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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5,7-19 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 § 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, 3, 5, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Link et al. (US 5526164 A), hereinafter, Link in view of previously cited Vital de Campos de Freitas et al. (US 20190190318 A1), hereinafter, Vital.
Regarding claim 1:
Link discloses a signal transmission device(Fig. 3), comprising:
a first controller (Fig. 3, controller 32 or microcontroller 13 are interpreted as claimed first controller) confiqured to qenerate digital signals (Fig. 3, output signals of A/D units 10, 11, 12 are claimed digital signals);
a digital-to-analog converter (Fig. 3, D/A 17 and 18) configured to convert the digital signals to analog signals, wherein the first controller comprises the digital-to-analog converter (Fig. 3, controller 32 comprises D/A 17, 18) or the digital-to-analog converter is independent of the first controller (Fig. 3, D/A converters 17, 18 are independent of microcontroller 13), and the digital signals are not subjected to communication signal modulation (Modulation is performed on analog signals);
a modulator configured to modulate the analog signals to generate modulated pulse signals (Fig. 3, Column 6, line 40- column 8, line 19; column 3, line 45- column line 10, output of laser diode 2 is modulated signal); and
a transmitter configured to transmit, based on the modulated pulse signals, output pulse signals to a receiver (Fig. 4, column 9, lines 10-18).
Thus, Link discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the transmitter is configured to have no common ground with the receiver.
However, Vital discloses signal transmission device wherein the transmitter is configured to have no common ground with the receiver (Paragraph [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to have Link’s transmission device wherein the transmitter is configured to have no common ground with the receiver as disclosed by Vital. It would have been obvious to do so as to prevent noise introduced by ground loops.
Regarding claim 8:
Method claim 8 is rejected as being obvious over Link in view of Vital based on a rationale similar to the one used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 3 and 13:
Link and Vital disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 above. Link further discloses, wherein the output pulse signals include optical waves; and the transmitter comprises an optical transmitter configured to convert the modulated pulse signals to optical pulse signals and transmit the optical pulse signals to the receiver (Fig. 4, column 9, lines 10-18).
Regarding claims 5 and 12:
Link and Vital disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 above.
Further, Link discloses a signal transmission device (Fig. 3), further comprising: the first controller (Fig. 3, microcontroller 13) configured to convert input signals to first digital signals and apply computation to the first digital signals to generate the digital signals (Column 6, line 40 – Column 7, line 14; wherein A/D converters 10 convert incoming signal to first digital signals and controller 15 applies computation/ performs computing to the first digital signals to generate the digital signals).
Claims 2, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link in view of Vital as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Wiegand (US 20030142841 A1), hereinafter, Wiegand.
Regarding claims 2 and 9:
Link and Vital disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the modulator is a pulse width modulator comprising:
a periodic signal generator configured to generate periodic signals; and
a comparator configured to compare the analog signals with the periodic signals and generate the modulated pulse signals based on results of comparison.
However, Wiegand discloses a signal transmission device (Fig. 3) and corresponding method, wherein the modulator ((Fig.3, modulator 114)) is a pulse width modulator comprising (Paragraph [0012]):
a periodic signal generator (Fig. 3, oscillator 132) configured to generate periodic signals (Paragraph [0012]); and
a comparator (Fig. 3. Comparator 134) configured to compare the analog signals with the periodic signals and generate the modulated pulse signals based on results of comparison (Paragraph [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the modulator of Link as modified by Vital with the pulse width modulator disclosed by Wiegand. It would have been obvious because pulse width modulators are well known to be efficient.
Regarding claims 7 and 10:
Link, Vital and Wiegand disclose all the limitations of claims 2 and 9 above. Wiegand further discloses the signal transmission device and corresponding method, wherein the periodic signal generator comprises a triangular or sawtooth wave signal generator configured to generate triangular or sawtooth wave signals, respectively (Paragraph [0012], oscillator 312 generates triangle wave); and;
the comparator (Fig. 3, comparator 134) is configured to compare the analog signals with the triangular or sawtooth wave signals and generate the modulated pulse signals based on the results of the comparison (Paragraph [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the modulator of Link as modified by Vital with the pulse width modulator disclosed by Wiegand. It would have been obvious because pulse width modulators are well known to be efficient.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link in view of Vital as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of previously cited Fortier et al. (US 8553909 B2), hereinafter, Fortier.
Regarding claims 4 and 11:
Link and Vital disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 above, but fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the transmitter comprises a transmitting antenna configured to transmit the output pulse signals, and the output pulse signals are radio waves.
However, Fortier discloses the signal transmission device and corresponding method, wherein the transmitter comprises a transmitting antenna configured to transmit the output pulse signals in a form of radio waves (Column 1, lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the optical transmitter of Link as modified by Vital with the transmitter with antenna and radio waves as disclosed by Fortier. It would have been obvious because using a radio wave transmitter would allow for the transmissions to radio receivers in the system.
Claims 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link in view of Vital and Heo et al. (US 12537605 B2), hereinafter, Heo.
