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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,095,166 (Biderman et al). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in claims 1-20 of the instant application are encompassed by claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,095,166 (Biderman et al).
Instant Application No. 18/823,113 (Claim 1)
US Patent No. 11,095,166 (Claim 1)
A method of ensuring safety in a multiple beam wireless power
transmission system comprising beam sources and multiple targets, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) determining if any points on trajectories of at least two beams come closer to each other than a predefined safe distance, and if so,
either performing at least one of (i) attenuating at least one beam,
(ii) turning off at least one beam, and (iii) diverting at least one beam; or sending data associated with said determining to a controller, said controller being adapted to perform at least one of (i) attenuating at least one beam, (ii) turning off at least one beam, and (iii) diverting at least one beam, based on analysis of said data,
and
A method of ensuring safety in a multiple beam wireless power
transmission system comprising beam sources and multiple targets, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) determining if any points on trajectories of at least two beams come closer to each other than a predefined safe distance, and if so,
either performing at least one of (i) attenuating at least one beam,
(ii) turning off at least one beam, and (iii) diverting at least one beam; or sending data associated with said determining to a controller, said controller being adapted to perform at least one of (i) attenuating at least one beam, (ii) turning off at least one beam, and (iii) diverting at least one beam, based on analysis of said data (i.e., see Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,095,166), and
(b) detecting if there is a reflective surface in the path of any beam by
receiving at said transmission system, image data of a pattern on a target, and determining if an image generated from said image data has a mirror-imaged form compared to that of said pattern on said target, and if so, either performing at least one of (i) attenuating, (ii) turning off, and (iii) diverting at least the beam directed at that target whose image data of a pattern thereon has a mirror-imaged
form; or sending data associated with said determining to a controller, said
controller being adapted to perform at least one of (i) attenuating, (ii) turning off, and (iii) diverting at least the beam directed at that target whose image data of a pattern thereon has a mirror-imaged form, based on analysis of said data.
(b) detecting if there is a reflective surface in the path of any beam by
receiving at said transmission system, image data of a pattern on a
target, and determining if an image generated from said image data
has a mirror-imaged form compared to that of said pattern on said target, and if so, either performing at least one of (i) attenuating, (ii) turning off, and (iii) diverting at least the beam directed at that target whose image data of a pattern thereon has a mirror-imaged
form; or sending data associated with said determining to a controller, said
controller being adapted to perform at least one of (i) attenuating, (ii) turning off, and (iii) diverting at least the beam directed at that target whose image data of a pattern thereon has a mirror-imaged form, based on analysis of said data (i.e., see Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 2, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein said image data is electronic image data (i.e., see Claim 2 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 3, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses wherein said image data is obtained by scanning said target with a beam (i.e., see Claim 2 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 4, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein said image data is accumulated by collection of electronic data transmitted from said target (i.e., see Claim 3 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 5, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein said image data is accumulated by use of a camera (i.e., see Claim 3 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 6, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
further comprising the step of issuing an alert if either of the determinations of steps (a) and (b) are positive (i.e., see Claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 7, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein at least one of said beams is a transmitted beam from a beam source (i.e., see Claim 5 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 8, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein at least one of said beams is a beam reflected from a target (i.e., see Claim 5 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 9, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein said attenuating of a beam is performed by adjustment of the beam source (i.e., see Claim 9 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 10, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses wherein said turning off of a beam is performed at its beam source or by use of a shutter (i.e., see Claim 10 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 11, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein said diverting of at least one beam is performed by use of a beam scanning device (i.e., see Claim 11 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 12, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein a trajectory of a beam transmitted by a beam source is determined by use of the known position of said beam source, and the known orientation and position of a beam scanner device used to direct said beam in space (i.e., see Claim 12 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 13, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein said position and orientation of a reflected beam is determined by ascertaining the trajectory of a transmitted beam impinging on said target, and the position and orientation of said target (i.e., see Claim 6 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 14, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
where the position and orientation of said target is determined by using at least one of an accelerometer and a compass mounted in a known position relative to said target (i.e., see Claim 7 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 15, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses where the position and orientation of said target is received from a device mechanically connected to said target (i.e., see Claim 8 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 16, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
where the position and orientation of said target is calculated by analyzing an image of said target or a pattern on said target (i.e., see Claim 7 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 17, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein said determining if any points on trajectories of at least two beams come closer to each other than a predefined safe distance, comprises: (i) determining the position and orientation of a first beam and a second beam; (ii) calculating at least one plane including said first beam, each of said planes comprising the trajectory of said first beam; (iii) determining at least one point where said second beam crosses one of said at least one plane; and (iv) measuring the distance between each of said at least one point from said trajectory of said first beam (i.e., see Claim 13 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 18, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein, if any points on trajectories of at least two beams come closer to each other than said predefined safe distance, said analysis further comprises determining if said expected combined power level of said at least two beams is greater than a predetermined safe level (i.e., see Claim 14 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 19, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein said analysis of said data from said step of determining if any points on trajectories of at least two beams come closer to each other than said predefined safe distance, further comprises calculating an overall risk associated with two or more beams by considering both a probability of intersection of said beams, and a probability that the combined power levels of the beams will exceed said predetermined safe level (i.e., see Claim 19 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Regarding claim 20, as similarly described above, Biderman et al discloses
wherein at least some of said targets are mounted on mobile telephone devices (i.e., see Claim 16 of US Patent No. 11,095,166).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed (if overcome the double patenting above).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1-20 are allowable because Slepoy et al (Pub. No.: US 2017/0294809), Abiri et al (Pub. No.: US 2017/0346347), and Kwon et al (Pub. No.: US 2016/0197494), takes alone or in combination, fails to teach (a) determining if any points on trajectories of at least two beams come closer to each other than a predefined safe distance, and if so, either performing at least one of (i) attenuating at least one beam, (ii) turning off at least one beam, and (iii) diverting at least one beam; or sending data associated with said determining to a
controller, said controller being adapted to perform at least one of
(i) attenuating at least one beam, (ii) turning off at least one beam,
and (iii) diverting at least one beam, based on analysis of said data,
and (b) detecting if there is a reflective surface in the path of any beam by
receiving at said transmission system, image data of a pattern on a
target, and determining if an image generated from said image data
has a mirror-imaged form compared to that of said pattern on said
target, and if so, either performing at least one of (i) attenuating,
(ii) turning off, and (iii) diverting at least the beam directed at that
target whose image data of a pattern thereon has a mirror-imaged
form; or sending data associated with said determining to a controller, said
controller being adapted to perform at least one of (i) attenuating,
(ii) turning off, and (iii) diverting at least the beam directed at that
target whose image data of a pattern thereon has a mirror-imaged
form, based on analysis of said data.
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.”
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Slepoy et al (Pub. No.: US 2017/0294809) discloses system for optical wireless power supply.
Abiri et al (Pub. No.: US 2017/0346347) discloses laser wireless power transfer system with active and passive safety measures.
Kwon et al (Pub. No.: US 2016/0197494) discloses wireless power transmitter for excluding cross connected wireless power receiver and method for controlling the same.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Hanh Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-
3035. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the
examiner's supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye, can be reached on (571)272-3078.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding
is assigned is (571)273-8300. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the
status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist
whose telephone number is (703)305-4700.
/HANH PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights