DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-9, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LoPresti et al. (“LoPresti”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0315604).
Regarding claim 1, LoPresti discloses a system, comprising: at least one processor to facilitate performance of operations (figs. 1 and 2 element 14 and fig. 3 element 28 and paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0087-0089, where the system operations are inherently implemented by processor 28 and/or an inherent hierarchical adjoined processor), comprising: physically positioning the system, by the system, substantially above a device (fig. 1, each of 14n above elements 12n and paragraphs 0040-0043), wherein the device is configured to emit light-based communications substantially vertically (fig. 1 elements 12n and Full-Duplex FSO Links to elements 14n); attempting to establish a light-based communications channel with the device to produce a result, based on the result indicating success in establishing the light-based communications channel with the device, receiving data from the device via the light-based communications channel (fig. 2 the data sent from 12a to mobile 14 and paragraphs 0087-0089, where the result in transmitted and receive FSO signaling between 12a and 14); based on the result indicating failure in establishing the light-based communications channel with the device, establishing a radiofrequency-based communications channel with the device, and receiving the data from the device via the radiofrequency-based communications channel (paragraph 0074); after receiving the data, physically moving the system, by the system, to a location where the system is configured to establish a network connection, and conveying the data to a storage device via the network connection (fig. 2 element 14 switching communication between 12a to 12b and paragraphs 0087-0089, the access node communicating with the server 122, which reads on storage device).
LoPresti does not disclose that the processor is executing instructions stored in a memory. However, this limitation is only the generic architecture of a computer. Implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize the processor of LoPresti as executing instructions stored in a memory, since this only amounts to implementing the processor as generic computer architecture with nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Also, in fig. 1, LoPresti discloses each of 12n having internet connectivity, and thus does not disclose omitting internet connectivity for a device 12n that is transmitting up to a system 14n such that the transmitting up of data that is later communicated to server 122 is thus a backup of the data. However, LoPresti discloses devices 12n in the context of buildings (fig. 1). Further, the FSO link between each of 12n and 14n is separate from the physical TCP/IP connection. Thus, the claimed difference only amounts to an intended use, requiring only disconnecting from, or not providing a TCP/IP connection for, a device 12n that is in FSO communication with a system 14n. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that, for example, having no internet connectivity at a building could be part of a security protocol for data stored in that building, the building could be remote such that a physical internet connection is impractical, or internet connectively could be lost at a building, all being examples that do not affect the FSO link. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of devices to have internet connectivity omitted and the device to still transmit data to a system 14n over the FSO link to be stored as backup at the server 122, to provide the benefit of maintaining a communication link between systems 14n and devices 12n without requiring an internet connection at the origination device.
Regarding claim 2, LoPresti the system of claim 1, and discloses the system as aircraft (paragraphs 0087-0089), but not as a drone specifically. However, whether the aircraft per se is manned or unmanned is only an intended use limitation with respect to the claimed operations. Further, the networking functions of LoPresti do not depend on manned versus unmanned aircraft, and the Office takes official notice that drones were a conventional form of aircraft. 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 drones for the aircraft of LoPresti, since they have the benefit of remote control and not needing onboard personnel.
Regarding claim 3, LoPresti discloses the system of claim 1, but does not specify that the light-based communications channel comprises a Li-Fi connection. However, Li-Fi is a protocol defined by IEEE and ITU-T, not Applicant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the FSO system design, parameters, tolerances, etc. to encapsulate Li-Fi standards, to provide the benefit of interoperability and standardization.
Regarding claim 4, LoPresti discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose that the radiofrequency-based communications channel comprises a Wi-Fi connection. However, Wi-Fi is a standardized protocol defined by IEEE, not Applicant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RF system design, parameters, tolerances, etc. to encapsulate Wi-Fi industry standards, to provide the benefit of interoperability and standardization.
Regarding claim 5, LoPresti discloses the system of claim 1, wherein physically positioning the system substantially above the device comprises establishing a line of sight between a first light-based communications component of the device and a second light-based communications component of the system (fig. 2, 14 relative to 12a and 12b).
Regarding claim 6, LoPresti discloses the system of claim 1, wherein attempting to establish the light-based communications channel with the device comprises: moving the system, by the system, while attempting to establish the light-based communications channel (fig. 2 and paragraphs 0087-0089).
Regarding claim 7, LoPresti discloses the system of claim 1, wherein receiving the data from the device via the light-based communications channel, or receiving the data from the device via the radiofrequency-based communications channel, is performed based on sending a request to the device for data transfer (fig. 14 and paragraph 0086).
Regarding claim 8, LoPresti discloses a method, comprising: physically positioning an aircraft, by the aircraft comprising at least one processor (figs. 1 and 2 element 14 and fig. 3 element 28 and paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0087-0089 where the system operations are inherently implemented by processor 28 and/or an inherent hierarchical adjoined processor), substantially above a device (fig. 1, each of 14n above elements 12n and paragraphs 0040-0043), wherein the device is configured to emit light-based communications substantially vertically (fig. 1 elements 12n and Full-Duplex FSO Links to elements 14n), where establishing a light-based communications channel with the device is successful, receiving, by the drone, data from the device via the light-based communications channel (fig. 2 the data sent from 12a to mobile 14 and paragraphs 0087-0089, where the result in transmitted and receive FSO signaling between 12a and 14); where establishing the light-based communications channel with the device is unsuccessful, receiving, by the drone, the data from the device via a radiofrequency-based communications channel (paragraph 0074); after receiving the data, physically moving the aircraft, by the aircraft, to a location where the aircraft is configured to establish a network connection, and conveying, by the aircraft, the data to a storage device via the network connection (fig. 2 element 14 switching communication between 12a to 12b and paragraphs 0087-0089, the access node communicating with the server 122, which reads on storage device).
LoPresti discloses the system as aircraft (paragraphs 0087-0089), but not as a drone specifically. However, whether the aircraft per se is manned or unmanned is only an intended use limitation with respect to the claimed operations. Further, the networking functions of LoPresti do not depend on manned versus unmanned aircraft, and the Office takes official notice that drones were a conventional form of aircraft. 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 drones for the aircraft of LoPresti, since they have the benefit of remote control and not needing onboard personnel.
Also, in fig. 1, LoPresti discloses each of 12n having internet connectivity, and thus does not disclose omitting internet connectivity for a device 12n that is transmitting up to a system 14n such that the transmitting up of data that is later communicated to server 122 is thus a backup of the data. However, LoPresti discloses devices 12n in the context of buildings (fig. 1). Further, the FSO link between each of 12n and 14n is separate from the physical TCP/IP connection. Thus, the claimed difference only amounts to an intended use, requiring only disconnecting from, or not providing a TCP/IP connection for, a device 12n that is in FSO communication with a system 14n. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that, for example, having no internet connectivity at a building could be part of a security protocol for data stored in that building, the building could be remote such that a physical internet connection is impractical, or internet connectively could be lost at a building, all being examples that do not affect the FSO link. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of devices to have internet connectivity omitted and the device to still transmit data to a system 14n over the FSO link to be stored as backup at the server 122, to provide the benefit of maintaining a communication link between systems 14n and devices 12n without requiring an internet connection at the origination device.
Regarding claim 9, LoPresti discloses the method of claim 8, but does not specifying that a cloud computing platform comprises the storage device. However, LoPresti indicates global connectivity with the server symbol (fig. 2 element 122, globe). The Office takes official notice that cloud computing was a conventional feature of internet computing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the server to perform or access cloud computing, since cloud computing has the benefit of distributed and redundant storage and compute.
Regarding claim 15, LoPresti discloses a processor to perform operations (figs. 1 and 2 element 14 and fig. 3 element 28 and paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0087-0089 where the system operations are inherently implemented by processor 28 and/or an inherent hierarchical adjoined processor), comprising: in response to establishing a light-based communications channel with a device being determined to be successful, receiving data from the device via the light-based communications channel (fig. 2 the data sent from 12a to mobile 14 and paragraphs 0087-0089, where the result in transmitted and receive FSO signaling between 12a and 14); in response to establishing the light-based communications channel with the device being determined to be unsuccessful, receiving the data from the device via a radiofrequency-based communications channel (paragraph 0074); after receiving the data, physically moving the system to a location where the system has been determined to be able to establish a network connection, and conveying the data to computer storage via the network connection (fig. 2 element 14 switching communication between 12a to 12b and paragraphs 0087-0089, the access node communicating with the server 122, which reads on computer storage).
LoPresti does not disclose that the processor is realized with non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, perform the operations. However, this limitation is only the generic architecture of a computer. Implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to realize the processor of LoPresti as with a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, perform the operations, since this only amounts to implementing the processor as generic computer architecture with nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Also, in fig. 1, LoPresti discloses each of 12n having internet connectivity, and thus does not disclose a device 12n transmitting up to a system 14n such that the transmitting up of data that is later communicated to server 122 is thus a backup of the data. However, LoPresti discloses devices 12n in the context of buildings (fig. 1). Further, the FSO link between each of 12n and 14n is separate from the physical TCP/IP connection. Thus, the claimed back up function only amounts to an intended use, requiring only, for example, disconnecting from, or not providing a direct TCP/IP connection to the server for, a device 12n that is in FSO communication with a system 14n. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that, for example, having no internet connectivity at a building could be part of a security protocol for data stored in that building, the building could be remote such that a physical internet connection is impractical, or internet connectively could be lost at a building, all being examples that do not affect the FSO link. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of devices to have internet connectivity omitted and the device to still transmit data to a system 14n over the FSO link to be stored as backup at the server 122, to provide the benefit of maintaining a communication link between systems 14n and devices 12n without requiring an internet connection at the origination device.
Regarding claim 16, LoPresti discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: physically positioning the system substantially above the device before attempting to establish the light-based communications channel with the device (fig. 1, each of 14n above elements 12n and paragraphs 0040-0043).
Regarding claim 17, LoPresti discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein iterations of the receiving of the data, the physically moving of the system, and the backing up of the data are performed according to a schedule (paragraphs 0087-0089 and fig. 14 element 604 and paragraph 0086, where the communication timing, handoff timing are synchronized, and time slots are used, which reads on a scheduled).
Regarding claim 18, LoPresti discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the schedule is determined based on user input data (paragraph 0086, end user sending a request to connect).
Regarding claim 19, LoPresti discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: while receiving the data from the device via the light-based communications channel, determining that the light-based communications channel has become unavailable, and continuing to receive the data from the device via the radiofrequency-based communications channel (paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 20, LoPresti discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, but as cited above, does not disclose that the operations further comprise: moving the device in a substantially circular motion while attempting to establish the light-based communications channel with the device. However, LoPresti also discloses an automobile as an end user origination node option (fig. 1 element 126 and paragraph 0087, an automobile inherent capable of circular motion). Further, the circular shape of the motion as disclosed and claimed is arbitrary, with no bearing on the communication functions of the system. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have used a circling automobile as the origination device, and the results would have been predictable. Namely, the communication network would function as disclosed while the automobile is circling. 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 circling automobile as the origination device, for the predictable result of the communication network functioning as disclosed for a moving end user origination node.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Related FSO systems – US Patent Application Publication Nos. 2025/0253948, 2025/0112697, 2024/0340083, 2020/0389232, 2020/0119805.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights