`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`13/444,923
`
`04/12/2012
`
`Yosuke MIZUYAMA
`
`AOYB—43 1US
`
`5509
`
`RATNERPRESTIA
`PO. BOX 980
`VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482-0980
`
`MARTIN, BETHANY LAMBRIGHT
`
`ART UNIT
`
`1755
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/14/2014
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ptocorrespondence @ratnerprestia.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/444,923 MIZUYAMA, YOSUKE
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`BETHANY L. MARTIN first“ 1755
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3_ MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE
`OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136(a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on October28 2014.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)lX| This action is non-final.
`a)I:| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)|XI Claim(s) 9-_18is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)|:l Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`7)IZ| CIaim(s)_9-18is/are rejected.
`8)I:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`9)|:l Claim((s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`
`
`://www.usoto. ov/ atents/init events"
`h/index.‘s orsend an inquiry to PRI-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`htt
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:I The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)|:l All
`1.|:| Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:| Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PT0_413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`—
`4) I:I Other'
`2) D InformatIon DIscIosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20141029
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/444,923
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 1755
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October
`
`28, 2014 has been entered.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/444,923
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 1755
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere 00., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
`
`Claims 9-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over US 4653472 by Mori in view of US 20070147041 by Shiratsuchi et al
`
`(hereinafter Shiratsuchi) and Leutz et al “Design of Nomimaging Fresnel Lens for Solar
`
`Concentrators” (hereinafter Leutz).
`
`Regarding Claim 9, Mori discloses a light focusing lens which receives light from
`
`a light source (Fig. 3 corresponding to the claimed “a light source configured to output
`
`light in a range of wavelengths" limitation) wherein the light focusing lens has a first and
`
`second surface (Numeral 10 and 11 Fig. 3 corresponding to the claimed “at least one
`
`concentrating lens configured to receive the light from the light source and to separate
`
`the light passing through the respective concentrating lens into a plurality of beamlets”
`
`limitation). The first surface of the light focusing lens is a Fresnel lens (Numeral 11 Fig.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/444,923
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 1755
`
`1 corresponding to the claimed “each concentrating lens comprising: a first surface
`
`having a Fresnel lens and a second surface opposite the first surface” limitation).
`
`Mori does not disclose "the second surface having a plurality of microlenses”.
`
`However, Shiratsuchi discloses a concentrating lens (Numeral 30 Fig. 1) which
`
`collimates and refracts light towards a target ([0065]). The first side, incident to light
`
`comprises a Fresnel lens (Numeral 31 Fig. 1) and the second side comprising a plurality
`
`of microlenses (Numeral 32 Fig. 1 corresponding to the claimed “the second surface
`
`having a plurality of microlenses” limitation) in order to collect light which has been
`
`refracted and collimated by the Fresnel lens and focuses the light onto a target ([0065]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to employ a plurality of microlenses on the second side of
`
`Mori’s focusing lens, as taught by Shiratsuchi, in order to collect light which has been
`
`refracted and collimated by the Fresnel lens and focuses the light onto a target
`
`(Shiratsuchi [0065]).
`
`Mori discloses a solar cell (Numeral 14 Fig. 3) which receive light from the
`
`focusing lens (Fig. 3 corresponding to the claimed "and at least one PV cell
`
`corresponding to the at least one concentrating lens configured to receive the
`
`respective plurality of beamlets” limitation).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/444,923
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 1755
`
`Modified Mori does not disclose optimizing the height of the Fresnel lens
`
`features, thereby not explicitly disclosing “the Fresnel lens having a height extending
`
`from the first surface, wherein the height of the Fresnel lens is selected such that a sum
`
`of a square phase retardation error (SE) for at least two different wavelengths in the
`
`range of wavelengths of the light outputted by the light source is defined by (formula I)
`
`and is at minimum for the selected height of the Fresnel lens, wherein a phase
`
`retardation is represented as (formula II) wherein d is the Fresnel lens height of the
`
`Fresnel lens, lambda is each wavelength of the light within the two different
`
`wavelengths, n is a refractive index of the respective concentrating lens, m is a
`
`diffraction order of the Fresnel lens, mod represents a modulus, N represents a number
`
`of wavelengths of the at least two different wavelengths and min represents a minimum
`
`of phase retardation".
`
`However, Leutz discloses the design constraints of forming a Fresnel lens for a
`
`solar concentrating system wherein the acceptance angles should be optimized for
`
`desired optical effects. Light entering the Fresnel lens at angles less than the
`
`acceptance half angles of the element will be refracted by the lens. The height affects
`
`the acceptance half angles. Leutz discloses each element should be designed as to
`
`ensure a specific acceptance half angle in order to achieve the desired refraction
`
`(Fresnel Lens Design). Therefore, the height of each element within the Fresnel lens is
`
`considered a result effective variable. Increasing or decreasing the height results in a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/444,923
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 1755
`
`changed acceptance angle and range of incident light being accepted into the lens. As
`
`such, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the height of
`
`the Fresnel lens elements within modified Mori’s structure, as taught by Leutz, in order
`
`to achieve desired light refracting properties, corresponding to the limitations of Claim 9
`
`pertaining to the height optimization of the Fresnel lens. The discovery of an optimum
`
`value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new of unexpected
`
`results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205
`
`USPOQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (See MPEP 2144.05, ll).
`
`Examiner notes, although modified Mori does not disclose optimizing the height
`
`of the Fresnel lens utilizing the provided formulas of instant Claim 9, modified Mori does
`
`disclose a method by which the height of the Fresnel lens should be optimized, resulting
`
`in the same structural implications to a Fresnel lens as the claimed formulas. As the
`
`instant claims are drawn to a structure, the structural features of the claims are of
`
`consequence during examination.
