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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 19 are indefinite, the term “may be include” requires clarification. Specifically, “may be included” is permissive and optional language that does not positively recite whether the additional viewing aperture, additional directional light source, or additional optical loopback component is actually required by the claim. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear because it cannot be determined whether the claims require the recited additional structures or merely describe optional, non-limiting features.
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, 4-9, 11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 11,032,007) in view of Celo (US 9,335,480) and further in view of Spraggs et al (US 2014/0070081).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Parker teaches a first unit configured to couple to a first side of a transparent material and a second unit configured to couple to a second side of the transparent material.
Parker discloses an electronic appliance comprising a pair of HB2O relays 110 mounted on opposite sides of a window 102 for relaying high-band RF communications through the window using optical communication signals. Parker discloses that a first HB2O relay 110a is mounted to an exterior face of a window and a second HB2O relay 110b is mounted to an interior face of the window. See Parker (col. 5, lines 41-67 and col 7, lines 4-41). The window is a transparent material because Parker describes the window as substantially transparent to at least a portion of the optical spectrum. See Parker (col 7, lines 4-41).
Parker further discloses that the relays include optical structures 120 to support optical communication through the window, including lenses, mirrors, apertures, and other structures to support transmission, receipt, filtering, focus, and alignment. See Parker (col. 7, lines 42-65). Parker also discloses that proper mounting includes positioning and aligning the relays relative to each other so as to align the optical structures and support a stable wireless optical communication link through the window. Parker further teaches that the mounting and alignment subsystem may include structures for facilitating manual or automatic alignment and may provide audible, visual, or other feedback to an installer to indicate successful alignment. See Parker (col. 11, line 44- col. 12, line 28).
Parker fails disclose that the first unit includes an optical loopback component comprising a loopback input, a loopback output, and a light redirection component, where a directional light source and viewing aperture in the second unit are respectively aligned with the loopback input and loopback output when properly aligned.
Celo teaches an optical loopback component used for optical alignment between photonic devices. Celo discloses an optical system in which a light source transmits light through an optical loopback that traverses a fiber coupler and a PIC, and a photodetector receives the returned light to determine and adjust lateral offset (Celo col. 2, line 61 to col. 4, line 27). Celo further discloses an optical loopback path comprising an alignment waveguide 306A, multimode edge coupler 312A, multimode interconnect 316, multimode edge coupler 312B, and alignment waveguide 306B (Celo col. 4, line 47 to col. 5, lines 61). The first edge-coupler interface corresponds to a loopback input, the second edge-coupler interface corresponds to a loopback output, and the multimode interconnect corresponds to a light redirection/interconnection component that redirects or routes light from the loopback input to the loopback output. Celo teaches transmitting light through the first alignment waveguide, detecting the light at the second alignment waveguide, and aligning the devices based on the detected light (Celo col. 7, lines 14-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Parker’s first relay to include Celo’s optical loopback component so that light transmitted from Parker’s second relay into the first relay is returned through the loopback path for alignment verification. Parker expressly identifies the need to align opposed window-mounted optical relays to form a stable optical communication link and teaches optical structures for alignment and visual feedback. Celo provides a known optical loopback alignment mechanism for determining whether two optical devices are properly aligned. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Celo’s optical loopback into Parker’s paired relay system to provide a simple and reliable alignment feedback path, thereby improving installation and alignment of the optical structures.
Parker and Celo further teach or suggest a directional light source. Parker discloses that the optical interface may use LEDs, laser transmitters, or the like to transmit optical communication signals. See Parker para. (23). Celo discloses a light source 102 configured to generate light and send the light through an optical loopback (Celo col. 3, lines 8-40). In the combined system, the light source in Parker’s second relay would be aligned with the loopback input of the optical loopback component in the first relay when the units are properly aligned.
Spraggs teaches a viewing aperture, specifically an optical alignment of electronic-device optical components using apertures and openings, including viewing an aperture through an opening and viewing alignment features through an aperture (Spraggs paragraphs 0035, 0056–0065). Spraggs further teaches using a light-emitting component, such as an LED, during alignment operations and detecting or viewing the emitted light through an aperture/opening arrangement (Spraggs paragraphs 0074–0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide Parker’s second relay with a viewing aperture aligned with the loopback output of the loopback component, as modified by Celo, because Parker already teaches apertures and visual feedback for alignment, Celo teaches detecting returned loopback light to determine alignment, and Spraggs teaches using apertures/openings for optical alignment of electronic-device components. The modification merely uses known optical apertures/openings for their known purpose of permitting light to be viewed or received during alignment.
Examiner’s note: claim 1 and similar does not require that the first unit be unpowered, does not require that the viewing aperture be viewed by a human and does not require that the optical loopback be passive.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Parker as modified above teaches the transparent material is a window, and the first unit is mounted on an outside surface of the window and the second unit is mounted on an inside surface of the window (Parker teaches window 102, HB2O relay 110a mounted to exterior face of window and second HB2O relay 110b mounted to interior face of window).
Regarding claim 5, Parker teaches opposed electronic appliance units mounted on opposite sides of a transparent material, including optical structures for optical communication and alignment through a window. Celo teaches an optical loopback alignment path in which light is transmitted into a loopback path and returned for alignment determination. Spraggs teaches optical alignment in electronic devices using light sources, apertures, and optical alignment feedback.
Parker does not expressly disclose that the light redirection component of the optical loopback component comprises a fiber optic tube.
However, Official Notice is taken that, at the time of the invention, it was well known in the optical arts that a fiber optic tube/fiber optic light guide is a conventional structure for receiving light at one end, transmitting or redirecting the light along a path, including a curved or bent path, and emitting the light at another end.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Parker to use fiber optic tube as the light redirection component because fiber optic tubes were known, predictable, and conventional optical light guides for routing light between an input and an output while maintaining optical confinement.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Parker as modified above teaches the light redirection component comprises at least one reflective surface, prism, or lens (Parker figure 1 & col. 7, lines 42-65).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Parker as modified above teaches the first directional light source comprises a light-emitting diode (Parker teaches optical interface may use LEDs and Spraggs component 46 is a LED).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Parker as modified above teaches the first unit further comprises: a wireless power receiver to capture power from a wireless charging signal, a first power supply coupled to the wireless power receiver to store power; and wherein the second unit further comprises: a second power supply electronically coupled to a power source; and a wireless power transmitter to output the wireless charging signal; and wherein power is wirelessly transmitted from the wireless power transmitter to the wireless power receiver via the wireless charging signal when the first unit and second unit are properly aligned (Parker col. 7, line 66- col. 8, line 12, teaches the interior relay receiving line power and the exterior relay receiving power wirelessly from the interior relay, using battery, rechargeable storage and wireless).
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Parker as modified above teaches the first unit further includes a first optical coupler and the second unit further includes a second coupler, wherein data is transmitted between the first unit and second unit when properly aligned (Parker col. 9- line 55 to col. 10, line 19 & col. 11, lines 45-63, teaches optical transceivers/optical interfaces (337) in each relay forming wireless optical communication link (220). Parker further teaches converting HB-RF communication signals to optical communication signals transmitted through the window and reconverted and proper mounting/alignment so optical structures support a stable optical link.)
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 11,032,007), Celo (US 9,335,480) and Spraggs et al (US 2014/0070081) and further in view of Lowe et al (US 2006/0150460).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Parker teaches first and second units mounted on opposite sides of a window, Celo teaches the optical loopback alignment path, and Spraggs teaches optical alignment using apertures. Parker, Celo and Spraggs fail to specifically teach the first viewing aperture provides a viewing channel between a first side of the second unit and a second side of the second unit opposite the first side. However, Lowe further teaches a viewing aperture 14, a light induction aperture 16, and a light transmission channel 18 contained within the housing that transmits light from the light induction aperture to the viewing aperture (Lowe Abstract and paragraphs 0018, 0064-0068.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the second unit of Parker, as modified by Celo and Spraggs, with Lowe’s viewing aperture/light transmission channel arrangement so that returned alignment light from the loopback output could pass through the second unit to a user-viewable aperture.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Parker, Celo and Spraggs fail to specifically teach what Lowe teaches, which is that light travels through the light transmission channel and into the viewing aperture, and that the resulting image/light may be viewed by an individual looking through the viewing aperture (Lowe 0018 and 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the second unit of Parker, as modified by Celo and Spraggs, with Lowe’s user observable viewing channel/structure in order to make the returned alignment light observable through the viewing aperture to provide manual visual confirmation of proper alignment.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 11,032,007), Celo (US 9,335,480) and Spraggs et al (US 2014/0070081) and further in view of Lu et al (US 2006/0257092).
Regarding claims 10 and 19 (This rejection is made as best understood in view of the indefinite “may be included” language previously identified under 35 USC 112(b) and treats claims 10 and 19 as positively requiring (in the alternative option configuration) additional viewing aperture, additional directional light source, and additional optical loopback component.)
Parker as modified above fails to specifically disclose at least one additional viewing aperture and additional directional light source may be included in the second unit, and at least one optical loopback component may be included in the first unit. Lu teaches multiple optical loopback paths in a single loopback connector, including first and second optical loopback paths having terminal ends positioned for optical alignment (Lu paragraphs 0007-0008, 0056-0058 and 0066-0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide or duplicate Parker/Celo/Spraggs optical alignment arrangement using Lu’s plural loopback paths and corresponding plural optical input/output locations so that more than one additional directional light source and viewing aperture in the second unit could align with more than one additional optical loopback component in the first unit and therefore improve alignment verification of the opposed units by confirming multiple alignment points.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDAN ORGAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7884. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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.
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.
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights