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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 allowed.
Claims 9, 10 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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) 1, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naka et al (US 2012/0133146).
Re Claims 1, 4 and 11; Naka discloses a wind turbine (1) comprising: a power beaming apparatus (5a-n), wherein the power beaming apparatus comprises at least one receiving antenna (5a) for receiving electromagnetic radiation and converting the received electromagnetic radiation into current (optical signal converter 11 converters received electromagnetic radiation into current for the controller 12a, Fig. 2 and also see Par 0063); and one or more electrical devices (controller) electrically connected with the at least one receiving antenna (5) for supplying the current from the receiving antenna to the one or more electrical devices. (Par 0063)
Re Claim 4; Naka discloses wherein the power beaming apparatus
Naka does not disclose comprises one or more actuators for directing the at least one receiving antenna towards a transmitting antenna arranged remote from the wind turbine.
However, adding actuators for moving antennas was known and it would have been obvious in order to capture the maximum amount of power transmitted.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naka et al (US 2012/0133146) in view of Kalogirou US (20240167457)
Re Claim 2; Naka discloses a wind generator as discussed above.
Naka does not disclose comprising a generator for generating electrical power and a hydrogen production apparatus for converting the generated electrical power into hydrogen.
Kalogirou disclose comprising a generator for generating electrical power (Par 0017) and a hydrogen production apparatus for converting the generated electrical power into hydrogen. (Par 0008)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have used the power produced the wind generation to produce hydrogen so that power is not consumed from the grid in order to save cost.
Re Claim 3; Naka discloses wherein the one or more electrical devices include one or more electrical loads and/or one or more electrical storage units. (the controller12 is the load)
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naka et al (US 2012/0133146) in view of Haridim et al. (US 2020/0166259)
Re Claim 5; Naka discloses wherein the power beaming apparatus.
Naka does not disclose comprises at least one transmitting antenna for transmitting electromagnetic radiation to a receiving antenna arranged remote from the wind turbine.
However, Haridim discloses at least one transmitting antenna for transmitting electromagnetic radiation to a receiving antenna arranged remote from the wind turbine. (Fig. 1 and 2 and Par 0028-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have used the generator and the antenna of Naka to transfer power as shown by Haridim in order to wirelessly transmit power to the load
Re Claim 6 and 7; the combination has been discussed above. The combination does not disclose wherein a rated transmission power of the at least one transmitting antenna is 2 MW or smaller, 1 MW or smaller, 500 kW or smaller, 100 kW or smaller, 50 kW or smaller and/or 10 kW or smaller and wherein a rated transmission power of the at least one transmitting antenna is 3 MW or larger, 5 MW or larger, 10 MW or larger, 15 MW or larger and/or 20 MW or larger.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the values as shown above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadiraju et al (US 2023/0175491) in view of Naka
Re Claim 8; Gadiraju discloses a central power installation for a wind farm, comprising: a central power source (550) for providing electrical power, (Fig. 4) and
Gadiraju does not disclose a central power beaming apparatus including at least one transmitting antenna for generating electromagnetic radiation from the provided electrical power and transmitting the electromagnetic radiation to a receiving antenna of a wind turbine of the wind farm.
However, Nata discloses a central power beaming apparatus including at least one transmitting antenna for generating electromagnetic radiation from the provided electrical power and transmitting the electromagnetic radiation to a receiving antenna of a wind turbine of the wind farm. (Par 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have added additional power source as indicated by Nata to the device of Gadiraju in order to provide additional power when needed to effectively power the load of the generator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL KESSIE/
08/29/2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836