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 the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicants’ arguments are rendered moot in view of the present Office Action.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the inductive charging coil of the docking station to induce a charging current in the inductive charging coil of the destination electronic device”. in Lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beausoleil (US 7835647) in view of Wang (US 7805080) and further in view of Williams (US 20170090134) .
Consider Claim 1, Beausoleil discloses an electronic device with optical communications comprising: a light cell array (Figure 2, element 210; Column 7, Lines 45-46, where element 210 contains multiple optical sources), each light cell individually operable to output a controllable collimated light beam (Column 7, Lines 45-46, where element 210 contains multiple optical sources that emit optical beams) the light beams of the light cell array to form a data encoded optical output signal (Column 4, Lines 38-40, where element 210 emits data encoded signal) to transmit to a destination electronic device (Figure 2 , element 235); a photocell array (Figure 2, element 235) to receive a data encoded optical input signal from the destination electronic device (Figure 2, element 235 receives signal from element 210), a controller to: measure an overlap of the optical input signal with the photocell array based on the output signals of the array of photocells (Figure 2, element 240; Column 4, Lines 51-64, where element 240 compares reference reading from array element 235 and compares to various shifted versions of reference reading to sample reading); and adjust a position of the photocell array based on the measured overlap to align the photocell array with the with the optical input signal (Figure 2, element 245; Column 5, Lines 13-16, where element 245 moves light sensing array element 245) but does not disclose a housing wherein the destination electronic device is external to the housing, and each photocell to provide an output signal representative of an amount of energy received from the optical input signal.
However, Wang discloses but does not disclose each photocell to provide an output signal representative of an amount of energy received from the optical input signal (Column 4, Lines 5-7 where receiver elements output signal of incoming optical beam elements 120) does not disclose a housing wherein the destination electronic device is external to the housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Wang into Beausoleil to ensure accurate readings for overlap measurement.
However, Williams discloses a housing (Claim 1, Line 2 where optical module is within a housing) wherein the destination electronic device is external to the housing (Figure 1, where element 118 is outside of housing where element 112 is stored).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Williams into Beausoleil and Wang to provide housing to protect from external factors.
Consider Claim 15, Beausoleil discloses a method of operating an optical communication system comprising: controlling each light cell of a light cell array of a first electronic device to individually output a collimated light beam (Column 7, Lines 45-46, where element 210 contains multiple optical sources that emit optical beams) such that the light beams of the light cell array form a data encoded optical output signal (Column 4, Lines 38-40, where element 210 emits data encoded signal); receiving the optical output signal with a photocell array (Figure 2, element 235) of a second electronic device (Figure 2, element 235), measuring an overlap of the optical output signal with the photocell array based on the output signals of the photocell array (Figure 2, element 240; Column 4, Lines 51-64, where element 240 compares reference reading from array element 235 and compares to various shifted versions of reference reading to sample reading); and adjusting a position of the photocell array to align with the optical output signal based on the measured overlap (Figure 2, element 245; Column 5, Lines 13-16, where element 245 moves light sensing array element 245) but does not disclose the second electronic device being located external to a housing of the first electronic device and each photocell of the photocell array to provide an output signal indicative of an amount of energy received from the optical output signal.
However, Wang discloses each photocell of the photocell array to provide an output signal indicative of an amount of energy received from the optical output signal (Column 4, Lines 5-7 where receiver elements output signal of incoming optical beam elements 120) but does not disclose the second electronic device being located external to a housing of the first electronic device.
However, Williams discloses the second electronic device being located external to a housing of the first electronic device (Claim 1, Line 2 where optical module is within a housing and Figure 1, where element 118 is outside of housing where optical module element 112 is stored).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Williams into Beausoleil and Wang to provide housing to protect from external factors.
Consider Claim 16, Beausoleil and Wang do not disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Williams discloses the electronic device of claim 1, the inductive charging coil (Figure 1, element 108) to induce a charging current in the inductive charging coil of the destination electronic device (Paragraph 0010, where element 10 induces current in element 110 of destination element 104). While Williams does not explicitly disclose a docking station, paragraph 0009 discloses that external charging and data puck element 102 can be coupled to any suitable electronic device. It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that the electronic device being a docking station would be a matter of design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Williams into Beausoleil and Wang to provide housing to protect from external factors.
Consider Claim 19, Beausoleil discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: adjusting a position of the light cell array to align with the photocell array based on the measured overlap (Figure 10, element 1040 where configuration of transmitter/light cell array is adjusted after element 1020 of comparing/cross correlation of sample reading and reference reading).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Williams into Beausoleil and Wang to provide housing to protect from external factors.
Claims 2, 18, and 20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beausoleil in view of Wang in view of Williams and further in view of Ritchie (US 20180302159).
Consider Claim 2, Beausoleil discloses the electronic device of claim 1, controller to adjust a position of the receiver carriage to align the photocell array with the optical input signal (Figure 2, element 245; Column 5, Lines 13-16, where element 245 moves light sensing array element 245) but does not disclose a moveable receiver carriage to which the photocell array is mounted.
However, Ritchie discloses disclose a moveable receiver carriage (Figure 8, element 124) to which the photocell array is mounted (Figure 8, element 142, paragraph 0114 where receivers are made up of arrays).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ritchie into Beausoleil, Wang, and Williams to accommodate for incoming signals from different directions.
Consider Claim 18, Beausoleil, Wang, and Williams do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Ritchie discloses the method of claim 15, wherein adjusting the position of the photocell array includes adjusting a carriage (Figure 8, element 124) on which the photocell array is disposed (Figure 8, element 142, paragraph 0114 where receivers are made up of arrays).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ritchie into Beausoleil, Wang, and Williams to accommodate for incoming signals from different directions.
Consider Claim 20, Beausoleil, Wang, and Williams do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Ritchie discloses the method of claim 19, wherein adjusting the position of the light cell array includes adjusting a carriage (Figure 8, element 124) on which the light cell array is disposed (Figure 8, element 140, paragraph 0113 where transmitters are made up of arrays).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ritchie into Beausoleil, Wang, and Williams to accommodate for incoming signals from different directions.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beausoleil in view of Wang in view of Williams and further in view of Venugopalan Nair Jalakumari (US 10097264).
Consider Claim 3, Beausoleil, Wang, and Williams do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Venugopalan Nair Jalakumari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the light cell array comprises an array of vertical cavity surface emitting laser diodes (Figure 9, element 905).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Venugopalan Nair Jalakumari into Beausoleil, Wang, and Williams for high-speed modulation.
Consider Claim 4, Beausoleil, Wang, and Williams do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, However, Venugopalan Nair Jalakumari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the photocell array comprises an array of single photon avalanche diodes (Figure 9, element 911).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Venugopalan Nair Jalakumari into Beausoleil, Wang, and Williams for improved signal to noise ratio.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beausoleil in view of Wang in in view of Maret (US 10498455) and further in view of Williams.
Consider Claim 6, Beausoleil discloses a system for optical communication comprising: a first electronic device (Figure 2, element 205) comprising: a first light cell array (Figure 2, element 210; Column 7, Lines 45-46, where element 210 contains multiple optical sources), each light cell controllable to output a collimated light beam (Column 7, Lines 45-46, where element 210 contains multiple optical sources that emit optical beams); cells of the light cell array form a data encoded first optical output signal (Column 4, Lines 38-40, where element 210 emits data encoded signal); a second electronic device (Figure 2, element 225) comprising: a first photocell array (Figure 2, element 235) to receive the first optical output signal (Figure 2, element 235 receives signal from element 210),; and a second controller to: measure an overlap between the first optical output signal and the first photocell array based on the output signals of the photocells of the first photocell array (Figure 2, element 240; Column 4, Lines 51-64, where element 240 compares reference reading from array element 235 and compares to various shifted versions of reference reading to sample reading); and adjust a relative position of the first photocell array to the first optical output signal based on the measured overlap to adjust an alignment of the first photocell array with the first optical output signal. (Figure 2, element 245; Column 5, Lines 13-16, where element 245 moves light sensing array element 245) but does not disclose a first housing, second electronic device external to the first housing, a second housing, and a first controller to control each light cell of the first light cell array and each photocell to provide an output signal representative of an amount of energy received from the first optical output signal.
However, Wang discloses each photocell to provide an output signal representative of an amount of energy received from the first optical output signal. (Column 4, Lines 5-7 where receiver elements output signal of incoming optical beam elements 120) but does not disclose a first housing, second electronic device external to the first housing, and a second housing a first controller to control each light cell of the first light cell array.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Wang into Beausoleil to increase accuracy in data transmission from optical emitter array.
However, Maret discloses a first controller to control each light cell of the first light cell array (Figure 2, element 210 where element 210 is a modulator and is acting as the control for incoming light) but does not disclose a first housing, second electronic device external to the first housing, and a second housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Maret into Beausoleil and Wang for higher speed data transmission.
However, Williams discloses a first housing (Claim 1, Line 2 where optical module is within a housing) and a second electronic device external to the first housing (Claim 1, Line 2 where optical module is within a housing and Figure 1, where element 118 is outside of housing where optical module element 112 is stored). While Williams does not explicitly disclose a second housing, it would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that the second housing does not impact functionality of the second electronic device or the results of tasks that are done by the second electronic and that including the second housing would be a matter of design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Williams into Beausoleil, Wang, and Maret to provide housing to protect from external factors.
Consider Claim 7, Beausoleil, Maret, and Williams do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Wang discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the optical output signal comprises an individual light beam from each light cell of the first light cell array (Figure 1, element 120 comprise beams from emitter elements 125, 130, and 135) each light beam corresponding to a different one of the photocells of the first photocell array (Column 3, Lines 57-61, where each transmitter element has a corresponding receiver element), the individual light beams and corresponding photocells grouped to form a number of optical communication channels (Column 3, Lines 44-49 where channels are formed between).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Williams into Beausoleil, Wang, and Maret to provide housing to protect from external factors.
Consider Claim 9, Beausoleil discloses the system of claim 6, wherein: the second electronic device includes: a second light cell array (Figure 2, element 230); wherein: the second controller is to control each light cell of the second light cell array (Figure 2, element 245 directs control to element 230) such that the light beams of the cells of the second light cell array form a data encoded second optical output signal (Figure 2, element 230 outputs signal); and the first electronic device includes: a second photocell array to receive the second optical output signal (Figure 2, element 220), but does not disclose each light cell controllable to output a collimated light beam and each photosensitive cell to provide an output signal representative of an amount of energy received from the second optical output signal.
However, Wang discloses each light cell controllable to output a collimated light beam (Figure 1, each emitter element outputs a beam element 120) and each photosensitive cell to provide an output signal representative of an amount of energy received from the second optical output signal (Column 4, Lines 5-7 where receiver elements output signal of incoming optical beam elements 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Williams into Beausoleil, Wang, and Maret to provide housing to protect from external factors.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beausoleil in view of Wang in view of Maret in view of Williams and in further view of Ritchie.
Consider Claim 8, Beausoleil discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the second electronic device includes: the second controller to adjust a position of the first receiver carriage to align the first photocell array with the first optical input signal (Figure 2, element 245; Column 5, Lines 13-16, where element 245 moves light sensing array element 245) but does not disclose a moveable first receiver carriage to which the first photocell array is mounted.
However, Ritchie a moveable first receiver carriage (Figure 8, element 124) to which the first photocell array is mounted (Figure 8, element 142, Paragraph 0114 where receivers can be arrays).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ritchie into Beausoleil, Wang, Maret, and Williams to accommodate for incoming signals from different directions.
Claim 14 is rejected is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beausoleil in view of Wang in view of Maret in view of Williams and in further view of Akhavin Mohammadi (US 20180007045).
Consider Claim 14, Beausoleil, Wang, Maret, and Williams do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Akhavin Mohammadi discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the first controller is to encode the first optical output signal using spatial encoding (Paragraph 006, where controller can include spatial encoding), including at least two-dimensional encoding.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Akhavin Mohammadi into Beausoleil, Wang, Maret, and Williams to for more secure coding of data.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beausoleil in view of Wang in in view of Maret in view of Williams, and further in view of Tan (US 8275266).
Consider Claim 17, Beausoleil, Wang, Maret, and Williams do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Tan discloses the system of claim 6, further comprising: a mechanical alignment device separate from the first electronic device and the second electronic device (Column 3, Lines 53-54, where mechanical alignment structure is attached elements 115 and 117), the mechanical alignment device to mechanically receive and align the first electronic device and the second electronic device (Column 3, Lines 53-58. Where mechanical alignment structure aligns elements 115 and 117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof into Tan, Beausoleil, Wang, Maret, and Williams to make sure signals get to correct destination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10-13 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASIF SHAMEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-6576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST-5:00 PM EST.
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, KENNETH VANDERPUYE can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/ASIF SHAMEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights