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 claim(s) 1-10 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
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allec (US 11076771), and further in view of Simpson (US 20140248058).
Consider Claim 1, Figure 1 of Allec discloses an optical wireless communication device comprising: a first light receiver configured to receive communication light emitted (Figure 4, element 414), a second light receiver configured to receive ambient light (Figure 4, element 412 receives ambient light element 406), which is light other than the communication light; and a controller (Figure 4, element 411) configured to perform control to adjust a gain of the first light receiver, based intensity of the ambient light received by the second light receiver (Column 8, Lines 65-67, where gain of element 414 is adjusted based on ambient light detected by element 412) but does not disclose an underwater optical wireless communication device and a light receiver configured to receive communication light emitted from another wireless communication device. While the reference does not explicitly mention adjusting gain based on intensity of the communication light received by the first light receiver, Figure 5D demonstrates a method of using the ambient light to determine whether an additional light emitter (element 411) is needed and Column 9, Lines 1-6 disclose that the light from element 411 would be detected by first light sensor element 411. It would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that Figure 5D and the cited portion of Colum 9 that the light detected by the first light element 411 would affect adjusting the gain of the first light receiver.
However, Simpson discloses an underwater optical wireless communication device (Figure 1A, element 102) a first light receiver configured to receive communication light emitted from another wireless communication device (Paragraph 0028, where transceiver pair elements 100 communicate with each other in an underwater setting).
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 Simpson into Hilgers to enhance signal strength in an underwater setting.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allec (US 11076771), in view of Simpson (US 20140248058), and further in view of Hilgers (US 8207676).
Consider Claim 9, Allec and Simpson do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Hilgers discloses a housing configured to house the first light receiver (Figure 1, where first sensor element 14 is constrained with a sidewall element 38) , the second light receiver (Column 7, Lines 19-22, where second sensor element is constrained with a sidewall element 48), and the controller (Figure 1, controller element 24 is located underneath PCB element 18), wherein each of the first light receiver and the second light receiver is positioned within the housing such that an incident direction of the ambient light is the same (Figure 1, where first sensor element 14 and second sensor element 16 receive ambient light from ambient light source element 33 in same direction)
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 Hilgers into Allec and Simpson to provide protection of devices in an underwater environment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allec in view of Simpson, and further in view of Farr (US 20160127042).
Consider Claim 10, Allec does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, Simpson discloses the underwater optical wireless communication device as recited in claim 1, wherein the first light receiver includes a photomultiplier tube (Claim 2, Line 1, where detector array of receiver uses photomultipliers) but does not disclose wherein the second light receiver includes a photodiode capable of receiving light with a higher intensity than that of the photomultiplier tube.
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 Simpson into Allec to enhance signal strength in an underwater setting.
However, Farr discloses a second light receiver includes a photodiode capable of receiving light with a higher intensity than that of the photomultiplier tube (Paragraph 0141, where photodiode receives high ambient light conditions compared to photomultiplier tube).
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 Farr into Allec and Simpson so that receivers in underwater settings can detect light at different sensitivity levels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 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
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