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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/08/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Izumi US 2008/0002986 A1 (hereinafter Izumi).
Regarding Claim 1, Izumi teaches a free space optical communication device (Fig. 2; Abst.) comprising: a plurality of light transmitting/receiving sections (light emitting elements 13, Fig. 2); and at least one processor (delay control unit 11c and branch buffer 11a, Fig. 2) configured to execute: a communication control process of controlling communication which is to be carried out via the plurality of light transmitting/ receiving sections, in the communication control process, the at least one processor causing two or more light transmitting/receiving sections of the plurality of light transmitting/receiving sections to transmit same pieces of information in parallel according to respective different communication schemes (The branch buffer 11a branches transmission data 31 into branch transmission data 31a for the plurality of light emitting elements 13… The delay control unit 11c controls the delay time in the delay drive unit 11d on the basis of externally input control setting data 32. The delay drive unit 11d provided between the branch buffer 11a and the light emitting element driver 11b controls the output timing of the light 13a emitted by each light emitting element 13 by individually delaying the input timing to the light emitting element 13 of the branch transmission data 31a at a command from the delay control unit 11c, [different transmission timing interpreted as corresponding to the “different communication schemes”] Par. 74-77; For example, consider sixteen light emitting elements 13 arranged at equal intervals on the 1 m.times.1 m square transmission panel 12. When the light 13a passing straight in parallel is converged at the optical reception station 20, and if it is converged by the condensing optical unit 22 of a simple lens structure, there occurs an optical path difference (.DELTA.L=L2-L1) as shown in FIG. 4. The optical path difference .DELTA.L after the convergence is ( .sup.-5-1).times.0.5=0.618 m at maximumin this example, and therefore there occurs a difference in the delay of the input timing of the light 13a of about 2 nsec. to the light receiving element 21a. Assume that the refractive index of air is approximately 1. Thus, if the modulation speed is 2.5 Gbps, the width of one time slot is only 400 psec. Data can be identified without any complications using a waveform of the light 13a received at the light receiving element 21a if the optical path difference .DELTA.L is controlled and regulated to at least be below 100 psec, Par. 82).
Regarding Claim 2, Izumi teaches the free space optical communication device according to claim 1, wherein: in the communication control process, the at least one processor determines the communication schemes of the respective two or more light transmitting/receiving sections on a basis of a communication capacity, a delay time (delay, Par. 74-77; Par. 82), or a retransmission rate.
Regarding Claim 4, Izumi teaches the free space optical communication device according to claim 1, wherein: in the communication control process, the at least one processor causes two or more light transmitting/receiving sections of the plurality of light transmitting/receiving sections to transmit the same pieces of information according to a certain communication scheme of the respective different communication schemes (The delay control unit 11c controls the delay time in the delay drive unit 11d on the basis of externally input control setting data 32. The delay drive unit 11d provided between the branch buffer 11a and the light emitting element driver 11b controls the output timing of the light 13a emitted by each light emitting element 13 by individually delaying the input timing to the light emitting element 13 of the branch transmission data 31a at a command from the delay control unit 11c, [different transmission timing interpreted as corresponding to the “different communication schemes”] Par. 74-77); and in the communication control process, the at least one processor distributes a same signal to the two or more light transmitting/receiving sections (The branch buffer 11a branches transmission data 31 into branch transmission data 31a for the plurality of light emitting elements 13, Par. 74-77).
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 10, claims 7-8 and 10 recite limitations similar to those treated above with reference to claims 1-2 and 4. As such, the limitations are rejected for the same reason(s) as stated above. Claims 7-8 and 10 also recite the following additional limitations: Izumi teaches a free space optical communication system (Fig. 12; Par. 61) comprising: a plurality of free space optical communication devices (two transmission circuit units 11 and one reception circuit unit 21, Fig. 12), at least two or more free space optical communication devices of the plurality of free space optical communication devices each including the elements recited in claim 1 (two transmission circuit units 11, Fig. 12).
Regarding Claims 13-14 and 16, method claims 13-14 and 16 are drawn to the method of using an apparatus the same as claimed in claims 1-2 and 4. As such, the limitations of claims 13-14 and 16 correspond to limitations of claims 1-2 and 4, and are therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of anticipation as stated above.
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) 5, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Jang et al. US 2020/0235813 A1 (hereinafter Jang).
Regarding Claim 5, Izumi teaches the free space optical communication device according to claim 1.
Izumi does not teach wherein: the communication scheme is a modulation scheme. However, Jang teaches that different transmission requirements for different signals, such as delay, can be achieved by employing different modulation schemes (Par. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Izumi such that the communication scheme is a modulation scheme, because different transmission requirements for different signals, such as delay, can be achieved by employing different modulation schemes.
Regarding Claims 11 and 17, corresponding claims 11 and 17 recite the same elements as claim 5, and are therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of obviousness as stated above.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi, in view of Rhodes et al. US 2013/0195465 A1 (hereinafter Rhodes).
Regarding Claim 6, Izumi teaches the free space optical communication device according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one processor causes the other part of the two or more light transmitting/receiving sections to use a communication scheme including a countermeasure against a delay time (Par. 37-38).
Izumi does not teach the at least one processor causes a part of the two or more light transmitting/receiving sections to use a communication scheme including error correction. However, Rhodes teaches that providing a communication scheme with error correction is well-known in the art and can be advantageous in allowing operation at greater distances which otherwise would have resulted in unreliable transfer of information (Par. 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Izumi such that the at least one processor causes a part of the two or more light transmitting/receiving sections to use a communication scheme including error correction, because providing a communication scheme with error correction is well-known in the art and can be advantageous in allowing operation at greater distances which otherwise would have resulted in unreliable transfer of information.
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, corresponding claims 12 and 18 recite the same elements as claim 6, and are therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of obviousness as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, and 15 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 DAVID W LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-7692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10-6.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at (571)272-3078. 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.
/DAVID W LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2634