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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below 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. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety 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.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety 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. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: the plurality of pull cables is not readily seen in the drawings. The drawings lack clarity to see details. See figs (3a, 3b. 4a, 4b and 11).
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
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 1-14 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. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Re claim 1 the term “it” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination.
Re claims 2-8 the phrase "the method" is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what is "method for wireless transmission of energy in space" recited in claim 1 or additional/different.
Re claims 6 and 13 the term “a matrix of photovoltaic components and/or rectifier antennas (rectennas)” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. “a matrix of photovoltaic components and/or rectifier antennas (rectennas)” is not recited in the specification.
Re claim 9 the phrase "A system for implementing the method according to claim 1" is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether the language claims an apparatus or a method.
Re claims 10-14 the phrase "the system" is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what is "system for implementing the method" recited in claim 9 or additional/different.
Reference of prior art
De Young et al. (US 5260639, Method For Remotely Powering A Device Such As A Lunar Rover).
Nakada et al. (US 20230203831, COMPUTER SYSTEM PROVIDING SERVICE TO MULTIPLE USERS USING SATELLITES IN EARTH ORBIT, AND METHOD AND PROGRAM EXECUTED BY COMPUTER SYSTEM).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by De Young.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses:
A method for wireless transmission of energy in space, the method comprising the steps of: - providing a plurality of transmitting satellites (the laser power station satellites P1, P2, and P3) orbiting in an orbit around a planet or a celestial body (the laser power station satellites P1, P2, and P3 orbiting around planet P) and comprising each an apparatus (item 16) for emitting a beam (item 25) of coherent electromagnetic waves (col. 3, l 47-50 and col. 6, l 4-6);
- providing at least one target (item 11) with a reception apparatus (item 86) configured substantially as a matrix of components (fig. 7, photovoltaic cells) adapted to convert said beam of coherent electromagnetic waves into electric energy (col. 6, l 4-10); and
- transmitting energy to said target (item 11) by emitting beams (item 25) of coherent electromagnetic waves towards it from said transmitting satellites (col. 3, l 40-50).
Re claims 2 and 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses: The method, wherein the beam of waves (25) is a laser beam (col. 3, l 31-32, … laser satellite system is used at at time to beam power to the rover).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses:
The method according claim 1,wherein emission of the beam (25) of waves occurs when the distance of each emitting satellite (10) from the target (20) is less than 3,000 km (col. 3, l 19-21).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses:
The method according to claim1,wherein the reception apparatus (22) of the target (20) substantially comprises a matrix of photovoltaic components and/or rectifier antennas (rectennas) (col. 4, l 13-43 and col 5, l 60- col. 6, l 45).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses: The method according to claim1,wherein the target (20) of energy transmission comprises one of: an orbiting satellite, a mobile vehicle on a planet or a celestial body (P), a fixed receiver on a planet or a celestial body (P) (fig. 7, items 11 and 112).
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) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Young and further in view of Nakada.
Re claims 6 and 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young fails to teach as disclosed by Nakada:
The method/system, wherein the orbit of the transmitting satellites (10) is sun-synchronous (¶ 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to add the Nakada teachings of the orbit of the transmitting satellites (10) is sun-synchronous into the De Young, for
providing consistent lighting conditions for imaging and data collection.
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses:
The method according to claim1,wherein the orbit of the transmitting satellites (10) is a low lunar orbit (F) (col. 8, l 66-68).
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses:
Method The method according to claim1,wherein said at least one target (20) with a reception apparatus (22) has a raised- edge shape or a spherical cap or dome shape (fig. 7, item 112).
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses:
A system for implementing the method according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of transmitting satellites (10) orbiting around a planet or a celestial body (P), comprising each an apparatus (12) for emitting a beam (25) of coherent electromagnetic waves.
(Claim 9 above is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 9 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1).
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses:
The system according to claim 9, wherein the transmitting satellites (20) move in the same orbit (col. 3, l 15-19).
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses:
The system according to claim 9, wherein the transmitting satellites (10) are mutually equidistant (the laser power station satellites P1, P2, and P3 orbiting around planet P) as depicted in fig, 1.
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, De Young discloses:
The system according to claim 9,comprising a receiving target (20) equipped with at least one matrix of photovoltaic components and/or rectifier antennas (rectennas), adapted to be irradiated by the transmitting satellites (10) (col. 4, l 13-43 and col 5, l 60- col. 6, l 45). .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642