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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 of the claim, “the housing unit a first housing unit” should read “the housing unit is a first housing unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 of the claim, “the housing unit a first housing unit” should read “the housing unit is a first housing unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, 11-13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashworth (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0294866 A1) in view of Sowards et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2021/0298680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ashworth teaches in FIG. 12 a wireless access point for wireless communications (see title of Ashworth), the wireless access point comprising: a first unit (repeater 1204) configured to couple to a first side of a transparent material (window 1226; see paragraph [0113]), the first unit comprising: a first optical sensor (optical transceiver 1222) configured to communicate optically with a second optical sensor positioned on a second side of the transparent material (optical transceiver 1212); and a first magnetic array to magnetically couple with a second magnetic array positioned on the second side of the transparent material (Ashworth teaches in paragraph [0064] that magnets can be used to affix the repeaters to the window); and a second unit (repeater 1202) configured to couple to the second side of the transparent material, the second unit comprising: the second optical sensor; and the second magnetic array. The difference between Ashworth and the claimed invention is that Ashworth does not teach that the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array are configured to couple together in a single orientation. Sowards et al. teaches in FIG.10 and FIG. 11 coupling optical connectors 1022 and 1120 across a window 1104 using magnet arrays 1026 and 1126. Sowards et al. teaches in paragraph [0079] that the two magnet arrays are coupled together in a single orientation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Sowards et al. with the system of Ashworth because this enhances the alignment of the two units. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the magnet arrays together in a single orientation, as taught by Sowards et al., in the system of Ashworth.
Regarding claim 2, it is clear from FIG. 11 of Sowards et al. that the relative position of the first unit and the second unit is defined by orientations of individual magnetic elements of the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array because they match with each other.
Regarding claim 7, Ashworth teaches in paragraph [0113] that the transparent structure elements 1226 can be a window. Comparing FIG. 12 to FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B, it is clear that the first unit is mounted on an outside surface of the window (i.e. the surface facing away from the building), and the second unit is mounted on an inside surface of the window.
Regarding claim 8, Ashworth teaches in FIG. 12 optical transceiver 1222 which receives and transmits data to and from the second optical receiver 1212.
Regarding claim 9, Sowards et al. teaches in FIG. 10 that the magnet array 1026 is disposed symmetrically about the optical element 424.
Regarding claim 11, Ashworth teaches in FIG. 1 and paragraph [0113] base station.
Claim 12 is rejected based on the same reason for rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is clear from FIG. 11 of Sowards et al. that the relative position of the first unit and the second unit is defined by orientations of individual magnetic elements of the first magnetic array and the second magnetic array because they match with each other.
Regarding claim 18, Ashworth teaches in paragraph [0113] that the transparent structure elements 1226 can be a window. Comparing FIG. 12 to FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B, it is clear that the first unit is mounted on an outside surface of the window (i.e. the surface facing away from the building), and the second unit is mounted on an inside surface of the window.
Regarding claim 19, Sowards et al. teaches in FIG. 10 that the magnet array 1026 is disposed symmetrically about the optical element 424.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashworth and Sowards et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-13 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Zhu (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0099957 A1).
Ashworth and Sowards et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-13 and 18-19. The difference between Ashworth and Sowards et al. and the claimed invention is that Ashworth and Sowards et al. do not teach a coupling unit. Zhu teaches in FIG. 1 a device comprising a housing 11, a guiding assembly 2 (equivalent to coupling unit of instant claim) and a sliding assembly 3 that is movably relative to the guiding assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Zhu with the modified system of Ashworth and Sowards et al. because the sliding mechanism allows the sliding assembly to adjust its position for alignment. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a coupling unit to attach the first unit so that it is movable, as taught by Zhu, in the modified system of Ashworth and Sowards et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Zhu teaches in FIG. 1 that the coupling unit is rigidly coupled to the housing unit.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Ashworth teaches paragraph [0047] that magnets can also be used to align the power couplers. Applying this to FIG. 12, the first optical transceiver 1222 uses a first magnetic array, the second optical transceiver 1212 uses a second magnetic array, the optical power receiver (OPR) 1216 uses a third magnetic array, and the optical power transmitter (OPT) 1206 uses a fourth magnetic array.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Ashworth teaches in FIG. 12 OPR for receiving power transmitted by the OPT.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashworth and Sowards et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-13 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Parker (U.S. Patent 11,032,007 B1).
Ashworth and Sowards et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-13 and 18-19. Regarding claim 10 and 20, Ashworth further teaches in paragraph [0114] that the OPT 1206 receives power from a power source and uses the wireless power transmitter OPT to transmit power to the OPR. The difference between Ashworth and Sowards et al. and the claimed invention is that Ashworth and Sowards et al. do not teach storing power. Parker teaches in FIG. 2 transferring data and energy between two relays using wireless link 220. Parker teaches in col. 11, lines 20-30 that the relay 110 includes a power subsystem 340. The power subsystem may include rechargeable power storage and components to support receipt of power from another relay. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Parker with the modified system of Ashworth and Sowards et al. because power storage can provide power for continue operation of the relay during failure of external power source. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store power for emergency use, as taught by Parker, in the modified system of Ashworth and Sowards et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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 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.
skl9 February 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635