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
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotgaizer (US 8,155,527) in view of Carmon. (US 10,345,137)
With respect to claim 1, Rotgaizer teaches a spatial optical communication system comprising: a plurality of optical transmitting and receiving apparatuses capable of constituting a mesh spatial optical communication network (FSO system); and at least one processor. (col. 5, lines 7-65, Figs. 1, 5a)
Rotgaizer does not explicitly teach the at least one processor carrying out an analysis process of inferring, on the basis of reception signals of the optical transmitting and receiving apparatuses, a state of an air environment in at least one portion of an area in which the spatial optical communication network is formed, or a state of an installation ground of each of the optical transmitting and receiving apparatuses in the at least one portion of the area.
However, it is known to use optical sensors to detect such states. For example, Carmon teaches that optical sensors can be used to detect a vibration state of a surface. (col. 5, lines 15-34, col. 7, lines 4-55, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Rotgaizer to detect a state of an installation ground of each of the optical transmitting and receiving apparatuses, as Carmon teaches the optical sensors can be used to detect vibrations, in order to monitor the state of the ground.
With respect to claims 2 and 6, because the options in the independent claim are presented in the alternative, only that which was taught by the primary reference was considered. Because the content of these claims refers only to that which was optional, it does not limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 3, Rotgaizer, as modified by Carmon, teaches that in the analysis process, the at least one processor infers a vibration state of a ground in the at least one portion of the area. (Carmon)
With respect to claims 4-5, although Rotgaizer, as modified by Carmon, does not explicitly teach the at least one processor further carries out a control process of measuring, with use of a reception signal of each of the optical transmitting and receiving apparatuses, a quality of spatial optical communication of each of the optical transmitting and receiving apparatuses; and the at least one processor infers, in the analysis process, the state of the air environment or the state of the installation ground on the basis of the quality of the spatial optical communication, wherein the quality of the spatial optical communication is at least one selected from the group consisting of a reception level of the reception signal and a bit error rate of the reception signal, Rotgaizer discusses the importance of signal quality and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to carry out a specific quality measuring process in order to provide more accurate data.
With respect to claim 7, Rotgaizer, as modified by Carmon, teaches wherein in the analysis process, the at least one processor estimates, on the basis of the vibration state, an earthquake distribution in the area in which the spatial optical communication network is formed. (Carmon)
With respect to claim 8, Rotgaizer teaches an analysis apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: an acquisition process of acquiring reception signals of a plurality of optical transmitting and receiving apparatuses capable of constituting a mesh spatial optical communication network.
Rotgaizer does not teach an analysis process of inferring, on the basis of the reception signals, a state of an air environment in at least one portion of an area in which the spatial optical communication network is formed, or a state of an installation ground of each of the optical transmitting and receiving apparatuses in the at least one portion of the area.
However, it is known to use optical sensors to detect such states. For example, Carmon teaches that optical sensors can be used to detect a vibration state of a surface. (col. 5, lines 15-34, col. 7, lines 4-55, Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Rotgaizer to detect a state of an installation ground of each of the optical transmitting and receiving apparatuses, as Carmon teaches the optical sensors can be used to detect vibrations, in order to monitor the state of the ground.
With respect to claim 9, Rotgaizer, as modified by Carmon, teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to operate as an analysis apparatus according to claim 8, the program causing the computer to carry out the acquisition process and the analysis process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 20100128855; and CN 102124373 each teach an invention having similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853