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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed 10/28/2025, claims 1,5,6 have been amended and claims 3 and 7 have been canceled
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1,2,5,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nabavi (Empirical Modeling and Analysis of Water-to Air Optical Wireless Communication Channels, 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), pp.1-6, May2019) and Tonolini (Networking across boundaries: enabling wireless communication through the water-air interface (SIGCOMM August 2018).
In regards to claims 1, 5 and 6, Nabavi discloses a wireless communication device, a wireless communication system and a wireless communication method comprising: a water flow generator (Nabavi Fig. 1 section V note: this reads on aquatic wave generator) configured to control a shape of a partial region on a water surface (Nabavi section III, V note: this reads on aquatic/water wave); and
an emitter (Nabavi Fig. 1 section V note: this reads on transmitter) configured to emit a wave carrying information toward the region (Nabavi section IV note: this reads on transmission bit rate).
Nabavi does not explicitly disclose where the shape of the partial region is convex from the viewpoint outside the water. Figure 1 of Nabavi shows waves in the water with very distinct pointed crests. Although one skilled in the art would realize that real-life water waves present as smoother oscillations, with surface portions of the waves alternating between various degrees of convex and concave, and much less frequently present in real-life as distinct pointed peaks. Thus it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention that Nabavi’s water to air transmission could also be transmitted through a convex surface of the water, in order to maintain signal transmission through the oscillating waveforms of the water surface.
Tonolini discloses a similar water to air wireless communication system. Page 118 discloses “an acoustic signal emitted by a sound transducer travels as a pressure wave. When the pressure wave hits the water surface, it causes a perturbation or displacement of the surface due to its mechanical nature” and these surface vibrations cause waves in the water. Figure 2 on page 120 visually shows how this pressure causes motion on the water surface. Figure 2 visually shows a distinct convex shape produced on the water surface as a result of the pressure introduced from underwater. Tonolini continues on page 120 to describe the need to enable underwater vehicles to continuously send distress signals through the surface and to the air.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Nabavi’s water to air communication to also be able to transmit through a convex portion of the water surface, as in the water to air communication system of Tonolini in order to enable continuous transmission throughout the oscillating waves on the water surface.
In regards to claim 2, Nabavi discloses a wireless communication device as described above. Nabavi further discloses a shape of the region controlled by the water flow generator is a shape capable of generating only one of a flow of water flowing to the outside from a control region and a flow of water flowing into the control region from the outside (Nabavi Fig. 1 note: this reads on water wave flow into and flow out of the transmitter beam).
Claims 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabavi and Tonolini, in view of Maccabee (US PAT 4991149).
In regards to claim 4, 8 and 9, Nabavi discloses a wireless communication device as described above. Although Nabavi does not specifically mention a beam diameter of a wave emitted by the emitter is longer than a wavelength of a fluctuation generated in the region, Maccabee discloses a beam diameter of a wave emitted by the emitter (Maccabee Fig. 2, 3 Item 18) is longer than a wavelength of a fluctuation generated in the region (Maccabee Fig. 2, 3 note: the diameter (e.g. width) of the transmitter beam from 18 appear to be longer than the wavelength of the water wave). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Maccabee’s emitter in Nabavi communication device for avoiding signal attenuation (Maccabee Col. 1 line 35-50).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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.
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.
/MATTHEW D. ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights