Patent Application 18419274 - PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER TRANSFER SYSTEM AND METHODS

Title: PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER TRANSFER SYSTEM AND METHODS

Application Information

Invention Title: PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER TRANSFER SYSTEM AND METHODS
Application Number: 18419274
Submission Date: 2025-04-09T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2024-01-22T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2024-01-22T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 307
National Sub-Class: 104000
Examiner Employee Number: 89875
Art Unit: 2836
Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 2/5/2025 have been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1-2, 6, 9-10, and 15 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-16 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Apte’s “system may also include a controller configured to determine for the system a mode of operation from among the following modes: (i) a common mode, (ii) a differential mode, and (iii) an inductive mode.” (Remarks, pg.6) However, the applicant does not acknowledge and/or rebut the examiner’s citation made in the office action, dated 9/5/2024, that Apte explicitly discloses transmitting and receiving both capacitive and inductive power simultaneously (for e.g., Col.16 line 66 to Col.17, line 2 “… a wireless link coupling link may be maintained between the transmitter and receiver that utilizes different coupling modes simultaneously…” and fig.8, Col.18, lines 5-16, see at least operational states 5 and 7 which clearly shows simultaneously via capacitive and magnetic induction).
Applicant’s arguments directed towards Jeong’s figs.7-10 and fig.19 (see Remarks, pgs.6 and 7) are not persuasive, because the examiner did not rely on figs.7-10 and fig.19 of Jeong in the office action and more specifically did not rely on Jeong for “joint inductive and capacitive transference” as alleged by the applicant (see Remarks, pgs.6 and 7). Instead, the examiner relied on Jeong’s fig.4, par [51] to teach variable oscillation (see OA, 9/5/2024, pg.7). The applicant argues that “The examiner cited paragraphs [0122-0124] of Jeong disclosing both capacitive and inductive power transfer….” (See Remarks, pg.7) This is incorrect- the examiner only cited to par [51] of Jeong (see OA, 9/5/2024, pg.7) and did not cite to pars [0122-0124] as alleged by the applicant. It appears that the applicant is relying on arguments made in other co-pending applications by the same applicant, however, none of those arguments apply in the instant application since the teachings/citations relied upon in Jeong in the instant application are completely different than ones in the co-pending applications.
Further, applicant argues that “While Song does adjust the power signal in accordance with a power transmission efficiency of the single mode of power transfer, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion that the controller adjusts a variable resonant power signal oscillation frequency using a transfer mode ratio, nor of any simultaneous inductive and capacitive transfer.” (Remarks, pg.8). In response to applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that the one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Apte, as discussed previously, already teaches simultaneous inductive and capacitive power transfer, which means there is an inherent transfer ratio between the two. Jeong teaches adjusting the variable oscillation frequency. These teachings are not required to be found in Song again. In the combination of references, when Song adjusts the power signal, the inductive/H-field is changed, which obviously results in adjusting the transfer mode ratio of the capacitive and inductive power (in the combination). It is further noted that applicant’s argument of “adjusts a variable resonant power signal frequency using a transfer mode ratio” is directed towards unclaimed subject matter- nowhere in claim 1 is there an actual adjustment of the variable oscillation frequency, much less adjusting the oscillation frequency using a transfer mode ratio. Claim 1, for example, recites in part c “…to receive power from at least one of the one or more transmitter resonators… according to an adjustable transfer more ratio of the capacitive power transfer to the inductive power transfer at the variable oscillation frequency…” This is clearly not the same as applicant’s arguments of adjusting the variable oscillation frequency using a transfer mode ratio. Applicant further argues that “What Apte fails to disclose, teach, or suggest is an arrangement where each resonator has at least one transmitting high self-capacitance element…and at least one transmitting high self-inductance element…” (Remarks, pg.8). The examiner respectfully disagrees, since this is directed towards unclaimed subject matter. The claims do not recite “high self-capacitance element” and “high self-inductance element”. For limitations to be given any patentable weight, they must be claimed. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment”. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed.Cir. 2004). MPEP §2111.01(II).
Applicant states that “In the system of Figure D (which corresponds to Figures 4-6, 8, and 12 of the present application) … This exemplary arrangement is inherently mutually resonant and self-tuning. This kind of system is not at all disclosed nor suggested by any of the cited prior art…” (Remarks, pg.12-13, bridging paragraph). However, the applicant does not cite to the claims to indicate where any of this is explicitly claimed. Where is “inherently mutually resonant and self-tuning” in the claims? Applicant states that “the present Specification describes an entirely different approach in which the transmitter and receiver resonators only develop impedances suitable for resonance within the bandwidth of the system… To this end, the Q of the system is intentionally designed lower to provide a frequency range (or bandwidth) over which the system auto-adjusts to place the driving oscillator and the transmitter- and receiver resonators at the same but variable frequency in that range… In the detailed description of the Speciation, it is specifically described how the Quality Factor Q of the resonant circuits is somewhat reduced…” (Remarks, pg. 13). However, the applicant has not provided any citations to the claims for “only develop impedances”, “Q of the system” being designed lower, “the system auto-adjusts”, and/or “Quality Factor Q of the resonant circuits is somewhat reduced”. The examiner notes that “It is not proper to read limitations appearing in the specification into the claim when these limitations are not recited in the claim” (emphasis added). See in re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2s 1671, 1674 (Fed.Cir. 1994); Intervet America Inc. v. Kee-Vet Lab. Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed.Cir. 1989).
