficiently and to thereby generate a light output light having a second lux value greater than the first lux value (second stage concentrator 20 also has mirrored surfaces 22 in which light is concentrated at the highest amount; [0041]), the light transmission aperture located and configured to permit the light output to exit therethrough (see Figure 1);
an optical-to-electrical module (solar cells 16) secured relative to the mini-structure to receive the light output and convert the light output into electricity ([0042]; see Figure 1), wherein the optical-to-electrical module comprises light-responsive elements (as set forth above), the light responsive elements including at least a pair of silicon surfaces (it is disclosed the solar cell can be silicon and there is at least a pair of the solar cells; [0042]) and a reflecting mirror (highly reflective interior surface 26), the pair of silicon surfaces extending in a spaced, opposing relationship (see Figure 1), the pair of silicon surfaces and the reflecting mirror oriented to be impinged upon directly or indirectly by the light output received in the optical-to-electrical module to generate an electric potential as a function of the light-responsive elements ([0043]); and
an electrical interface electrically connected to the optical-to-electrical module for receiving the electric potential and outputting current over time for at least one of electrical charging and storage (it is disclosed the purpose of the power sphere is to generate electrical power ([0015]), where one of the applications is to power space vehicles and drones or as a source of DC power, such that there would be an electrical interface for outputting the current; [0030]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Ortabasi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the light-responsive elements comprise electronic grade silicon in the form of one of a wafer and a chip (it is disclosed the solar cell can be silicon cells; [0042]).
Regarding claim 5, Ortabasi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the light-responsive elements comprise two pairs of the silicon surfaces and wherein the reflecting mirror is disposed and oriented to reflect the light output toward the two pairs of the silicon surfaces (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Ortabasi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the optical-electrical module comprises four inner walls and wherein each of the silicon surfaces is located on respective ones of the four inner walls (see Figure 1).
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortabasi (US 2009/0272424) in view of Sounni et al. (US 2014/0000705).
Regarding claim 2, Ortabasi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the light-responsive elements comprise silicon photovoltaic wafers ([0042]), but the reference does not expressly disclose polysilicon photovoltaic wafers.
Sounni discloses it is well known in the art to select a variety of solar cells to be used in a
concentrating solar system, including polysilicon solar cells ([0035]).
As Ortabasi is not limited to any specific examples of silicon solar cells and as polysilicon solar cells were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Sounni above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable solar cell,
including polysilicon in the device of Ortabasi. Said combination would amount to nothing more
than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an
entirely expected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art is Ortabasi (US 2009/0272424).
However, Ortabasi does not teach nor render obvious the claimed feature comprising a polyangular, specular, mini structure in the form of a hollow sphere and an optical to electrical module secured to the mini structure, wherein the optical to electrical module comprises four inner walls and light responsive elements disposed thereon.
Therefore, the claim was found to be allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-17 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu (US 2018/0358923) discloses a polyangular, refractive, mini structure connected to an optical to electrical module comprising four inner walls with a light responsive element inside (see Figure 1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights