DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 9/30/2024, in which claims 1-20 are currently pending. The Application is a National Stage entry of PCT/IL2023/050347 , International Filing Date: 03/31/2023, and claims foreign priority to 291878, filed 03/31/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 9/30/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6- This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
beam aiming element in claims 1, 3,
Control unit and Control system in claims 1, 3-4, 10, 13,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7- 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.
8- Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, which reads “ … having a concentration within a predefined range, located in the beam path; … so that it determines the power of the emitted laser beam… a power meter configured to measure the level of power input to the remote receiver (the at least one remove receiver?) by the impinging laser beam; and
a communication link, configured to send back to the transmitter, a signal corresponding to the level of power input to the remote receiver by the impinging laser beam,
wherein the system further comprises a control unit adapted to determine whether the difference between the power of the laser beam transmitted and the power input by the laser beam to the remote receiver, wherein the wavelength of the at least one laser emitter is selected to be in a spectral region …
within the predefined range, in the beam path, and if the difference in power determined …causes the system to perform an action which would reduce the risk of the beam igniting the inflammable gas..”, the underlined clauses appear to present antecedence issues.
Claims 13, 3 present similar issues.
As to claim 1, which reads “… wherein the system further comprises a control unit adapted to determine the difference between the power of the laser beam transmitted and the power input …”, it is not clear what the “laser beam transmitted” correspond to: the generated laser beam by the at least one laser emitter? The laser beam transmitted through the beam aiming element? The laser beam transmitted through the gas?
Similar issues are encountered in claims 12, 15, 19-20.
For examination purposes, all the options will be considered.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependence on claims 1 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9- 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
10- Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richman (PGPUB No. 20070131882) in view of Alpert et al. (WO 2020188576), both cited by Applicants.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of”, "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
As to claims 1, 6, 8-10, 13, 18, Richman teaches a system, and its corresponding method of use, for laser power transmission to at least one remote receiver (Abstract and Figs. 1-43), the system comprising:
a transmitter unit (module such 832, or module around emitters 101/114, 201 or equivalents x01), comprising:
at least one laser emitter (laser diodes 101/114, 201 or x01) capable of generating a laser beam having power sufficient to enable ignition of an inflammable gas (in monitored space 105, or equivalents such as 805, or 905) having a concentration within a predefined range, located in the beam path (First, the inflammable gas is considered here as a mere article acted upon and not part of the system -See MPEP § 2115-. The limitation claimed with such broad intended result, any laser beam power can be associated with a highly dense inflammable gas with very low ignition threshold);
a beam aiming element (104/106 or equivalents such as 811/824/826, or 911/904/906) adapted to direct the beam towards the at least one remote receiver (107 or equivalents such as 827 or 907; ¶ 253); and
a laser power meter (814 or 918), positioned so that it determines the power of the emitted laser beam (¶ 253, 273);
wherein at least one of the remote receivers comprises: a beam sensor, adapted to receive the laser beam; a power meter configured to measure the level of power input to the remote receiver by the impinging laser beam (¶ 253; sensor 907 and its amplifier and digital meter 908/928/929); and
a communication link (922/923/921/926/927/929/928), configured to send back to the transmitter, a signal corresponding to the level of power input to the remote receiver by the impinging laser beam (Fig. 42, ¶ 217, 255 for ex.),
wherein the system further comprises a control unit, (Claim 10) wherein the control unit is situated in the transmitter unit (921/929 which are connected and can be considered as part of the transmitter module) adapted to determine the difference between the power of the laser beam transmitted and the power input by the laser beam to the remote receiver (¶ 2-4, 175, 253-256; comparison between the powers measured by sensors 907 and 918 is considered),
wherein the wavelength of the at least one laser emitter is selected to be in a spectral region of absorbance of the inflammable gas (Abstract, ¶ 2-8) such that the system has an absorption sufficiently high that the system can detect the concentration of the inflammable gas within the predefined range in the beam path (¶ 25-27, 31-35, 90-93, 98, 120 for ex.), and
Richman does not teach expressly wherein if the difference in power determined by the control unit exceeds a predetermined level, the control unit causes the system to perform an action which would reduce the risk of the beam igniting the inflammable gas, even though Richman suggests the issue of alarms and false alarms associated with detection of light absorption by flammable gases (¶ 3-4). Richman does not teach also (claim 6) wherein the beam sensor is a photovoltaic cell; (claim 8) further comprising DC/DC converter circuitry, adapted to convert the output current of the beam sensor to a current at a higher voltage, such that the current is at a voltage suitable for charging the battery of an externally connected electronic device. (claims 9/18) further comprising a maximum power point tracking system, to ensure optimum efficiency of the DC/DC converter circuitry.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alpert teaches laser beam power absorption system and method (Abstract and Figs. 1-9) wherein the power of laser of transmitter 95 is controlled by a controller 97 for safe power transmission (p./parag. 1/1, 4/2-5/2, 6/2 and 9/1 for ex.), and using a PV 91. As to claims 8-9 and 18, Alpert teaches using the PV sensor signal to charge portable devices (p. 12, parag. 5) while the power output from the PV is controlled to reach a maximum value (p. 4, parag. 3, p. 5 parag. 3 for ex).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Richman in view of Alpert’s suggestions so that if the difference in power determined by the control unit exceeds a predetermined level, the control unit causes the system to perform an action which would reduce the risk of the beam igniting the inflammable gas; wherein the beam sensor is a photovoltaic cell; further comprising DC/DC converter circuitry, adapted to convert the output current of the beam sensor to a current at a higher voltage, such that the current is at a voltage suitable for charging the battery of an externally connected electronic device; further comprising a maximum power point tracking system, to ensure optimum efficiency of the DC/DC converter circuitry, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the safety usage/detection of laser powers and/or usage of the sensed power to charge electronic devices.
As to claims 2, 14, the combination of Richman and Alpert teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 13.
Moreover, Richman suggests wherein the laser beam further has an absorption by water vapor [[
As to claim 3, the combination of Richman and Alpert teaches the system according to claim 1.
Moreover, Richman suggests wherein the control system is adapted to utilize the signal corresponding to the level of power input to the receiver to adjust the beam aiming element to ensure optimum impingement of the laser beam on the beam sensor (Abstract, ¶ 83, 130, 250, 253; collimator 104 and focusing element 106, or equivalents, with the controlling of light source power are used to optimize the laser beam power in the gas, then on the sensor, to avoid saturation or weak SNR).
As to claims 4 and 15, the combination of Richman and Alpert teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 13.
Moreover, Richman suggests wherein the control system is adapted to reduce the power emitted by the laser if the difference between the power of the laser beam transmitted and the power input to the receiver exceeds the predetermined level (¶ 116, 118; control of signal power to avoid false detection alarms suggests to one PHOSITA the control of the power of the laser beam to ensure the safety of its usage with inflammable gases. See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
As to claims 5 and 16, the combination of Richman and Alpert teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 13.
Moreover, Richman suggests wherein, if the difference between the power of the laser beam transmitted and the power input to the receiver exceeds the predetermined level, the control system is adapted to perform at least one of the following actions the action that the system performs in response to the determined difference in power exceeding the predetermined level, is any one or more of: a. Turning the laser off, or reducing its power to a predetermined safe level; b. Alerting the user; c. Alerting automatic warning systems, such as an alarm system, or a smart hub; d. Initiating a call to the fire department; e. Sounding an alarm; f. Turning on a visual warning signal; and g. Disconnecting a gas supply, by use of a command to a controlled supply valve (¶ 18, 184, 214 for ex; warning before dangerous conditions are reached suggests actions such as alerting warning signals).
As to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Richman and Alpert teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 13.
Moreover, Richman teaches further comprising DC/DC converter circuitry, adapted to convert the output current of the beam sensor to a current at a higher voltage, such that the current is at a voltage suitable for powering an externally connected electronic device (¶ 208 for ex.; use of amplifier/ADC 828/829 or 908/928 before connecting to 830 or 929. Using signals in 834 to be used to power 836 in Fig. 41 can be considered).
As to claims 11 and 19, the combination of Richman and Alpert teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 13.
Moreover, Richman teaches wherein the wavelength of the at least one laser emitter falls in at least one of the bands having wavelength ranges of 820-935nm, 970- 1125nm, 1170-1350nm, 1515-1545nm and 1620-1700 nm (¶ 20, 115, 193 for ex.)
As to claims 12 and 20, the combination of Richman and Alpert teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 13.
Moreover, Richman teaches wherein the difference between the power of the laser beam transmitted and the power input to the receiver is a fractional difference (¶ 253-256; given the 112 issues here above, Richman teaches using a fractional part of light emitted by the source and measured by 918).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877