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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 11/24/2025.
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.
4. Claims 1-3, 6-12 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al "Implementation and Evaluation
of a Gigabit Ethernet FSO Link for 'The last Metre and Last Mile Access Network'
2019 IEEE International conference on communications workshops (ICC Workshops), IEEE, 20 May 2019, pages 1-6, cited by applicant) in view of Bock et
al (US Patent No. 10,547,405 cited by applicant) and further in view of Masarik (Pub. No.: US 2014/0270800).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, referring to Figure 2, Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et
al teaches an optical communication system (i.e., optical communication system,
Fig. 2) comprising:
a first node (i.e. unit 1, Fig. 2) and a second node (i.e., unit 2, Fig. 2), each
node (i.e., unit 1, Fig. 2) of which includes:
transmit optics (i.e., Tx optics, Fig. 2);
receive optics (i.e., Rx optics, Fig. 2); and
an optical transceiver module (i.e., optical transceiver SFP, Fig. 2)
including an optical receiver with a detector, the optical transceiver module being
configured to provide optical signals to the transmit optics (i.e., Tx optics, Fig. 2)
over a first optical fiber defining a first optical conduit (i.e., single mode fiber SMF, Fig. 2), and receive optical signals from the receive optics (i.e., Rx optics, Fig. 2) over a second optical fiber defining a second optical conduit (i.e., multi-mode fiber MMF, Fig. 2), and wherein the transmit optics of the first node (i.e., Tx optics of Unit 1, Fig. 2) is configured to transmit first optical signals in free space (i.e., free space FSO, Fig. 2) for receipt by the receive optics of the second node (i.e., unit 2, Fig. 2), and the transmit optics of the second node (i.e., Tx optics of Unit 2, Fig. 2) is configured to transmit second optical signals in free space (i.e., free space FSO, Fig. 2) for receipt by the receive optics of the first node (i.e., Rx optics of Unit 1, Fig. 2)(i.e., Figure 2, and see under section II FSO System Design, pages 2-3).
Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al differs from claims 1 and 10 in that he fails to
specifically teach the second optical conduit has a core diameter larger than the
first optical conduit. However, Bock et al in US Patent No. 10,547,405 teaches the
second optical conduit (i.e., second optical conduit MMF 214, Fig. 2) has a core
diameter larger than (i.e., MMF 214 has core diameter large than 50µm, Fig. 2)
the first optical conduit (i.e., first optical conduit SMF 216, Fig. 2)(i.e., Figure 2,
col. 5, lines 11-64, and col. 7, lines 56-65).
The combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al and Bock et al differs from claims 1 and 10 in that it fails to specifically teach a lens is interposed between the detector and an end of the second optical fiber of receive optics. However, Masarik in Pub. No.: US 2014/0270800 teaches a lens (i.e., lens 608, Figure 6A) is interposed between the detector (i.e., detector 612, Figure 6A) and an end of the second optical fiber (i.e., optical fiber 610, Figure 6A) of receive optics (i.e., Figure 6A, page 17, paragraph [0137]). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the second optical conduit has a core diameter larger than the first optical conduit and a lens is interposed between the detector and an end of the second optical fiber of receive optics as taught by Bock et al and Masarik in the system of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the optical loss and error signal and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et
Al, Bock et al and Masarik teaches wherein the first optical fiber (i.e., single mode fiber SMF, Fig. 2 of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al) is a single-mode (SM) fiber, and the second optical fiber (i.e., multi-mode fiber MMF, Fig. 2 of Abadi Mojtaba
Mansour et al) is a multi-mode (MM) fiber.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al, Bock et al and Masarik teaches wherein the second optical fiber (i.e., multi-
mode fiber MMF 214 has core diameter large than 50µm, Fig. 2 of Bock et al, col.
5, lines 11-64) is an optical fiber with a core diameter greater than 9 micrometers.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et
Al, Bock et al and Masarik teaches wherein the transmit optics is configured to transmit the first optical signals in free space, and the transmit optics of the second node is configured to transmit the second optical signals in free space, with a divergence angle between 1 and 5 degrees, 5 and 20 degrees, 20 and 60 degrees, 60 and 120 degrees, 120 and 180 degrees, or 180 and 360 degrees (i.e., Fig. 2 of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et
Al, Bock et al and Masarik teaches wherein the optical transceiver module (i.e., optical transceiver module SFP, Fig. 2 of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al) is a small form- factor pluggable (SFP), SFP+, SFP28, quad SFP (QSFP), four- lane QSFP, or SFP double density (SFP-DD) module.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et
Al, Bock et al and Masarik teaches wherein each of the first node and the second node further includes a multiplexer/demultiplexer (i.e., multiplexer/demultiplexer 222 and 228, Fig. 2 of Bock et al) configured to pass optical signals to the transmit
optics over the first optical conduit, and receive optical signals from the receive
optics over the second optical conduit.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et
Al, Bock et al and Masarik teaches wherein the optical receiver (i.e., optical transceiver module SFP comprises an optical receiver, Fig. 2 of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al) comprises with at least one customized detector constructed from an off the shelf detector.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al, Bock et al and Masarif teaches further comprising an optical transceiver module (i.e.,
optical transceiver module SFP, Fig. 2 of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al) configured
to provide the first optical signals to the transmit optics over the first optical fiber.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al, Bock et al and Masarik teaches further comprising an optical transceiver module (i.e.,
optical transceiver module SFP, Fig. 2 of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al ) configured
to receive the second optical signals from the receive optics over the second
optical fiber.
5. Claims 4, 5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al "Implementation and Evaluation of a Gigabit Ethernet FSO Link for 'The last Metre and Last Mile Access Network' 2019 IEEE International conference on communications workshops (ICC Workshops), IEEE, 20 May 2019, pages 1-6, cited by applicant) and Bock et al (US Patent No. 10,547,405 cited by applicant) in view of Masarik (Pub. No.: US 2014/0270800) and further in view of Murshid et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0333828).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba
Mansour et al, Bock et al and Masarik differs from claims 4 and 13 in that it fails to specifically teach the second optical conduit is an optical fiber with a numerical
aperture of at least 0.1. However, Murshid et al in Pub. No.: US 2015/0333828
teaches the optical conduit is an optical fiber with a numerical aperture of at least
0.1 (i.e., Figures 2A-2B, page 2, paragraph [0025]). Based on this teaching, it
would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to incorporate the second optical conduit is an optical fiber with a
numerical aperture of at least 0.1 as taught by Murshid et al in the system of the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al, Bock et al and Masarik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the optical loss and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et
al, Bock et al, Masarik and Murshid et al teaches wherein the second optical fiber (i.e., multi-mode fiber MMF 214, Fig. 2 of Bock et al, col. 5, lines 11-64, and Figs. 2A-2B of Murshid et al) is a mode conditioning fiber.
6. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al "Implementation and Evaluation of a Gigabit Ethernet FSO Link for 'The last Metre and Last Mile Access Network' 2019 IEEE International conference on communications workshops (ICC Workshops), IEEE, 20 May 2019, pages 1-6, cited by applicant) and Bock et al (US Patent No. 10,547,405 cited by applicant) in view of Masarik (Pub. No.: US 2014/0270800) and further in view of Sakanaka (US Patent No. 6,335,811).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the combination of Abadi Mojtaba
Mansour et al, Bock et al and Masarik differs from claims 21 and 22 in that it fails to specifically teach a diameter of the detector is greater than about 30 microns. However, Sakanaka in US Patent No. 6,335,811 teaches a diameter of the detector (i.e., detector 36, Figure 2) is greater than about 30 microns (i.e., Figure 2, col. 3, lines 44-67, and col. 4, lines 1-60). Based on this teaching, it
would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to incorporate the diameter of the detector is greater than about 30 microns as taught by Sakanaka in the system of the combination of Abadi Mojtaba Mansour et al, Bock et al and Masarik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the optical loss and error signal and improving the performance of the system.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-22 have been considered
but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference
applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically
challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to Hanh Phan whose telephone number is
(571)272-3035. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful
the examiner's supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye, can be reached on (571)272-
3078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or
proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Any inquiry of a general nature or
relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the
receptionist whose telephone number is (703)305-4700.
/HANH PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634