Regarding claim 14:
Link discloses a communication system (Fig. 3), comprising:
a first controller (Fig. 3, controller 32 or microcontroller 13 are interpreted as claimed first controller) configured to generate digital signals (Fig. 3, output signals of A/D units 10, 11, 12 are claimed digital signals);
a digital-to-analog converter (Fig. 3, D/A 17 and 18) configured to convert the digital signals to analog signals, wherein the first controller comprises the digital-to-analog converter (Fig. 3, controller 32 comprises D/A 17, 18) or the digital-to-analog converter is independent of the first controller (Fig. 3, D/A converters 17, 18 are independent of microcontroller 13), and the digital signals are not subjected to communication signal modulation (Modulation is performed on analog signals);
a modulator configured to modulate the analog signals to generate modulated pulse signals (Fig. 3, Column 6, line 40- column 8, line 19; column 3, line 45- column line 10, output of laser diode 2 is modulated signal); and
a transmitter configured to transmit, based on the modulated pulse signals, output pulse signals to a receiver (Fig. 4, column 9, lines 10-18),
a signal receiving device comprising: the receiver (Fig. 4, column 9, lines 10-18).
Thus, Link discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the transmitter is configured to have no common ground with the receiver and wherein the receiver is configured to receive the output pulse signals and generate electric pulse signals based on the output pulse signals; and a demodulator configured to demodulate the digital signals from the electric pulse signals.
However, Vital discloses signal transmission device wherein the transmitter is configured to have no common ground with the receiver (Paragraph [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to have Link’s device wherein the transmitter is configured to have no common ground with the receiver as disclosed by Vital. It would have been obvious to do so as to prevent noise introduced by ground loops.
Further, Heo discloses a signal receiving device (Fig. 1, device 200) comprising:
the receiver, wherein the receiver (Fig. 1, device 210) is configured to receive the output pulse signals and generate electric pulse signals based on the output pulse signals (Column 7, lines 43-56); and
a demodulator (Fig. 1, demodulator 220) configured to demodulate the digital signals from the electric pulse signals (Column 7, lines 56-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to have Link’s signal transmission device as modified by Vital to be further modified to have the receiver and demodulator as disclosed by Heo. It would have been obvious because Heo discloses (Column 4, lines 15-27).
Regarding claim 15:
Link, Vital and Heo disclose all the limitations of claim 14 above.
Further, Link discloses communication system wherein the transmitter comprises an optical transmitter (Figs,3, 4, optical transmitter) configured to convert the modulated pulse signals to optical pulse signals (Fig. 3, laser diode converts modulated pulse to optical pulse) and, so as to transmit to the receiver the optical pulse signals to the receiver (Column 9, lines 10-18).
Regarding claim 19:
Link, Vital and Heo disclose all the limitations of claim 14 above.
Link further discloses a communication system (Fig. 3), further comprising: a first controller (Fig. 3, microcontroller 13) configured to convert input signals to first digital signals and apply computation to the first digital signals to generate the digital signals (Column 6, line 40 – Column 7, line 14; wherein A/D converters 10 convert incoming signal to first digital signals and controller 15 applies computation to the first digital signals to generate the digital signals).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link in view of Vital and Heo as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Fortier.
Regarding claim 16:
Link, Vital and Heo disclose all the limitations of claim 14 above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the output pulse signals are radio waves, and the receiver comprises a receiving antenna configured to receive the output pulse signals and convert the output pulse signals into the electric pulse signals.
However, Fortier also discloses the communication system, wherein the output pulse signals comprise include radio wave signals, and the receiver comprises a receiving antenna configured to receive the radio wave signals and convert the radio wave signals into the electric pulse signals (Column 1, lines 25-43; An antenna like the one used in the transmitter is inherent to the receiver to receive the RF signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the optical transmitter of Link as modified by Vital and Heo with the transmitter with antenna and radio waves as disclosed by Fortier. It would have been obvious because using a radio wave transmitter would allow for the transmissions to radio receivers in the system.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Link in view of Vital and Heo as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wiegand.
Regarding claim 17:
Link, Vital and Heo disclose all the limitations of claim 14 above, but fail to explicitly disclose communication system, wherein the modulator is a pulse width modulator comprising: a periodic signal generator configured to generate periodic signals; and a comparator configured to compare the analog signals with the periodic signals and generate the modulated pulse signals based on results of comparison: However, Wiegand discloses system (Fig. 3), wherein the modulator ((Fig.3, modulator 114)) is a pulse width modulator comprising (Paragraph [0012]):
a periodic signal generator (Fig. 3, oscillator 132) configured to generate periodic signals (Paragraph [0012]); and
a comparator (Fig. 3. Comparator 134) configured to compare the analog signals with the periodic signals and generate the modulated pulse signals based on results of comparison (Paragraph [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the modulator of Link as modified by Vital and Heo with the pulse width modulator disclosed by Wiegand. It would have been obvious because pulse width modulators are well known to be efficient.
Regarding claim 18:
Link, Vital, Heo and Wiegand disclose all the limitations of claim 17 above. Wiegand further discloses the communication system, wherein the periodic signal generator comprises a triangular or sawtooth wave signal generator configured to generate triangular or sawtooth wave signals, respectively (Paragraph [0012], oscillator 312 generates triangle wave); and;
the comparator (Fig. 3, comparator 134) is configured to compare the analog signals with the triangular or sawtooth wave signals and generate the modulated pulse signals based on the results of the comparison (Paragraph [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the modulator of Link as modified by Vital and Heo with the pulse width modulator disclosed by Wiegand. It would have been obvious because pulse width modulators are well known to be efficient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-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.
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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635