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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 May 2026 that correct the claim objection of claim 20 have been considered and the claim objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Slepoy et al. (US 2018/0152005) fails to disclose that the target constitutes the photovoltaic cell. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The language from claim 12 states “at least the photovoltaic cell and its border surround constitutes a target.” The “at least” allows for other components/parts to be included. The photovoltaic cell is a part of the receiving target of Slepoy and the other parts are not excluded from the language.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12-22 and 24-29 and Jung et al. (US 4,234,856) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this reference as the amendment further clarifies aspects of the border surround with aspects of “surrounding parts of the receiver.”
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “Is” in line 5 is capitalized and should be lower case. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 12-22 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0152055 by Slepoy et al. (Slepoy hereinafter) in view of US 2008/0130124 by Graham.
Regarding claim 12, Slepoy discloses an optical wireless power transmission system [see at least Figure 16] for transmitting a beam of optical power [see at least Figure 16, (15)] into its surroundings, the system comprising: a transmitter [see at least Figure 16, (21)] comprising an orientable mirror [see at least Figure 16, (14)] electronically controlled by an input electronic signal [see at least paragraphs 0261 and 0287], the transmitter adapted for transmitting the beam of optical power to a receiver [see at least Figure 16, (22)] comprising a photovoltaic cell [see at least Figure 16, (1)] adapted to convert the optical power of the beam to electrical power [see at least paragraphs 0075, 0113, 0210 and 0280-0281], at least the photovoltaic cell constituting a target [see at least paragraph 0100]; wherein the electronically controlled mirror is configured to have an aiming accuracy at least such that the angular deviation of a beam from a direction intended for its propagation by the electronically controlled mirror, is such that, when the beam is aimed at the target and has the maximum power which the system is adapted to transmit [see at least paragraphs 0111, 0138 and 0260], and the target is at the maximum intended range for that power [see at least paragraphs 0111, 0138 and 0260], the level of optical power transferred into the surroundings and not absorbed by either the target or the target and surrounding parts of the receiver does not exceed that allowed by a regulatory requirement applicable to a location where the system is authorized to operate [see at least paragraphs 0016; Figure 2].
Slepoy fails to explicitly disclose that the photovoltaic has a boarder and aspects of optical power transferred into the surroundings and not absorbed. However, Graham discloses a power beam receiver [see at least Abstract] for which an optical power receiving element [see at least Figure 4B, (10)] is surrounded by a boarder [see at least Figure 4B, (80)] in which the receiver is designed to absorb the beam with baffles [see at least Figure 2A, (20)] to prevent the beam from escaping into the environment for safety [see at least paragraph 0028, “All light reflected 12 from its surface is trapped by a baffle 20. Baffle 20 can be made of any material that overwhelmingly absorbs light at least at the wavelength at which the system operates… if the front element were flat, slightly angled, or gently rounded, reflection from the surface might escape and cause a safety problem”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Slepoy to include the boarder and baffles, as disclosed by Graham, in order to provide support for the photovoltaic cell and prevent the beam from reflecting into the environment. Thus, offering the benefit of a solid base for the photovoltaic cell and safety for the environment around the receiver.
Regarding claim 13, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Slepoy, in light of Graham, discloses wherein the level of optical power transferred into the surroundings and not absorbed by either the target or the target and surrounding parts of the receiver does not exceed the regulatory power limit allowed for a class 3B laser at the wavelength of the beam of optical power [see at least paragraphs 0016; Figure 2].
Regarding claim 14, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Graham discloses wherein the level of optical power not absorbed by either the target or the target and surrounding parts of the receiver comprises at least one of optical power reflected from the surface of the receiver, or parts of the optical beam spilling over the edges of the receiver [see at least paragraph 0028, “All light reflected 12 from its surface is trapped by a baffle 20. Baffle 20 can be made of any material that overwhelmingly absorbs light at least at the wavelength at which the system operates… if the front element were flat, slightly angled, or gently rounded, reflection from the surface might escape and cause a safety problem”; The purpose of Graham is to minimize/eliminate the beam going into the environment].
Regarding claim 15, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Graham discloses wherein the level of optical power not absorbed by either the target or the target and surrounding parts of the receiver comprises parts of the optical beam spilling over the edges of the receiver [see at least paragraph 0028, “All light reflected 12 from its surface is trapped by a baffle 20. Baffle 20 can be made of any material that overwhelmingly absorbs light at least at the wavelength at which the system operates… if the front element were flat, slightly angled, or gently rounded, reflection from the surface might escape and cause a safety problem”; The purpose of Graham is to minimize/eliminate the beam going into the environment].
Regarding claim 16, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Slepoy discloses wherein the angular deviation of a beam reflected from the mirror, from a direction intended by the electronic control of the electronically controlled mirror, arises from jitter in the input electronic signal [see at least paragraph 0295; it is inherent that jitter in the signal would produce small angular deviations].
Regarding claim 17, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Slepoy discloses wherein the angular deviation of a beam reflected from the mirror, from a direction intended by the electronic control of the electronically controlled mirror, arises from at least one of electronic feedback loop jitter, driver noise level, conversion resolution of digital circuits generating the input electronic signal, and circuit noise [see at least paragraph 0295; it is inherent that jitter/noise would produce small angular deviations].
Regarding claim 18, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Slepoy discloses wherein the angular deviation of a beam reflected from the mirror, from a direction intended by the electronic control of the electronically controlled mirror, arises from step increments of a mechanical driver generating the orientation of the mirror [see at least paragraph 0287; it is inherent that movement of the mirror would produce small angular deviations while adjusting].
Regarding claim 19, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Slepoy discloses wherein the angular deviation of a beam reflected from the mirror, from a direction intended by the electronic control of the electronically controlled mirror, arises from mechanical vibration of the mirror [see at least paragraph 0287; it is inherent that movement of the mirror would produce small angular deviations while adjusting].
Regarding claim 20, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Slepoy discloses wherein at least one element of the system is marked with at least one indication of a regulatory requirement applicable to a location where the system is authorized to operate [see at least Figure 3].
Regarding claim 21, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 20.
Slepoy in view of Graham fails to teach wherein the element may be a component part of the system or an operational manual of the system. However, this is merely a location of the labeling of regulatory requirement.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Slepoy in view of Graham by labelling components or an operational manual of the system in order to notify operators of system regulatory requirements. Thus, reducing the risk of misuse of the system and increasing safety.
Regarding claim 22, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Slepoy, in light of Graham, discloses wherein the regulatory requirement is that the total level of optical power transferred into the environment and not absorbed either by the target or the target and surrounding parts of the receiver, Is less than the power limits of a class 3B laser at the wavelength of the beam of optical power [see at least paragraphs 0016; Figure 2].
Regarding claim 24, Slepoy discloses a method for safe transmission of a beam of optical power from a transmitter [see at least Figure 16, (21)] towards a receiver [see at least Figure 16, (22)] in a space comprising: using an orientable mirror [see at least Figure 16, (14)] electronically controlled by an input electronic signal [see at least paragraphs 0261 and 0287] to direct the beam of optical power to a receiver comprising a photovoltaic cell adapted to convert the optical power of the beam to electrical power [see at least Figure 16, (1)], at least the photovoltaic cell and constituting a target [see at least paragraph 0100]; wherein the electronically controlled orientable mirror is designed to have an aiming accuracy at least such that the angular deviation of the beam from the direction intended for its propagation by the electronically controlled orientable mirror, is such that, when the beam is aimed at the target and has the maximum power which the transmitter can transmit [see at least paragraphs 0111, 0138 and 0260], and the target is at the maximum intended range for that power, the level of optical power transferred into the space and not absorbed by either the target or the target and surrounding parts of the receiver does not exceed that allowed by a regulatory requirement applicable to a location where the system is authorized to operate [see at least paragraphs 0016; Figure 2].
Slepoy fails to explicitly disclose that the photovoltaic has a boarder and aspects of optical power transferred into the surroundings and not absorbed. However, Graham discloses a power beam receiver [see at least Abstract] for which an optical power receiving element [see at least Figure 4B, (10)] is surrounded by a boarder [see at least Figure 4B, (80)] in which the receiver is designed to absorb the beam with baffles [see at least Figure 2A, (20)] to prevent the beam from escaping into the environment for safety [see at least paragraph 0028, “All light reflected 12 from its surface is trapped by a baffle 20. Baffle 20 can be made of any material that overwhelmingly absorbs light at least at the wavelength at which the system operates… if the front element were flat, slightly angled, or gently rounded, reflection from the surface might escape and cause a safety problem”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to modify the system of Slepoy to include the boarder and baffles, as disclosed by Graham, in order to provide support for the photovoltaic cell and prevent the beam from reflecting into the environment. Thus, offering the benefit of a solid base for the photovoltaic cell and safety for the environment around the receiver.
Regarding claim 25, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the method according to claim 24.
Slepoy, in light of Graham, discloses for safe transmission of a beam of optical power from a transmitter towards a receiver in a space, wherein the accuracy of the electronically controlled orientable mirror is such that the level of optical power transferred into the surroundings and not absorbed by either the target or the target and surrounding parts of the receiver does not exceed the regulatory power limit allowed for a class 3B laser at the wavelength of the beam of optical power [see at least paragraphs 0016; Figure 2].
Regarding claim 26, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the method according to claim 24.
Graham discloses for safe transmission of a beam of optical power from a transmitter towards a receiver in a space, wherein the accuracy of the electronically controlled orientable mirror is such that the level of optical power transferred into the surroundings and not absorbed by either the target or the target and surrounding parts of the receiver arises from parts of the optical beam spilling over the edges of the receiver [see at least paragraph 0028, “All light reflected 12 from its surface is trapped by a baffle 20. Baffle 20 can be made of any material that overwhelmingly absorbs light at least at the wavelength at which the system operates… if the front element were flat, slightly angled, or gently rounded, reflection from the surface might escape and cause a safety problem”; The purpose of Graham is to minimize/eliminate the beam going into the environment].
Regarding claim 27, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the method according to claim 24.
Slepoy discloses for safe transmission of a beam of optical power from a transmitter towards a receiver, wherein at least one of: electronic feedback loop jitter, driver noise level, conversion resolution of digital circuits generating the input electronic signal, circuit noise, step increments of a mechanical driver generating the orientation of the mirror, and mechanical vibration of the mirror, are limited to a level such that the required accuracy of the electronically controlled orientable mirror is achieved [see at least paragraphs 0084 and 0213; the purpose is to limit variations].
Regarding claim 28, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches he optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Slepoy, in light of Graham, discloses wherein the level of optical power transferred into the surroundings and not absorbed by either the target or the target and surrounding parts of the receiver does not exceed the regulatory power limit allowed for a class 3B laser at the wavelength of the beam of optical power [see at least paragraphs 0016; Figure 2].
Regarding claim 29, Slepoy in view of Graham teaches the optical wireless power transmission system according to claim 12.
Slepoy, in light of Graham, discloses wherein the level of optical power not absorbed either the target or the target and surrounding parts of the receiver comprises parts of the optical beam spilling over the edges of the receiver [see at least Figure 16, (15); it is inherent that the beam that does not hit the photovoltaic cell is not absorbed].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Joel Barnett whose telephone number is (571)272-2879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/JOEL BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights