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.
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, 4, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0191437 A1) in view of Jeffrey (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2015/0104184 A1) and Palmer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2016/0294472 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cha teaches in FIG. 1 a first node having a first display device (the first display, counting from the top, on the left-hand side) configured to display a first spatiotemporal pattern; a second node having a second display device (the second display, counting from the top, on the left-hand side) configured to display a second spatiotemporal pattern; a camera (camera 240 of the reception device 200 on the right-hand side). The differences between Cha and the claimed invention are (a) Cha does not teach that the components are used in a datacenter, and (b) Cha does not teach a means for selectively imaging one of the first spatiotemporal pattern and the second spatiotemporal pattern with the camera.
Jeffrey teaches in FIG. 16 a system comprising servers 710, computer 702 with a display and in FIG. 13 that the display can be used as a transmitter data to a receiver 904. The servers and the storage 730 suggest a datacenter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Jeffrey with the system of Cha because the method of Cha supports high speed free space communication by using displays, with spatiotemporal pattern, and cameras which are widely available. 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 the high-speed communication system, as taught by Cha, in a datacenter.
The combination of Cha and Jeffrey still fails to teach a selection mean. Palmer et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a system for free-space optical communication. Palmer et al. teaches in paragraph [0077] that the control system 110 may select an optical transmitter from a plurality of such optical transmitters and steer the selected transmitter to point it in the direction of the receiver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Palmer et al. with the modified system of Cha and Jeffrey because this allows a single receiver to communicate with different transmitters in a time-share manner, e.g. for monitoring purposes. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively communicate with different transmitters using a single receiver, as taught by Palmer et al., in the modified system of Cha and Jeffrey.
Regarding claim 2, Palmer et al. teaches in FIG. 12A that signals from a plurality of transmitters can be multiplexed and in paragraphs [0022] and [0124] wavelength-tunable filter to select light from a particular transmitter.
Regarding claim 4, Palmer et al. teaches in paragraph [0071] bandpass filtering.
Regarding claim 11, Palmer et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a projection surface (reflector 118).
Regarding claim 13, Palmer et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a projection surface (reflector 118) which reflects optical signal and acts as a partially mirrored surface.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Walker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2023/0344515 A1).
Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4, 11 and 13. The difference between Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. and the claimed invention is that Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. do not teach do not teach that the wavelength filter is a band-stop filter. Walker et al. teaches optical wireless communication and in paragraph [0331] that band-stop filter may be used to allow transmission of different wavelengths or range of wavelengths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Walker et al. with the modified system of Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. 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 band-stop filter to select a transmitter from a plurality of transmitters, as taught by Walker et al., in the modified system of Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2012/0039605 A1).
Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4, 11 and 13. The difference between Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. and the claimed invention is that Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. do not teach that the wavelength filter is a cut filter. Zhu et al. teaches in FIG. 3(b) and FIG. 3(c) sideband filter which is equivalent to cut filter of instant claim. The sideband filter f22 passes signals with a frequency lower than a selected cutoff frequency and attenuates signals with frequencies higher than the cutoff frequency; sideband filter f21 passes signals with a frequency higher than a selected cutoff frequency and attenuates signals with frequencies lower than the cutoff frequency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Zhu et al. with the modified system of Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. 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 cut filter to select a transmitter from a plurality of transmitters, as taught by Zhu et al., in the modified system of Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Tsutsui et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0359085 A1).
Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2, 4, 11 and 13. The difference between Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. and the claimed invention is that Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. do not teach a motorized mount to move a field of view of the camera relative to the first display device and the second display device. Tsutsui et al. teaches in FIG. 1 optical wireless communication between a display 100 and a terminal 200 which may comprise a camera (see paragraph [0112]). Tsutsui et al. teaches in paragraph [0182] that the angle of a camera can be changed by means of a motor drive mechanism. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Tsutsui et al. with the modified system of Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al. because adjusting the angle of the camera allows the camera to align with the transmitter so that the performance of the link between the display and the camera is optimized. 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 motor drive mechanism to adjust the angle of the camera relative to the transmitters, as taught by Tsutsui et al., in the modified system of Cha, Jeffrey and Palmer et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 12 and 14 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.
Claims 15-26 are allowed.
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.
skl14 January 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635