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 Objections
Claims 16 and 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 should depend from claim 14 instead of canceled claim 15.
Regarding Claim 21, “The system” in line 1 appears to be “The device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Remarks
The Office has cited particular columns, line numbers, paragraph numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2141.02 and § 2123.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidorovich et al. (US 6795655 B1, Sidorovich) in view of Konolige (US 20170261314 A1, hereinafter referred to as Konolige).
Regarding claim 14, Sidorovich discloses a method for communicating
detecting
driving a plurality of light sources (“Laser” in Fig. 5) in a light source array (122 in Fig. 5) of the repeater device based at least partially on
transmitting
Although Sidorovich does not explicitly characterize the light signal as a spatiotemporal pattern, the Sidorovich provides sufficient disclosure to infer this feature. Specifically, the input beams arriving at receiver 2 of repeater 3, which originate from transmitting terminal 1, are shown to be incident from various directions. Moreover, column 8, lines 36-39, describes the reception of multiple distinct beam types by the repeater. In addition, the explicit mention of an image as the reception signal in column 12, line 67, to column 13, line 26, is highly instructive. Therefore, the optical pattern formed on the receiver surface is subject to variation in both time (resulting from modulation) and space (consequent to different incident angles), thus meeting the criteria for a “spatiotemporal pattern.”
Sidorovich does not disclose wherein the input spatiotemporal pattern includes a plurality of spatiotemporal patterns at least partially overlapping.
Konolige discloses "identify second corresponding features of the environment between a first infrared light image... and a second infrared light image" from the projected pattern and "a computing device may add correlation surface 830 and correlation surface 840 to determine a combined correlation surface 850" where patterns overlap in the scene (paras 0007, 0153, FIG. 8C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-beam reception of Sidorovich to handle overlapping structured-light patterns as taught by Konolige to increase robustness of pattern detection in complex environments with multiple simultaneous information streams.
Regarding claim 16, Sidorovich discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising combining the plurality of spatiotemporal patterns at the repeater device and wherein the output spatiotemporal pattern is based at least partially on the plurality of spatiotemporal patterns ("Information is separately demodulated from the received beams and combined to form an aggregate higher rate data stream" via the communication channels and switches (col. 8, lines 20+).
Regarding claim 17, Sidorovich discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose, wherein detecting the input spatiotemporal pattern has an input duration, and transmitting the output spatiotemporal pattern has an output duration that is greater than the input duration.
However, Sidorovich discloses "The photodetectors 128 convert light into electric signals, which in turn are applied to demodulators 129 to recover the information carried by the electric signals output from the photodetectors." and "Optical radiation from lasers 122 is modulated by modulators/drivers 121 with information from the associated sources" (column 12, lines 54-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit the output spatiotemporal pattern which has an output duration that is greater than the input duration without the exercise of inventive skill. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance such as novel or unexpected results to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 18, Sidorovich discloses all the features and limitations as discussed above but doe not explicitly disclose, wherein detecting the input spatiotemporal pattern includes detecting an input intensity, and transmitting the output spatiotemporal pattern has an output intensity that is greater than the input intensity.
However, Sidorovich discloses "Emission of the radiation source (transmit laser 23) of the station 16 is intensity-modulated in time in accordance with the electric signal coming from the information source and represents a sequence of rectangular pulses." (column 10, lines 28+).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect an input intensity, and transmit the output spatiotemporal pattern which has an output intensity that is greater than the input intensity without the exercise of inventive skill. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance such as novel or unexpected results to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 19, Sidorovich discloses wherein transmitting the output spatiotemporal pattern includes continuing to transmit the output spatiotemporal pattern until a termination signal is received by the repeater device (it is implied that the repeaters receive a termination signal to prevent signal reflections, see column 6, lines 61+).
Regarding claim 20, Sidorovich discloses wherein transmitting an output spatiotemporal pattern includes delaying transmitting the output spatiotemporal pattern a delay duration (to some extent) after detecting the input spatiotemporal pattern.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 21 would be allowable if the claim objections are corrected.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the best prior art of record, Sidorovich, teaches a device or a system comprising a light source array (122 in Fig. 5), a light receptor array (2, 8 in Fig. 1; 125, 128 in Fig. 5; col. 12, line 35 – col. 13, line 26), and a repeater (Repeaters 3 in Fig. 1; REPEATER/HUB ROUTER in Fig. 6). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to include at least one pixel of the light source array includes both a light source and a light receptor, as set forth in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2026 with respect to Claims 14 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot. Claims 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sidorovich in view of newly found Konolige reference as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 5712728048. 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.
/DANIEL D CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844