`
`Regarding Claim 10, modified Mori discloses the height of the Fresnel elements
`
`should be optimized for desired optical results (Leutz Lens Design corresponding to the
`
`claimed "wherein for each concentrating lens, the selected height of the Fresnel lens is
`
`configured to simultaneously reduce sum of the square phase retardation error (SE) for
`
`the at least two different wavelengths" limitation).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/444,923
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 1755
`
`Regarding Claim 11, modified Mori discloses the solar cell absorbs light from the
`
`focusing lens (Mori Column 2 Lines 65-67 and Column 3 Lines 1-7 corresponding to the
`
`claimed “wherein, for each concentrating lens, the at least two different wavelengths
`
`correspond to one or more wavelength absorption bands of the corresponding PV cell”
`
`limitation).
`
`Regarding Claim 12, modified Mori discloses the first side of the focusing lens
`
`receives light (Mori Fig. 3 corresponding to the claimed "wherein each concentrating
`
`lens is configured to receive the light via the first surface” limitation).
`
`Regarding Claim 13, modified Mori discloses the second side of the focusing lens
`
`receives light from the first side (Shiratsuchi Fig.
`
`1 [0065] corresponding to the claimed
`
`"wherein each concentrating lens is configured to receive the light via the second
`
`surface” limitation).
`
`Regarding Claim 15, modified Mori discloses the first side of the focusing lens is
`
`a Fresnel lens (Mori Numeral 11 Fig. 3). Light exiting the focusing lens converges to an
`
`approximate focal point before diverging (Mori Fig. 3 corresponding to the claimed
`
`“wherein, for each concentrating lens, the Fresnel lens is configured to compensate for
`
`a dispersion by at least one of the first surface or the second surface” limitation).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/444,923
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 1755
`
`Regarding Claim 16, modified Mori discloses light exiting the focusing lens
`
`crosses path with light exiting the opposing side of the focusing lens, thereby striking
`
`the target at an opposite side from which it exits the focusing lens (Mori Fig. 3
`
`corresponding to the claimed “wherein, for each concentrating lens, the first surface is
`
`configured to superimpose the respective plurality of beamlets onto the corresponding
`
`PV cell” limitation).
`
`Regarding Claim 17, modified Mori discloses light exiting the focusing lens
`
`converges to an approximate focal point between the lens and the solar cell (Mori Fig. 3
`
`and Shiratsuchi Fig. 1 corresponding to the claimed "wherein, for each concentrating
`
`lens, the first surface is configured to focus the respective plurality of beamlets to a
`
`position between the concentrating lens and the corresponding PV cell” limitation).
`
`Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mori,
`
`Shiratsuchi and Leutz as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US
`
`20110023939 by Chen et al (hereinafter Chen).
`
`Regarding Claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full disclosure of modified
`
`Mori as it pertains to Claim 9. Modified Mori discloses a focusing lens having a first side
`
`comprising a Fresnel lens and a second side comprising a plurality of microlenses but
`
`does not explicitly disclose “wherein the at least one concentrating lens includes a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/444,923
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 1755
`
`plurality of concentrating lens and the at least one PV cell includes a plurality of PV
`
`cells”.
`
`However, Chen discloses a plurality of solar cell units having a plurality of
`
`Fresnel lenses disposed, wherein each solar cell receives light from a corresponding
`
`Fresnel lens (Fig. 2 [0034] corresponding to the claimed "wherein the at least one
`
`concentrating lens includes a plurality of concentrating lens and the at least one PV cell
`
`includes a plurality of PV cells” limitation) in order to form an assembly of solar cell units
`
`([0034]). Such an assembly is capable of converting more energy than a single solar
`
`cell unit.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`employ a plurality of solar concentrating units, as taught by Chen, because a plurality of
`
`units is capable of converting more energy than a single unit.
`
`Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mori,
`
`Shiratsuchi and Leutz as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US
`
`20090185302 by Forrester et al (hereinafter Forrester).
`
`Regarding Claim 18, Applicant is directed above for a full disclosure of modified
`
`Mori as it pertains to Claim 16. Modified Mori discloses a focusing lens having a first
`
`side comprising a Fresnel lens and a second side comprising a plurality of microlenses
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/444,923
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 1755
`
`but does not explicitly disclose "wherein, for each concentrating lens, the plurality of
`
`microlenses are configured to produce a homogenized distribution of the superimposed
`
`plurality of beamlets on the corresponding PV cell”.
`
`However, Forrester discloses a solar concentrator comprising a Fresnel lens
`
`which directs light to a solar receiver as concentrated homogenized light (Abstract
`
`corresponding to the claimed “wherein, for each concentrating lens, the plurality of
`
`microlenses are configured to produce a homogenized distribution of the superimposed
`
`plurality of beamlets on the corresponding PV cell” limitation) in order to eliminate
`
`hotspots which reduce efficiency of the solar cell by striking the cell with energy which is
`
`uniform in intensity ([0027]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`configure the Fresnel lens of modified Mori's solar concentrator to produce
`
`homogenized energy, as taught by Forrester, in order to increase cell efficiency by
`
`striking with light which is uniform in intensity, thereby eliminating hotspots (Forrester
`
`[0027D-
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to BETHANY L. MARTIN whose telephone number is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/444,923
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 1755
`
`(571 )270-7298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:00 -
`
`5:30.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Jonathan Johnson can be reached on 571-272—1177. 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.
`
`/BETHANY L MARTIN/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 1755
`/JONATHAN JOHNSON/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
`
`