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 .
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Claims 24 and 40 recite the limitation "the first side" and “the second side” and “exit side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-11, 24-26, 29, 31-35, and 48-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Angel (Publication No.: US 2019/0393832 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 25, 34, 35, 48, Angel teaches A power receiver (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 12), comprising: A beam homogenizer, comprising: a compound lens (reference numeral 2, 705, 740, 719, 720 in Figure 12; e.g. “one compound lens” as in paragraph [0059]) configured to reshape an incident power beam, the compound lens including: a first optical surface (reference numeral 705 in Figure 12) configured to focus the incident power beam at a focal distance; and a second optical surface (reference numeral 2 in Figure 12) including a plurality of optical elements tiled (e.g. reference numeral 712, 714, 716, 718 as illustrated in Figure 12) to substantially cover the second optical surface, wherein: each optical element of the plurality is configured to expand a respective portion of the focused power beam toward a light-gathering area (reference numeral 722, 724 in Figure 12; e.g. as illustrated in Figure 6 ); and the expanded portions of the focused power beam each overlap with one another at the light-gathering area to form a homogenized power beam (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 6; e.g. “overlap” as in paragraph [0061]); and a power converter (reference numeral 722, 724 in Figure 12) positioned to receive the homogenized power beam.
Regarding claim 2, Angel teaches The beam homogenizer of claim 1, wherein the compound lens has a width (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 6 and/or Figure 12), and wherein the compound lens is positioned at a distance from the light-gathering area between about half of the width and about six times the width (e.g. “90 mm” as in paragraph [0069]; “6mm” as in paragraph [0084]; reference numeral 740 in Figure 12).
Regarding claim 5, Angel teaches The beam homogenizer of claim 1, wherein the compound lens has an axis (e.g. any of reference numeral 11, 12, 13 as illustrated in Figure 3); the homogenized power beam has a final width that is less than a width of the compound lens (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 12); and the light-gathering area is wide enough that the homogenized power beam is positioned within the light-gathering area when the incident power beam forms an angle with the axis of less than 2 degrees (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Angel teaches The beam homogenizer of claim 1, wherein the incident power beam has an unshaped beam irradiance profile and the homogenized power beam has a reshaped beam irradiance profile (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6), and wherein the reshaped beam irradiance profile is flatter than the unshaped beam irradiance profile (e.g. by virtue of projection onto a flat surface as illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, Angel teaches The beam homogenizer of claim 8, wherein the unshaped beam irradiance profile is approximately Gaussian (inherent in the profile of sunlight reference numeral 11, 12, 13 in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Angel teaches The beam homogenizer of claim 9, wherein the reshaped beam irradiance profile is approximately flat across at least half of the light-gathering area (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 3, Figure 5, and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 11, Angel teaches The beam homogenizer of claim 8, wherein the reshaped beam irradiance profile has a normalized deviation that is less than half of a normalized deviation of the unshaped beam irradiance profile (e.g. by virtue of “0th order” light transmission as in paragraph [0015] and illustrated in Figure 6).
Regarding claim 24, Angel, as best understood in view of the §112 rejections above, inherently teaches The beam homogenizer of claim 1, wherein the first side (e.g. the top side of reference numeral 705 in Figure 12) has a first f-number and the second side (e.g. the bottom side of reference numeral 705 in Figure 12) has a second f-number, and the first f-number and the second f-number have absolute values within 10% of one another (e.g. by virtue of being two sides of the same piece of “glass” as in paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 26, 49, 50, 52, Angel teaches The power receiver of claim 25, further comprising a concentrator (reference numeral 719 in Figure 12) positioned to direct at least a portion of the homogenized power beam toward the power converter.
Regarding claim 29, Angel teaches The power receiver of claim 25, further comprising a plurality of concentrators (reference numeral 7141, 7142 in Figure 13) , each concentrator arranged to direct at least a portion of the reshaped power beam towards a particular location in the light-gathering area.
Regarding claim 31, 53, Angel teaches The power receiver of claim 25, wherein the power converter includes a photovoltaic (PV) cell (e.g. “solar PV” as in abstract and throughout).
Regarding claim 32, 54, Angel teaches The power receiver of claim 25, wherein the power converter includes a plurality of PV cells (reference numeral 722, 724 in Figure 12).
Regarding claim 33, Angel teaches The power receiver of claim 32, wherein the power receiver includes a plurality of concentrators (reference numeral 7141, 7142, 7161, 7162 in Figure 13), each positioned to receive at least a portion of the homogenized power beam, and each concentrator is positioned to direct its respective portion of the homogenized power beam toward at least one PV cell (reference numeral 722, 724 in Figure 12).
Regarding claim 51, Angel teaches The method of claim 50, wherein concentrating at least a portion of the power beam includes passing the beam through a concentrator (reference numeral 7141, 7142, 7161, 7162 in Figure 13) having an output angle less than or equal to a maximum acceptance angle of the power converter (e.g. as illustrated in Figure 6).
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.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angel in view of Yang (Publication No.: US 2011/0030765 A1).
Regarding claim 21-23, 36-39, Angel teaches The beam homogenizer of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach that the optical elements are convex, concave, aspheric, or lenslets. However, Yang teaches that utilizing such optical elements is well known in the art (reference numeral 60 in Figure 7). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to utilize such optical elements in order to form a compound type lens for a concentrating solar cell in which chromatic aberrations of a conventional lens are suppressed (e.g. as in paragraph [0131] of Yang). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to utilize optical elements that are convex, concave, or lenslets as taught by Yang in Angel.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of references and Angel in particular, as best understood in view of the §112 rejections above, inherently teaches The beam homogenizer of claim 1, wherein the first side (e.g. the top side of reference numeral 705 in Figure 12) has a first f-number and the second side (e.g. the bottom side of reference numeral 705 in Figure 12) has a second f-number, and the first f-number and the second f-number have absolute values within 10% of one another (e.g. by virtue of being two sides of the same piece of “glass” as in paragraph [0083]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AGUSTIN BELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-3026. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/AGUSTIN BELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights