DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/837,876, filed on 08/12/2024, which is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/053370, filed on 02/10/2023, and which claims foreign priority to DE 202022000360.9, filed on 02/12/2022.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 10/28/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4 are currently pending.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 4 are amended.
Claims 1 and 4 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 10/28/2025 have been carefully considered but they are moot in light of the Office’s new ground of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited features of “one or more storage elements…connected downstream of the plurality of energy converters” (claim 1) and “the storage elements are configured to generate laser light which is irradiated onto the plurality of energy converters” (claim 4) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
No drawing illustrates any storage elements at all, and no drawing illustrates how it is at all possible for a storage element (i.e., a battery) would be configured to generate laser light. The examiner understands a battery is unable to function by itself as a laser.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the light-receiving side” in line 2, but no light-receiving side was previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner previously advised the applicant to recite “a light-receiving side”.
Claim 1 is also indefinite since “storage elements” are used in the specification in a manner seeming to mean an electrical storage element, e.g., a battery, and skilled artisans would be confused and unable to understand how an electrical storage element could be constructed to produce “population inversion.”
Claim 4 is indefinite because it would not be clear to skilled artisans how the claimed invention must be arranged and configured, since the “storage elements” are required to be downstream of the plurality of energy converters, but the storage elements are also are capable of irradiating laser light onto these energy converters (an arrangement that would seem to require them to be upstream from the converters).
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 200182377 Y1) in view of TILLOTSON (US 7711441 B2).
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches a power plant system, comprising an energy converter (heat absorbing tube 71) fed by light, which are preceded on a light-receiving side by a converging lens arrangement (lens 22 and prism 6 converges light rays 12, Fig. 1),
KIM does not disclose expressly that the power plant system further comprises one or more storage elements in which population inversion can be produced are connected downstream of the plurality of energy converters.
TILLOTSON describes an electronics system where electricity generated from an energy receiving device is then sent downstream to control electronics, which is turn power laser sources that can subsequently irradiate light back onto the energy receiving device (Fig. 8), in order to “provide conditioned and/or regulated electrical power to one or more loads” (col. 6, ll. 39-40), and states that power conditioning and regulation are well known in the electrical arts.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify KIM and use a plurality of energy converters to get more power output. Said modification is also only a simple duplication of known parts that does not produce any new or unexpected result, and is prima facie obvious as a matter of law. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify KIM further and arrange the control electronics so that power saved from the energy receiving device be redirected downstream back to laser light sources in order to provide conditioned and/or regulated electrical power to one or more loads, as taught by TILLOTSON.
Regarding claim 4, modified KIM teaches the power plant system according to claim 1, wherein the storage elements are configured to generate laser light which is irradiated onto the plurality of energy converters (the storage elements are indirectly configured to generate laser light because they are capable of powering laser sources which in turn then irradiate the energy converter solar cells).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The 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). The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner