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 .
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 of this title, 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 1,15-17,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricard et al.(US 2019/0215067) in view of Panosian(US 11/187,803).
Considering Claim 1 Ricard discloses a slip ring for transferring information across a rotary joint comprising a first and second light emitter and a first and second light receiver configured to transfer information(See Paragraph 74, fig. 2 i.e. a first and second light emitter(E1,E2) and a first and second light receiver(D1,D2) configured to transfer information), wherein the first and second light emitter are configured to rotate relative to the first and second light receiver(See Abstract, Paragraph 74,90, fig. 2 i.e. the first and second light emitter(E1,E2) of the first part(110) are configured to rotate relative to the first and second light receiver(D1,D2) of the second part(120) via axis of rotation(x)).
Ricard does not explicitly disclose a first and second light emitter and a first and second light receiver configured to transfer information using the same nominal frequency of light.
Panosian teaches a first and second light emitter and a first and second light receiver configured to transfer information using the same nominal frequency of light(See Col. 14 lines 15-20, fig. 4b i.e. a first and second light emitter(451-453) and a first and second light receiver(454-456) configured to transfer information using the same nominal frequency of light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ricard, and have a first and second light emitter and a first and second light receiver configured to transfer information using the same nominal frequency of light, as taught by Panosian, thus improving transmission signal quality by minimizing interference and noise due to cross-detection by transmitting and receiving signal at the same frequency, as discussed by Panosian (Col. 14 lines 15-25).
Considering Claim 15 Ricard and Panosian disclose the slip ring of claim 1 configured for a second data communication path(See Ricard: Paragraph 74, fig. 2 i.e. a second data communication path via second beam(F2) from light emitter(E2)).
Considering Claim 16 Ricard and Panosian disclose the slip ring of claim 1 additionally comprising conductive interference and susceptibility isolation between a stator circuit and a rotor circuit(See Ricard: Paragraph 4,5 i.e. conductive interference and susceptibility isolation(a dove prism) between a stator circuit(stator fiber pair) and a rotor circuit(rotar fiber)).
Considering Claim 17 Ricard and Panosian disclose the slip ring of claim 1 wherein the first light emitter and the first light receiver overlap a common radius and face each other(See Ricard: Paragraph 74, fig. 2 i.e. the first light emitter(E1) and the first light receiver(D1) overlap a common radius(F1) and face each other).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
Claims 2-7,13,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricard et al.(US 2019/0215067) in view of Panosian(US 11/187,803) further in view of Amann(US 5,406,461).
Considering Claim 2 Ricard and Panosian do not explicitly disclose the slip ring of claim 1 wherein the slip ring is configured to transfer information even if one of the light emitters or light receivers is inoperable.
Amann teaches the slip ring of claim 1 wherein the slip ring is configured to transfer information even if one of the light emitters or light receivers is inoperable(See Col. 3 lines 1-18, fig. 1 i.e. the slip ring(20) is configured to transfer information even if one of the light emitters(7) is inoperable(failure of light source(7)) by replacing the light source(7) with a reserve light source(8)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ricard and Panosian, and have the slip ring to be configured to transfer information even if one of the light emitters or light receivers is inoperable, as taught by Amann, thus providing an efficient transmission system by minimizing service disruption due to a failure of the light source by automatically replacing the light source with a spare light source, as discussed by Amann (Abstract).
Considering Claim 3 Ricard, Panosian and Amann disclose the slip ring of claim 2 wherein the light emitters are arranged in a first circular array and the light receivers are arranged in a second circular array and the first and second array share a center-point(See Ricard: Abstract, Paragraph 74,90, fig. 2 i.e. the light emitters(E1,E2) are arranged in a first circular array(first part(110)) and the light receivers(D1,D2) are arranged in a second circular array(second part(120)) (since the first part and second part rotate along the x axis) and the first and second array share a center-point(rotating axis X)).
Considering Claim 4 Ricard, Panosian and Amann disclose the slip ring of claim 3 wherein the first circular array and the second circular array are co-planar(See Ricard: fig. 2 i.e. the first circular array(110) and the second circular array(120) are co-planar along the x-axis).
Considering Claim 5 Ricard, Panosian and Amann disclose the slip ring of claim 2 additionally comprising a first light guide interposed between the first light emitter and the first light receiver(See Amann: Col. 2 lines 45-55, fig. 1 i.e. a first light guide which is lens(11) interposed between the first light emitter(7) and the first light receiver(4)).
Considering Claim 6 Ricard, Panosian and Amann disclose the slip ring of claim 5 additionally comprising a second light guide interposed between the first light emitter and the first light receiver(See Amann: Col. 2 lines 45-55, fig. 1 i.e. a second light guide(13) interposed between the first light emitter(7) and the first light receiver(4)).
Considering Claim 7 Ricard, Panosian and Amann disclose the slip ring of claim 6 wherein one of the light guides is configured to diffuse the light from the first light emitter (See Amann: Col. 2 lines 45-55, fig. 1 i.e. wherein one of the light guides which is a deflecting mirror(13) is configured to diffuse the light from the first light emitter(7)).
