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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rubenchik et al. (US 2010/0276547; “Rubenchik”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 1, Rubenchik teaches a system (figures 2, 5) for solar energy harvesting (para. [0056]), the system comprising:
a first light emitting device of a first light emission system (The first light emission system is interpreted as a first half of the diode array 60 of laser system 30; para. [0035], [0056]) located on a space apparatus (see space apparatus in figure 2) that is capable of operating outside an atmosphere of Earth (38 in figure 2);
a second light emitting device of a second light emission system (The second light emission system is interpreted as a second half of the diode array 60 of laser system 30; para. [0035], [0056]) different from the first light emission system (The first light emission system is interpreted as a first half of the diode array 60 of laser system 30; para. [0035], [0056]) located on the space apparatus; and
a controller (Para. [0041] teaches the laser system producing “a laser beam that is directed to the receiver stations on Earth.”) configured to cause the first and second light emitting devices (of diode array 60; para [0035], [0056]) to illuminate a multi-junction photovoltaic cell (Para. [0044] and [0056] teach photovoltaic panels receiving the laser beam from the space apparatus. Also, para. [0041] teaches “the receiver, which can be, … of the same type as discussed above. Earlier para. [0032]-[0033] teach the photovoltaic panels comprising multi-junction solar cell arrays.) located on Earth (38 in figure 2) when sunlight is at least partially prevented from reaching the multi-junction photovoltaic cell (Similar to the instant invention, Rubenchik utilizes lasers to transmit energy from a space apparatus to a multi-junction photovoltaic cell on Earth even when sunlight is at least partially prevented from reaching the multi-junction photovoltaic cell.), wherein each of the first and second light emitting devices shares an aperture (Laser system 30 in figure 2), and
wherein illumination of the multi-junction photovoltaic cell causes the multi- junction photovoltaic cell to produce electric power (As discussed above, para. [0032]-[0033] teach multi-junction PV cells. Para. [0044] and [0056] teach PV cells generating electricity from space-based lasers.).
As for claim 4, Rubenchik teaches wherein the first light emitting device is a laser (Para. [0035], [0056] teach diode arrays.).
Regarding claim 5, Rubenchik teaches wherein the laser is one of a solid-state laser, a gas laser, a liquid laser, a semiconductor laser (diode laser; para. [0035], [0056]), a krypton-argon laser, a gallium arsenide laser, an indium laser, a helium—neon laser, an argon laser, a krypton laser, a xenon ion laser, a nitrogen laser, a carbon dioxide laser, a carbon monoxide laser, an excimer laser, a hydrogen fluoride laser, a deuterium fluoride laser, a chemical oxygen-iodine laser, an all gas-phase iodine laser, or a strained quantum-well AlGaInP laser.
As for claims 6 and 7, Rubenchik teaches wherein the controller is further configured to select a first drive current for the first light emitting device that yields a first photon flux based at least in part on the first drive current (Para. [0041] teaches driving the laser system. A laser diode inherently generates a photon flux based on a drive current.).
Regarding claim 9, Rubenchik teaches a second multi-junction photovoltaic cell located on the space apparatus (para. [0032]-[0033]), wherein the second multi-junction photovoltaic cell is configured to generate second electric power from sunlight (para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Rubenchik teaches wherein the first and second light emitting devices are configured to use the second electric power to emit light (para. [0041]).
As for claim 13, Rubenchik teaches wherein the multi-junction photovoltaic cell is a series-connected multi-junction photovoltaic cell such that each layer of the multi-junction photovoltaic cell is connected electrically in series (This is the definition of a multi-junction PV cell.).
Regarding claims 14 and 17-19, the methods as recited in the claims are inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 9, and 10.
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.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubenchik in view of Douglas et al. (US 10,224,868; “Douglas”).
As for claim 3, Rubenchik, teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first light emitting device is configured to reflect sunlight to the multi-junction photovoltaic cell.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to direct reflected sunlight to Earth for solar energy harvesting. For example, see figures 2 and 14; col. 18, lines 33-53; and col. 20, lines 42-52 of Douglas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize reflected sunlight for the solar energy harvesting of Rubenchik because such a modification would have been exercising a well-known solar energy harvesting configuration.
Regarding claim 16, the method as recited in the claim is inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubenchik in view of Sato (US 2020/0303964; reference of record).
Regarding claim 8, Rubenchik teaches the system of Claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the first and second light emitting devices are configured to emit light at different wavelengths.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to transmit power with a laser system comprising lasers with different wavelengths. For example, see figure 1 and para. [0025]-[0027] of Sato.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize lasers with different wavelengths in the system of Rubenchik because such a modification would have been exercising a well-known laser configuration for power transmission.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubenchik in view of Yap (US 10,824,049; reference of record).
Regarding claim 11, Rubenchik teaches the system of Claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein a beam of each of the first and second light emitting devices is combined using a grating combiner.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to combine outputs of a laser array with a grating combiner. For example, see lasers 124 and grating combiner 126 in figure 6 of Yap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a grating combiner in the laser system of Rubenchik because such a modification would have been exercising a well-known laser combining configuration.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubenchik in view of Gilliland et al. (US 6,108,114; “Gilliland”; reference of record).
Regarding claim 12, Sato teaches the system of Claim 1, as detailed above, but fails to teach wherein the controller is further configured to disable power to the first light emitting device based at least in part on a determination that the first light emitting device is not emitting light.
However, it is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art to disable a laser when a fault is detected in the laser. For example, see col. 1, lines 55-59 of Gilliland.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disable a laser of Rubenchik when a fault is detected in the laser because such a modification would have been merely exercising a well-known laser shut-down protocol.
Regarding claim 20, the method as recited in the claim is inherently present in the structure discussed above in the rejection of claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The best prior art reference of record, Rubenchik, fails to teach:
“wherein the controller is further configured to: determine an amount of sunlight received by the multi-junction photovoltaic cell is below a threshold amount; and selectively activate the first and second light emitting devices in response to the determination that the amount of sunlight received by the multi-junction photovoltaic cell is below the threshold amount.”, as set forth in claim 2; and
“wherein causing the first and second light emitting devices to illuminate a multi-junction photovoltaic cell further comprises: determining an amount of sunlight received by the multi-junction photovoltaic cell is below a threshold amount; and selectively activating the first and second light emitting devices in response to the determination that the amount of sunlight received by the multi-junction photovoltaic cell is below the threshold amount.”, as set forth in claim 15.
Conclusion
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). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights