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.
Claims 5, 6, and 9 – 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the projected image" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the projected image" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the projected image" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the communication system" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the charging beam" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the offset between the direction of the charging beam and the position of the charged object”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the difference of the intensity of reflection from at least two separated retroreflective surfaces”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the difference in received light power between at least two separated solar cells". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the solar cells". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the charging light frequency". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites "the camera acquisition time and the charging time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang (US 7,029,126).
Regarding Claim 1, Tang discloses a digital projector (abstract) comprising at least one DOE (Col. 2 lines 26 – 39, prism) and at least one DLP (Col. 6 lines 40 – 51), the DOE configured to illuminate the DLP non-uniformly according to a predetermined pattern (Col. 6 lines 40 – 51).
Regarding Claim 2, Tang discloses a projector as in claim 1, configured to modify the illumination of the DOE on the DLP using mechanical movement of at least one of the DOE (Col. 6 lines 22 – 51) and a front lens.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 7,029,126) in view of Chen et al. (US 2014/0016102).
Regarding Claim 3, Tang fails to explicitly disclose at least two DOEs, each of which is independently configured. However, Chen et al. discloses projection devices (abstract) and teaches at least two DOEs, each of which is independently configured (The controller 13 is connected to [...] the first, second and third dynamic diffractive optical elements 121, 122, 123 for respectively controlling the first, second and third diffractive optical elements 121, 122, 123 to perform real-time signal modulation for producing dynamic diffractive grating distributions; paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include the diffractive optics as taught by Chen et al. for the purpose of performing real-time signal modulation for producing dynamic diffractive grating distributions to project a two-dimensional full-color dynamic image by scanning (Chen et al., paragraphs [0007] – [0008]).
Claims 4, 5, 9 – 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 7,029,126) in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0183095).
Regarding Claim 4, Tang fails to explicitly disclose a projector configured to track and illuminate a moving target. However, Liu et al. discloses optical systems (abstract) and teaches to track and illuminate a moving target (The high-power invisible laser may be used to provide power to a remotely located solar cell (tracking), and the moderate-power visible laser may be used for aiming purposes (e.g., a camera may image the visible laser and solar cell 310A to provide feedback for aiming the invisible laser beam onto the solar cell) [...] UAV 300 includes three lower solar cells (solar cells 310A, 310B, and 310C - moving target); paragraphs [0012] – [0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the tracking system as taught by Liu et al. to Tang for tracking a UAV for the purpose of charging its batteries with radiation (Liu et al., paragraphs [0012] – [0013], [0025]).
Regarding Claim 5, Tang fails to explicitly disclose that the projected image is configured to charge a target that comprises at least one solar cell. Liu et al. teaches a projected image is configured to charge a target that comprises at least one solar cell (paragraphs [0012] – [0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the projector of Tang with a target as taught by Liu et al. for the purpose of providing electrical charging power to UAVs even in weather conditions where sunlight is unavailable (Liu et al., paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 9, Tang fails to explicitly disclose that the projected image is a light beam less than 3 spatial degrees wide. However, Tang does teach the projected image is a light beam less than spatial angular width (Col. 2 lines 26 - 39: at least one prism configured to diffract light from the lamp into a diffracted beam; Col. 6 lines 40 – 51: a color projection system 750 includes a MEMS panel 750 such as used in a digital light processor (DLP) that receives light from prism 705 as processing by a condenser lens system 755; Figs. 7a - 7b: element 705 disperses input beam into dispersed light with an angular width). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to teach the projected image is a light beam less than 3 spatial degrees wide, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art; and doing so would have been to have simplified optics allowing a more efficient use of the light source without the necessity of realigning and recombining separate RGB colored images (Col. 2 lines 17 – 53, Tang).
Regarding Claim 10, Tang fails to explicitly disclose a remote charging system comprising a projector as in claim 9 comprising a communication link between a charged object and the projector. Liu et al. teaches a remote charging system (In particular embodiments, a UAV may receive remotely supplied power from a laser system; paragraph [0003]) with a projector comprising a communication link between a charged object and the projector (one or more other links 150 may connect controller 270 to UAV 300, paragraph [0010]; wirelessly communicate with controller 270 of laser system 200 [projector], paragraph [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to modify the projector of Tang to include a communication link as taught by Liu et al. for the purpose of coordinating a UAV with a radiation system for charging said UAV (Liu et al., paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Tang fails to explicitly disclose a system as in claim 10 wherein the communication link is secure. Liu et al. teaches the communication link is secure (one or more links 150 may each include a VPN; paragraph [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system of Tang to include a communication link as taught by Liu et al. for the purpose of coordinating a UAV with a radiation system for charging said UAV (Liu et al., paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 12, Tang fails to explicitly disclose a system as in claim 10 comprising feedback from the charged object to the projector indicating an offset between a direction of the charging beam and a position of the charged object. Liu et al. teaches feedback from the charged object to the projector indicating an offset between a direction of the charging beam and a position of the charged object (controller 270 may instruct laser-aiming module 220 to adjust the aiming of laser beam 230 to be at least in part incident on solar cell 310. In particular embodiments, controller 270 may be configured to adjust the aiming of laser beam 230 based on flight-path information as well as based on a feedback signal […] a feedback signal may be used to provide fine adjustments [offset] to the coarse aiming information to ensure that laser beam 230 remains at least partially incident on solar cell 310. Fine adjustments to the aiming of laser beam 230 may be used, at least in part, to compensate for beam deviation caused by air turbulence encountered along a beam path of laser beam 230 as it propagates from laser-aiming module 220 to solar cell 310, paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system of Tang to include optical feedback as taught by Liu et al. for the purpose of coordinating a UAV with a radiation system for charging said UAV (Liu et al., paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 13, Tang fails to explicitly disclose a system as in claim 10 wherein the charged object is a drone. Liu et al. teaches the charged object is a drone (unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) 300...UAV 300 may be referred to as a drone, paragraph [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system of Tang to include a drone as taught by Liu et al. for the purpose of remotely providing power to a UAV (Liu et al., paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Tang fails to explicitly disclose a system as in claim 9 wherein the target comprises at least one retroreflective surface exposed to the projector. Liu et al. teaches the target comprises at least one retroreflective surface exposed to the projector (UAV 300 may include one or more retroreflectors, paragraph [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system of Tang to include retroreflectors as taught by Liu et al. for the purpose of reflecting light from a target that provides feedback for coordinating a UAV with a power source (Liu et al., paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 17, Tang fails to explicitly disclose a drone comprising solar cells configured to absorb light energy coming from below the drone. However, Liu et al. teaches solar cells configured to absorb light energy coming from below the drone (UAV 300 includes three lower solar cells (solar celis 310A, 310B, and 310C) [...] solar cell 310A may be remotely located with respect to a ground-based laser system 200, and a distance between solar cell 310A and laser system 200 may be greater than or equal to approximately 1 mile, 2 miles, 5 miles. 10 miles, 15 miles, or any suitable distance or range of distances [...] laser-aiming module 220 is directing laser beam 230 to be at least in part incident on solar cell 310A, paragraphs [0013] – [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to modify the drone of Tang to include solar cells as taught by Liu et al. for the purpose of providing electrical charging power to UAVs even in weather conditions where sunlight is unavailable (Liu et al., paragraph [0003]).
Claims 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 7,029,126) in view of Stoltz (US 5,231,388).
Regarding Claim 7, Tang fails to explicitly disclose a projector where the DLP is an amplitude modulator. However, Stoltz teaches a DLP that is an amplitude modulator (Col. 3 lines 8 – 24: FIG. 1 illustrates an optics unit 10 for a digital image display system. Optics unit 10 uses spatial light modulators (SLMs) for two different functions. Color-regulating SLMs 12a - 12c [DLP] adjust the color intensities from colored light sources 11a - 11c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to modify the projector of Tang to include a modulator as taught by Stoltz for the purpose of providing a less expensive system for providing modulated imaging light (Col. 2 lines 17 – 59, Stoltz).
Regarding Claim 8, Tang fails to explicitly disclose a projector where the DLP is a phase modulator. Stoltz discloses a DLP that is a phase modulator (Col. 3 lines 8 – 24: FIG. 1 illustrates an optics unit 10 for a digital image display system. Optics unit 10 uses spatial light modulators (SLMs) for two different functions. Color-regulating SLMs 12a-12c [DLP] adjust the color intensities from colored light sources 11a - 11c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to modify the projector of Tang to include a modulator as taught by Stoltz for the purpose of providing a less expensive system for providing modulated imaging light (Col. 2 lines 17 – 59, Stoltz).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 15, 16, and 18 – 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/VALENTINA XAVIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642