Considering Claim 13 Ricard and Panosian do not explicitly disclose the slip ring of claim 1 additionally comprising at least two light guides wherein at least one of the light guides comprises a focus feature along the side of the light guide directed towards the second light guide.
Amann teaches at least two light guides wherein at least one of the light guides comprises a focus feature along the side of the light guide directed towards the second light guide(See Col. 2 lines 45-55, Col. 3 lines 29-42, fig. 1 i.e. at least two light guides(11,13,14,15) wherein at least one of the light guides(11,13,14) comprises a focus feature along the side of the light guide directed towards the second light guide(15)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ricard and Panosian, and have at least two light guides wherein at least one of the light guides to comprise a focus feature along the side of the light guide directed towards the second light guide, as taught by Amann, thus improving transmission signal quality yy optimizing lighting condition using multiple light guiding devices, as discussed by Amann (Cpl. 1 lines 42-44).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 2.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as in claim 3.
Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricard et al.(US 2019/0215067) in view of Panosian(US 11/187,803) further in view of Svee(US 2021/0341676).
Considering Claim 12 Ricard and Panosian do not explicitly disclose the slip ring of claim 1 additionally comprising third and fourth emitter and a third and fourth receiver and wherein the first and second receivers and emitters are arranged in first set and the third and fourth receivers and emitters are arranged in a second set.
Svee teaches the slip ring of claim 1 additionally comprising third and fourth emitter and a third and fourth receiver and wherein the first and second receivers and emitters are arranged in first set and the third and fourth receivers and emitters are arranged in a second set(See Paragraph 20, fig. 1,8 i.e. third and fourth emitter(118 of fig. 1) and a third and fourth receiver(122 of fig. 1) and wherein the first and second receivers(120) and emitters(116 of fig. 1) are arranged in first set and the third and fourth receivers(122 of fig. 1) and emitters(118 of fig. 1) are arranged in a second set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ricard and Panosian, and have third and fourth emitter and a third and fourth receiver and wherein the first and second receivers and emitters to be arranged in first set and the third and fourth receivers and emitters to be arranged in a second set, as taught by Svee, thus providing an efficient transmission system by optimizing bandwidth by using multiple transmitters and receivers, as discussed by Svee (Paragraph 2).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricard et al.(US 2019/0215067) in view of Panosian(US 11/187,803) further in view of Rehder(US 6,472,791).
Considering Claim 14 Ricard and Panosian do not explicitly disclose the slip ring of claim 1 additionally comprising a faraday cage configured to protect the slip ring.
Rehder teaches the slip ring of claim 1 additionally comprising a faraday cage configured to protect the slip ring(See Abstract, Col. 2 lines 11-15, Col. 11 lines 17-25, fig. 8 i.e. additionally comprising a faraday cage(70) configured to protect the slip ring by providing electrical shield).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ricard and Panosian, and a faraday cage configured to protect the slip ring, as taught by Rehder, thus providing an efficient transmission system by providing electrical shield by providing a high voltage electric system using Faraday cage, as discussed by Rehder (Col. 1 lines 39-42, Col. 2 lines 11-15).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lougheed(US 11,212,002) in view of Panosian(US 11/187,803).
Considering Claim 21 Lougheed discloses a slip ring comprising five light emitters and five light receivers configured to transfer information(See Col. 4 lines 38-43, fig. 2 i.e. a slip ring which is an optical slip ring(200) comprising five light emitters(220) and five light receivers(210) configured to transfer information).
Lougheed does not explicitly disclose the light emitters and the light receivers configured to transfer information using the same nominal frequency of light.
Panosian teaches the light emitters and the light receivers configured to transfer information using the same nominal frequency of light(See Col. 14 lines 15-20, fig. 4b i.e. a first and second light emitter(451-453) and a first and second light receiver(454-456) configured to transfer information using the same nominal frequency of light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Lougheed, and have the light emitter and the light receivers to be configured to transfer information using the same nominal frequency of light, as taught by Panosian, thus improving transmission signal quality by minimizing interference and noise due to cross-detection by transmitting and receiving signal at the same frequency, as discussed by Panosian (Col. 14 lines 15-25).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lougheed(US 11,212,002) in view of Panosian(US 11/187,803) further in view of Amann(US 5,406,461).
Considering Claim 22 Lougheed and Panosian do not explicitly disclose the slip ring of claim 21 wherein the slip ring is configured to transfer information even if one of the light emitters or light receivers is inoperable.
Amann teaches the slip ring of claim 1 wherein the slip ring is configured to transfer information even if one of the light emitters or light receivers is inoperable(See Col. 3 lines 1-18, fig. 1 i.e. the slip ring(20) is configured to transfer information even if one of the light emitters(7) is inoperable(failure of light source(7)) by replacing the light source(7) with a reserve light source(8)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Lougheed and Panosian, and have the slip ring to be configured to transfer information even if one of the light emitters or light receivers is inoperable, as taught by Amann, thus providing an efficient transmission system by minimizing service disruption due to a failure of the light source by automatically replacing the light source with a spare light source, as discussed by Amann (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are 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 HIBRET A WOLDEKIDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5145. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, DAVID C PAYNE can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/HIBRET A WOLDEKIDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635