Applicant further states that “At the frequencies of interest, these circuits may assume somewhat unexpected shapes in which the inductors L3 and L4, and the capacitor plates C’3 and C”3 may be wholly integrated into one another, as in Figure 2A…” (Remarks, pg.14) The examiner contends that it is not “may be”- it seems like this is the only disclosure and it is not claimed. The applicant further states that “first transmitter antenna 32 may comprise any suitable antenna having a high self-inductance and a high self-capacitance that is capable of creating both magnetic field 31A and electric field 31B (separately and/or simultaneously).” The claims do not recite an “antenna”, do not recite having a “high self-inductance and a high self-capacitance”, and do not recite that the inductance and capacitance are properties integrated in the antenna itself and any structure (i.e., the shapes, gaps, edges, etc.) that would give the antenna its inductance and capacitance. “It is not proper to read limitations appearing in the specification into the claim when these limitations are not recited in the claim” (emphasis added). See in re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2s 1671, 1674 (Fed.Cir. 1994); Intervet America Inc. v. Kee-Vet Lab. Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed.Cir. 1989).
Lastly, “During prosecution, the applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude.” See, e.g. Johnson & Johnson Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(en banc). MPEP §2173.02
See below for further analysis of the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…transmission module configured to covert the power…”in claim 1 and similar language in corresponding method claim 10.
“…each receiver module configured to receive power…render the power received from the at one or more power receive resonators into a direct current voltage…” in claim 1
“…a transmission tuning network configured to change under control of the controller at least a phase of the power…” in claim 5.
“…a phase of the power provided by the transmission module to the one or more transmitter resonators” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in part c that the “wherein the one or more transmitter resonators are configured to transmit power at the variable oscillation frequency and the one or more receiver resonators…to receive power from the at least one or more transmitter resonators simultaneously via capacitive coupling and magnetic induction…”; however, there is no part, especially in the amended language, that explicitly recites that the one or more transmitter resonators actually transmit/transfer power simultaneously via capacitive coupling and magnetic induction to the receiver resonator. As currently presented, the transmitter resonator transmits power (but not bimodally/simultaneously via capacitive coupling and magnetic induction) and the one or more receiver resonators receives power simultaneously via cap coupling and magnetic induction. The transmitter needs to simultaneously provide both for the receiver to receive both. The claim should be amended to explicitly recite that the one or more transmitter resonators transmits power simultaneously via capacitive coupling and magnetic induction.
Claim 6 recites “at least one of the one or more transmitter resonator proximate to the one or more receiver resonator.” “Resonator” in both instances should be “resonators”.
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, 6, 10-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apte et al. (10,128,660 B1) in view of Jeong (2017/0063098 A1) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Apte (figs.1, 8, 10, 17) teaches a near-field resonant wireless system for transferring power from one or more photovoltaic cells (for example, fig.17, item 1702) to a power load (shown in fig. 1 or 10; “Load”), the system comprising:
a. one or more transmission modules (items 1704, 1706, Col.38, lines 17-19; transmission module includes at least an oscillator) in electrical communication with the one or more photovoltaic cells (Col.38, lines 24-27), each transmission module configured to convert the power from at least one of the one or more photovoltaic cells (1702) into an oscillating electrical power signal having an oscillation frequency (Col.38, lines 27-32, 40-42; Apte teaches the transmission module as comprising an oscillator that provides an electrical signal with an oscillation frequency that is within a range of frequencies);
b. one or more transmitter resonators (for example, fig.17, 1714) in electrical communication with the one or more transmission modules (Col.38, lines 37-40), each transmitter resonator configured to resonate at the oscillation frequency (Col.38, lines 37-42);
c. one or more receiver resonators (for example, receive resonator 1042 in fig.10 or 112 in fig.1), each receiver resonator configured to resonate at the oscillation frequency, wherein the one or more transmitter resonators are configured to transmit power at the oscillation frequency (Col.38, lines 37-50) and the one or more receiver resonators are each disposed to receive power from at least one of the one or more transmitter resonators simultaneously via capacitive coupling and magnetic induction according to a transfer mode ratio of the capacitive power transfer to the inductive power transfer at the oscillation frequency (Col.6, lines 19-25 “…coupled via an oscillating magnetic field and/or an oscillating electric field…”, Col.16, line 66 to Col.17, line 2 “ …a wireless coupling link may be maintained between the transmitter and receiver that utilizes different coupling modes simultaneously…”, fig.8, Col.18, lines 5-16, see at least operational states 5 and 7 in which both capacitive and inductive coupling are simultaneously on, Col.44, lines 31-42; There is an inherent transfer mode ratio that exists between the capacitive and inductive coupling when they are simultaneously on/being used);
d. one or more receiver modules (see for e.g., fig.10, rectifier 1048) in electrical communication with the receiver resonator (see fig.10), each receiver module configured to receive power from at least one of the one or more receiver resonators (Col.38, lines 47-50), render the power received from the one or more receiver resonators into a direct current voltage, and transmit the direct current voltage to the power load (“Load”, Col.38, lines 47-50).
Apte teaches the transmission module/oscillator provides an oscillation frequency that is within a range of frequencies (Col.38, lines 17-19, 40-42), which suggests that the oscillation frequency is variable/has the capability of being varied noting that labeling an oscillation frequency “variable” does not mean the oscillation frequency is actually varied. However, Apte does not expressly teach the oscillation frequency is variable.
Jeong, however, similarly teaches one or more transmission modules (fig.4, items 423, 424…) that includes the oscillator (423) that is variable and thus providing the oscillating electrical power signal having a variable oscillation frequency (par [51]).
In the combination, Apte’s transmitter resonator resonating at the oscillation frequency is further combined with Jeong’s teachings of having “variable” oscillation frequency so that Apte’s transmitter resonator is “configured to”/capable or able to resonate at the variable oscillation frequency and “configured to”/capable or able to transmit power at the “variable” oscillation frequency and the one or more receiver resonators receive power at the “variable” oscillation frequency.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied upon the teachings of Jeong in order to have different frequencies in which to adjust the oscillation frequency so that the transmitter may have the option to operate at any suitable or desired frequency. Note: labeling a frequency “variable” does not mean it is actually varied.
Modified Apte teaches the transfer mode ratio of the capacitive power to the inductive power transfer is inherent since both powers are simultaneously used.
Modified Apte does not explicitly disclose that the transfer mode ratio is adjustable.
Song, however, teaches it is known in the art to adjust a current phase and/or voltage phase of the power provided to the transmitter resonator in an inductive system (pars [66, 68]; by adjusting the phase of the current or voltage, the phase difference between the two is adjusted and thus the inductive transfer in the transfer mode ratio in the combination of references is also adjusted).
Thus, in the combination, Apte teaches simultaneously transferring wireless power via capacitive and inductive and therefore creating an inherent transfer ratio between the two. Song teaches adjusting the power signal provided to the transmitter resonator in a system where the transmitter and receiver are inductively/magnetically coupled. In the combination of references, when Song adjusts the power signal by controlling the current phase and/or voltage phase (i.e., phase difference between the two) of the power signal, the inductive/H-field is changed, which obviously results in adjusting the transfer mode ratio of the capacitive and inductive power in the combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Apte to that of Song. The motivation would have been to provide an optimal power to the transmitter resonator and to improve the power transmission efficiency (Song, par [68]) by adjusting the current phase and/or voltage phase of the power delivered to the transmitter resonator.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the one or more transmission modules each comprise one of (the recitation of “one of” requires one or the other, but not both-however, the combination teaches both) an oscillator (Apte, Col.38, lines 17-19 and Jeong, fig.4, item 423) and a power amplifier (Apte, Col. 20, lines 19-22 and Jeong, fig.4, item 424, pars [44, 50]; “PA”/Power Amplifier) configured to modulate the power received from the one or more photovoltaic cell at the variable oscillation frequency (Apte, see rejection of claim 1, Jeong, fig.4, pars [44, 50-51]; the combination teaches the structure of the power amplifier 424 right after the oscillator 423- thus, the structure of “one of” an oscillator and the power amplifier is “configured to”/capable of modulating the power received from modified Apte’s photovoltaic cell at the variable oscillation frequency).
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 2 and further teaches wherein the one or more transmission modules each comprises an oscillator (Apte, fig.17, 1704, Col.38, lines 17-19 and Jeong, fig.4, 423) configured to provide the variable oscillation frequency to the power amplifier (Jeong, fig.4, pars [50-51]; oscillator 423 provides the variable oscillation frequency to the power amplifier “PA” 424).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the one or more transmission modules each further comprise a controller (Apte, fig.17, controller 1716 and Jeong, fig.4, 415) and one or more sensors (Jeong, 416), the controller configured to vary the variable oscillation frequency (Jeong, pars [51]) based on first information from at least one of the one or more sensors (pars [44, 51-52]; Jeong teaches the based on first information from the sensor 416, enabling the oscillator which in and of itself is adjusting the frequency before being enabled and after being enabled. Then, the oscillator frequency is adjusted to the desired frequency “based on” the information from 416. It is noted that enabling oscillator and frequency adjustment is because the receiver requested and the transmitter knows this because of its sensor).
Examiner Note: see also Lee (2014/0167522 A1), fig.7, par [131], the controller (180) configured to vary the variable oscillation frequency based on first information from at least one of the one or more sensors (140, par [131]).
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the one or more receiver resonator is disposed for receiving power from at least one of the one or more transmitter resonator proximate to the one or more receiver resonators (Apte, see for e.g., figs. 10 and/or 18, Col.39, lines 23-35; receiver resonator receiving power from at least one or more proximate transmitter resonator).
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination teaches the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps in claim 10 as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. The combination teaches a method for transferring power from one or more photovoltaic cells to a power load (see rejection of claim 1), the method comprising:
a. providing one or more transmission modules, each transmission module being in electrical communication with a corresponding one of the one or more photovoltaic cells (see rejection of claim 1, part a);
b. providing one or more transmitter resonators configured to resonate at a variable oscillation frequency, each transmitter resonator being in electrical communication with a corresponding one of the one or more transmission modules (see rejection of claim 1, part b, noting that Jeong teaches making the oscillation frequency “variable” as discussed in the rejection of claim 1);
c. providing one or more receiver resonators configured to resonate at the variable oscillation frequency, each receiver resonator in electrical communication with a corresponding receiver module (see rejection of claim 1, parts c and d);
d. converting in each transmission module power from the corresponding one of the one or more photovoltaic cells into an oscillating electrical power signal having the variable oscillation frequency (see rejection of claim 1, part a);
e. transferring power from at least one of the one or more transmitter resonators to one or more of the receiver resonators simultaneously via capacitive coupling and magnetic induction according to an adjustable transfer mode ratio of the capacitive power transfer to the inductive power transfer at the variable oscillation frequency (see rejection of claim 1, part c noting that Song teaches the “adjustable” in Apte’s transfer mode ratio of capacitive to inductive power as discussed in the rejection of claim 1);
f. rendering the power received from the one or more receiver resonators into a direct current voltage (see rejection of claim 1, part d); and
g. supplying the direct current voltage to the power load (see rejection of claim 1, part d).
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 10 and further teaches providing the one or more transmission modules comprises providing one or more transmission modules each comprising a power amplifier (Apte, Col. 20, lines 19-22 and Jeong, fig.4, item 424, pars [44, 50]; “PA”/Power Amplifier); and modulating in at least one power amplifier the power received from the one or
more photovoltaic cells at the variable oscillation frequency (Apte, Col. 20, lines 19-22, Jeong, fig.4, pars [44, 50-51]; the combination teaches the structure of the power amplifier 424 right after the oscillator 423- thus, the structure of the power amplifier completes the steps of “modulating” the power received from modified Apte’s photovoltaic cell at the variable oscillation frequency).
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 10 and further teaches providing the one or more transmission modules comprises providing one or more transmission modules each comprising an oscillator (Apte, fig.17, 1704, Col.38, lines 17-19 and Jeong, fig.4, 423); and providing from the oscillator to the power amplifier the variable oscillation frequency (Jeong, fig.4, pars [50-51]; oscillator 423 provides the variable oscillation frequency to the power amplifier “PA” 424).
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 recites the same limitation as discussed above in the rejection of claim 4 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 11 and further teaches wherein providing the one or more receiver resonator comprises providing at least one of the one or more receiver resonators disposed proximate to the one or more of the transmitter resonators (Apte, see for e.g., figs. 10 and/or 18, Col.39, lines 23-35) and receiving in the at least one receiver resonator power from one or more transmitter resonators proximate to the at least one receiver resonator (Apte, see for e.g., fig.18, Col.39, lines 23-35).
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apte et al. (10,128,660 B1) in view of Jeong (2017/0063098 A1) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1) in further view of Suzuki et al. (2015/0326028).
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 4 and further teaches wherein the one or more transmission modules each comprise a transmission tuning network (Apte, for e.g., fig.2, items 202+ 212 that include impedance matching network and Song, fig.3, item 320) configured to change under control of the controller at least a phase of the power provided by the transmission module to the one or more transmitter resonators (Song, pars [66, 68]) based on second information from at least one or more sensors at the receiver side (Song, pars [66, 68]).
The combination does not explicitly disclose the second information is received from the at least one of the one or more sensors comprised in the transmission module.
Suzuki (fig.11), however, similar to Song teaches to change under control of the controller (140) at least a phase of the power provided to the one or more transmission resonator (120, par [75]) and further teaches based on second information from at least one or more sensors (161, 162) in the transmission module (10, pars [75, 88-89]; calculating the power transmission efficiency to control the phase of the power includes information received from sensors 161, 162 at the transmitter side in addition to information received from the receiver side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination so that the second information received is from the one or more sensors in the transmission module. The motivation would have been because receiving second information from the transmitter side in addition to information from the receive side allows for a more efficient/robust calculation of power transmission efficiency (than only receiving information from the receiver side alone) that in turn would result in a more accurate control of phase of the power provided to the transmission resonator.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 recites the same limitations as discussed above in the rejection of claim 5 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.

Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apte et al. (10,128,660 B1) in view of Jeong (2017/0063098 A1) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1) in further view of Campanella et al. (2012/0098350 A1).
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and Apte further teaches wherein the one or more transmitters (1714) are connected to the at least one or more photovoltaic cells (1702, see fig.17 and Col.38, lines 17-19, 37-40).
The combination does not explicitly disclose the one or more transmission resonators are disposed on a surface of the at least one or more photovoltaic cells opposing an active solar radiation receiving surface of the one or more photovoltaic cells.
Campanella (figs.20 and 24) however, teaches one or more transmission resonators (see transmission resonator in fig.20 and the transmission resonator behind the solar cells) are disposed on a surface of the at least one or more photovoltaic cells opposing an active solar radiation receiving surface of the one or more photovoltaic cells (see figs.20, 24, pars [257-258]; resonator disposed on a surface that is behind the solar cell/panel opposite to the active solar radiation surface/top surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Campanella, because where the transmission resonator is disposed/located with respect to the photovoltaic cell in the combination would have been an obvious matter of design choice and one skilled in the art would have obviously looked to Campanella for the teachings of how to dispose the transmission resonator on the photovoltaic to implement the system.

Claim(s) 8-9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apte et al. (10,128,660 B1) in view of Jeong (2017/0063098) in further view of Song et al. (2014/0203657 A1) in further view of Kanno (2014/0008995 A1).
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the variable oscillation frequency of the oscillating electrical power signal is free to vary (Jeong, par [44]; oscillator may be configured to generate a signal at a desired frequency such as 468.75 KHz, 6.78 MHz or 13.56 MHz, that may be adjusted in response to a frequency control signal).
Jeong does not explicitly disclose within a predetermined frequency band contained with the range between 1MHz and 1 GHz.
Kanno (fig.2), however, teaches an oscillator (103) with an oscillation frequency (f0) and further teaches the oscillation frequency is within a predetermined frequency band contained within a range between 1 MHz and 1 GHz (par [44]; frequency f0 may be in the range of 10 kHz to 1GHz).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the oscillation frequency vary within the predetermined frequency band within the range between 1MHz and 1GHz since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 8 and further teaches wherein the system is configured to allow the variable oscillation frequency of the oscillating electrical power signal to vary within opposing limits of a predetermined frequency band (Jeong, pars [44, 51] and Kanno, par [44]; oscillator may be configured to generate a signal at a desired frequency such as 468.75 KHz, 6.78 MHz or 13.56 MHz, that may be adjusted in response to a frequency control signal and Kanno’s predetermined frequency band. There is nothing in the prior art that prohibits variable oscillation frequency from being varied within the opposing limits of the predetermined frequency band).
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as in claims 8 and 9 above and is therefore rejected in the same fashion. Jeong teaches allowing the variable oscillation frequency to vary (Jeong, pars [44, 51]) and Kanno teaches that oscillation frequency is within a predetermined frequency within the range between 1MHz and 1 GHz (Kanno, par [44]). The motivation statement for claim 8 holds for claim 16 (i.e., discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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 on (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.

/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836

Patent Application 18419274 - PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER TRANSFER SYSTEM AND METHODS - Rejection

Patent Application 18419274 - PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER TRANSFER SYSTEM AND METHODS

Application Information

Rejection Summary

Cited Patents

Office Action Text

(Ad) Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months

Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months