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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the 19/182,778 application filed on 04/18/2025.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the source impedance curve" in line 2 and “the load impedance curve” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the current output” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam (US 2023/0130351) in view of Ren et al. (CN207588797 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claims 1 and 4-5, Lam discloses a system (figs. 1-4) comprising:
at least one satellite (102) including:
an artificial light source (energy beam 108 as laser light [0026]) configured to project light onto earth or another celestial body (fig. 1); and
a photovoltaic array 210 configured to power the artificial light source (fig. 4),
wherein there is a direct electrical connection between one or more cells of the photovoltaic array and the artificial light source that is unconditioned (fig. 4 shows direct electrical connection via the transmission lines between the solar collector 402, which has the photovoltaic array [0034], and the energy generator 406 that converts electrical power to laser energy [0035]; fig. 4 and paragraphs [0034-0035] also do not disclose any intervening electrical circuits that modify the electrical connection between the solar collector and the energy generator, which qualifies the electrical connection as being unconditioned as claimed).
Lam further discloses the solar energy collector (fig. 5B) includes a rectifier circuit with impedance matching circuit in order to provide maximum output voltage for the rectenna with minimum transmission losses [0038].
Lam is silent regarding at least a portion of the photovoltaic array matches an effective load impedance of the artificial light source.
Ren discloses a photovoltaic system; wherein, a portion of the photovoltaic array is configured to match the effective load impedance of the external load (paragraph [0031] of the translation document discloses “properly matches the load so that the load impedance is equal to the impedance of the power supply system”) to ensure the output of maximum power [0031].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the photovoltaic array of Lam with the circuitry of the photovoltaic array to configure load impedance matching between the external load, i.e. the energy generator, and the photovoltaic array as suggested by Ren in order to ensure maximum power output from the photovoltaic array (Ren, [0031]).
Regarding the limitation of claim 4, the modified system of Lam in view of Ren satisfies the limitation because the current output of the photovoltaic array is the only source of power for the artificial light source as shown in fig. 4 of Lam; therefore, the current output of the photovoltaic array provide the current limiting for the artificial light source as claimed.
Regarding the limitation of claim 5, the modified system of Lam in view of Ren satisfies the limitation because the load impedance matching effect disclosed by Ren already takes into account all the associated parameters, including the claimed current-voltage response of the load or the claimed artificial light source.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam (US 2023/0130351) in view of Ren et al. (CN207588797 with provided machine English translation) as applied to claims 1 and 4-5 above, and further in view of McKenna et al. (US 2022/0236509).
Addressing claim 2, Lam is silent regarding the at least one module of the artificial light source as claimed.
McKenna discloses optical fiber cable for converting electrical power to optical power and transport the optical power over great distance [0003] as the structural equivalence to the claimed artificial light source; wherein, the artificial light source includes a plurality of laser diodes [0036] coupled to a plurality of delivery fibers [0038] for transmitting optical power [0038].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Lam in view of Ren with the known optical fiber module disclosed by McKenna in order to obtain the predictable result of transmitting optical power from long distances (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143) with significantly low loss (McKenna, [0008]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam (US 2023/0130351) in view of Ren et al. (CN207588797 with provided machine English translation) as applied to claims 1 and 4-5 above, and further in view of Li (CN113644876 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 6, Lam and Ren are silent regarding the claimed bandwidth shunt or fixed shunt.
Li discloses a photovoltaic array protection circuit comprising a bypass shunting unit [n0023] that is the structural equivalence to the claimed fixed shunt.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the circuitry of the photovoltaic array of Lam in view of Ren with the bypass shunt disclosed by Li in order to improve the safety and stability of the photovoltaic module and the system (Li, [n0004]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,525,827. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
The limitations of claims 1 and 3 are similarly recited in claim 1 of US Pat. No. ‘827.
The limitations of claims 2 and 4-6 are similarly recited in claims 2-5, respectively, of US Pat. No. ‘827.
Allowable Subject Matter
Pending the 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection and the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection above, claim 3 would be 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 03/18/2026