Vasylyev, SergiyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 10, 202015584727 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/584,727 05/02/2017 Sergiy Vasylyev 1360 25945 7590 04/10/2020 SERGIY VASYLYEV 3204 East Pintail Way ELK GROVE, CA 95757 EXAMINER TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2896 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/10/2020 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): svasilyev@yahoo.com svasylyev@svvti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SERGIY VASYLYEV Appeal 2019-003438 Application 15/584,727 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–40, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SVV TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS INC. (DBA LUCENT OPTICS). Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-003438 Application 15/584,727 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to collecting light from a large surface area and trapping light to increase the optical path through light absorbing material. Spec. ¶ 6. In particular, the invention relates to enhancing light trapping in, for example, photovoltaic solar panels. Id. Claim 21 is the only independent claim on appeal and is illustrative: 21. [An] optical article for redistributing light, comprising: a planar flexible sheet of an optically transmissive material having a rectangular shape; an artificial light source configured to illuminate the flexible sheet; a plurality of elongated cylindrical lenses formed in a first broad-area surface of the flexible sheet, wherein each of the plurality of elongated cylindrical lenses longitudinally extends parallel to an edge of the flexible sheet; a plurality of discrete surface relief features formed in an opposing second broad-area surface of the flexible sheet and distributed over the second broad-area surface according to a two-dimensional pattern; a planar broad-area reflective surface located outside of the flexible sheet and extending parallel to the flexible sheet; wherein the discrete surface relief features are separated from each other by optically smooth and planar portions of the second broad-area surface such that a cumulative area of the plurality of discrete surface relief features is substantially less than the areas of each of the first and second broad-area surfaces. 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated Oct. 11, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 11, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated March 18, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed March 22, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2019-003438 Application 15/584,727 3 REJECTIONS AND REFERENCES On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the rejection of claims 21–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ford et al., US 2011/0226332 A1, Sept. 22, 2011 (“Ford”) in view of Parkyn Jr. et al., US 5,404,869, Apr. 11, 1995 (“Parkyn”) and Tormen et al., US 2010/0186798 A1, July 29, 2010 (“Tormen”). Final Act. 6. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues all claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 12–13. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claim 1, and all other claims on appeal stand or fall together with claim 1. The Examiner rejects claim 21 as obvious over Ford in view of Parkyn and Tormen. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Ford teaches, for example, a light source, plurality of lenses, a surface with relief features, and a planar broad-area reflective surface. Id. at 6–7 (citing Ford). The Examiner Appeal 2019-003438 Application 15/584,727 4 finds that Ford suggests collection of light from artificial sources. Id. at 7. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Parkyn teaches a light collimator with an optically transmissive sheet and finds that Parkyn teaches collection of light from an artificial light source such arc lamp 764. Id. at 7–8 (citing Parkyn). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to configure the light concentrator of Ford to collect light from an arc lamp as exemplified by Parkyn so that the available light source could be converted to energy. Id. at 8. The Examiner finds that Ford illustrates only spherically-shaped lenses. Id. at 8. The Examiner finds, however, that Parkyn considers linear/cylindrical fluorescent tubes as a light source and states that such tubes call for linearly-shaped refractive elements. Id. (citing Parkyn). The Examiner also finds that Tormen teaches cylindrical lenses as a light collector. Id. (citing Tormen). The Examiner determines that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . that the spherically-shaped lenses 8 of Ford can alternatively be shaped as cylindrical lenses in order to correspond to, and collect light from, a cylindrical light source considered by the Ford–Parkyn combination.” Id. Appellant argues that none of the references teach cylindrical lenses elongated and extending parallel to an edge of a flexible sheet. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2–3. The Examiner, however, determines that a person of skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings to reach such an arrangement. Ans. 3–4. The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position. As the Examiner finds, Ford’s array of circular lenses extends parallel to the edge of Ford’s flexible sheet. Id. 3; Ford Fig. 1. The Examiner also finds that Parkyn illustrates that linear/cylindrical focusing Appeal 2019-003438 Application 15/584,727 5 features/lenses must be parallel to each other for most efficient collection. Ans. 4; Parkyn Fig. 9. A person of skill in the art making use of elongated / cylindrical lenses, therefore, would also likewise know to extend such lenses to the edge of the sheet to maximize light collection. Indeed, Tormen teaches that “[i]n order to maximize the direct sunlight harvesting it is crucial that the available surface on the transparent sheet 2 is covered entirely by the micro-lenses 4, which are preferably spherical or cylindrical lenses.” Tormen ¶ 37. A person of skill in the art would have recognized that, geometrically, cylindrical lenses can only cover entirely a rectangular sheet by placing them parallel an edge of the sheet. Appellant also argues that none of the references teach a “planar broad-area reflective surface located outside of a flexible sheet and extending parallel to a flexible sheet.” Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner, however, finds that Ford teaches such a surface. Final Act. 7 (citing Ford Fig. 6, 11, ¶ 54); see also Ford ¶ 54 (referencing “mirror (reflective) microstructure 140”). Appellant does not provide any explanation as to why the Examiner’s finding is incorrect. Appellant’s argument, therefore, is unpersuasive. Appellant also argues that modification of Ford so that it collects energy from Parkyn’s arc lamp would render Ford inoperable because Ford’s intended purpose is concentrating and capturing solar energy. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant’s argument reads Ford too narrowly. Ford states that it can collect “[s]unlight (or possibly other incoming light).” Ford ¶ 29; see also Ans. 5. Ford also states that its facets can collect light “from a light source (or multiple light sources).” Ford ¶ 41. Ford also indicates that its facets can be “tailored specifically for the application.” Id. ¶ 38. Ford, Appeal 2019-003438 Application 15/584,727 6 read as a whole, suggests that it may be used in conjunction with artificial light sources. Based on Ford Figure 5, Appellant also argues that Ford teaches away from using non-directional light sources with Ford’s configuration. Appeal Br. 10–11. Ford’s Figure 5 and related text (Ford ¶ 48), however, merely illustrate that if incident light is tilted relative to the spherical lenses, the light may miss the prism facets resulting in uncoupled light. Such a misalignment may occur even in the case of sunlight. Ford ¶ 48. Ford’s discussion of the misalignment problem does not disparage use of Ford’s configuration with artificial lights or otherwise teach away from artificial lighting. Rather, the solution to this particular problem is proper alignment of lenses relative to the light by, for example, mounting the system on an active alignment system or designing facets that are “more tolerant of variations in the incidence angles of light.” Id. ¶¶ 49–50. Appellant further argues that a person of skill in the art would not have substituted Ford’s spherical lenses for the cylindrical lenses suggested by Parkyn or Tormen. Appeal Br. 11–12. In particular, Appellant argues that a cylindrical lens cannot efficiently focus all incident light on a small-sized prism facet. Id. at 11. Appellant also argues that the Examiner lacks evidence supporting such a substitution. Id. at 12. Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of error. As explained above, Ford suggests that Ford’s device may be used with artificial lighting. Also, Parkyn and Tormen collectively suggest use of artificial lighting including a cylindrical arc light in conjunction with tube shaped collection lenses. See, e.g., Ans. 8–9; Parkyn Fig. 22, 5:55–56, 6:43–46; Tormen Fig. 1, ¶¶ 37, 40, 57, 60. Ford further teaches that its prisms should be “tailored specifically for the Appeal 2019-003438 Application 15/584,727 7 application.” Ford. ¶ 38; see also id. ¶ 32 (indicating that optical collection efficient depends upon “the shapes and orientations of one or more particular facet surfaces of the injection features”). A person of skill in the art, therefore, would have understood that, to the extent substituting Ford’s spherical lenses with cylindrical lenses could cause inefficiencies in focusing light on Ford’s facets, Ford’s facets could be adjusted accordingly. Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21–40 103 Ford, Parkyn, Tormen 21–40 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation